No Orchids for Miss Blandish.

For Insiders, my recaps of the drafts for all 15 NL teams and all 15 AL teams are up, as well as my round one reactions and a post-draft Klawchat.

David Hadley Chase was a prolific British author of American crime fiction, writing numerous novels (under this pseudonym) that were, for the time, controversial for their graphic violence and implied sexual content. His first novel, the grim No Orchids for Miss Blandish, remains his best-known work, and it’s just $1.29 for the Kindle through that link (or just £4.99 in the UK). It’s gripping despite an almost nihilistic view of its characters, the rare story where the venal criminals are more compelling characters than the hard-boiled detective attempting to find them. George Orwell was a fan of the writing, but Raymond Chandler was not, calling it “half-cent pulp writing at its worst” in a letter to Cleve Adams. (Chandler later won a lawsuit against Chase, accusing the latter of plagiarizing a section of a later book.)

Miss Blandish is the heiress at the center of a theft and ransom kidnapping plot that involves two different groups of crooks, the latter, the notorious Grissom Gang (reminiscent in many ways of the Australian Pettingill family), run by a sociopathic matriarch and her mentally challenged, ultra-violent son Slim. Their plan is to steal her new diamond necklace, collect a ransom for her from her wealthy father, and then dispose of her rather than risk her identifying them … but then Slim takes a fancy to her, complicating their plans even after they get their money and try to use it to run a slightly more legitimate business.

Miss Blandish’s father hires reporter-turned-private detective Dave Fenner to try to track his daughter down several months after he’s paid the ransom without any word on her whereabouts or even whether she’s alive, and Fenner – about as cliched a detective character as you’ll ever find – uses his knowledge of the town’s underworld to find the one lead police didn’t uncover. Chase spends most of his energy and the bulk of the verbiage on the interactions between Slim Grissom, his mother, and the other dissolute members of their gang, including how they respond once it becomes clear that their faĉade of respectability in their new venture has been cracked.

The violence in the book is par for the course for the era, although No Orchids was apparently one of the first to raise the violence to this level; I don’t enjoy violence for its own sake, but to paint the picture of the Grissom gang as unrepentant and likely sociopathic killers, the violence serves a literary purpose. Less necessary and much harder to stomach is the largely off-screen rape of Miss Blandish by Slim, repeated over a period of months. When Fenner finally finds her near the end of the book, however, all of the dialogue seems to indicate that there is no recovery from this sort of trauma, both from the extent of the crimes committed and from the shame of being a victim of kidnap and a presumed rape. It’s true to its era, but fortunately we live in an era that is both more enlightened and better equipped to help trauma victims recover from their ordeals, which gave the novel’s resolution a very antiquated and somewhat misogynistic flavor. A female author would never have written this ending – or at least I’d like to think one wouldn’t. (For the record, I don’t agree with either of Orwell’s interpretations of the ending; I think he’s ignored or dismissed a third possibility, that the motive was shame.) However, for fans of noir fiction, No Orchids offers a swift, exceptionally dark take on the genre, one where the payoff is less important than the way there.

Comments

  1. Agreed with Daniel – Orwell says the writing is very skillful, but he’s about as far from being a fan as one can be.

  2. Daniel Weissman

    Hi Keith, sorry to bother you about about something so trivial, but do you think you could include a little note somewhere saying that you changed the text and showing what it was when we posted our comments? If not, could you delete my comment? As it stands now, it looks like I deliberately cut off the end of the quoted clause to make it look worse. I wouldn’t complain, but I signed my real full name.

    Now that I’m already writing, I’m not sure whether Orwell was really a fan of the writing. For instance, he seems to have hated the Americanized style. I think that one positive line in there was just meant to say that he wasn’t picking on some poor sap who just couldn’t write any better. But I’m definitely not sure about this.

    • Deleted. To be honest, I thought the initial comment was trivial. I wrote 500-odd words on the book, and the comment on Orwell was a throwaway line.

    • Thanks. Yes, pretty minor point.

      Just to get trivial^2 here for a sec, I liked what you did with the similar comment I left on your post on “Everything and More” (http://meadowparty.com/blog/2014/11/26/everything-and-more-a-compact-history-of-infinity/) — changing the main text and leaving a note in the comments, so that both the main text and the comments made sense without needing to scroll up and down. I love the style used by, e.g., Gawker, where the main text is marked up — makes me feel better about my own typos and such — but I know many people prefer to keep it clean.