The Spy Who Spoke Porpoise


Title:                      The Spy Who Spoke Porpoise

Author:                 Philip Wylie

Wylie, Philip (1969).The Spy Who Spoke Porpoise. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday

LCCN:    74079970

PZ3.W9768 Sp

Date Posted:      January 24, 2017

KIRKUS REVIEW[1]

As inflated as waterwings, this improbably complicated business about Project Neptune, a dead body which is washed up in Hawaii, porpoises trained to signal human intervention on an aquagraph, and one retired Mr. Grove. He’s a former OSS man, acrobat, magician, manufacturer of games now playing a combination of Chinese Checkers and Russian Roulette as he undertakes a mission for the Chief Executive. Along with a corpulent Russian opponent of an earlier era and the C.I.A., there’s a pretty (almost too) young girl who may be with him in his next adventure. Mr. Grove is quite genial but you will find it hard to keep up with him—perhaps even porpoiseless.

[1] Kirkus, downloaded January 24, 2017

Advertisements

The Eiger Sanction


Title:                      The Eiger Sanction

Author:                 Trevanian

Trevanian (1972) [pseud. Rodney William Whitaker]. The Eiger Sanction. New York: Crown Publishers

LCCN:    72084293

PZ4.T8135 Ei

Subjects

Date Posted:      January 24, 2017

Review by Barron Laycock[1]

In the mid 1970s three back to back best sellers were provided by the reclusive and somewhat mysterious author who wrote under the pen name of Trevanian. The three novels were first, The Eiger Sanction, followed quickly by a sequel, The Loo Sanction[2], and finally, by a complete change of pace with Shibumi[3]. Of the three, The Eiger Sanction was easily the best novel. It is, in fact, a taut and thrilling tale of a once famous mountaineer and retired government assassin turned college art history professor who is forced back into the “sanction” business both by personal greed and crude manipulation by the spymaster of the clandestine government agency that requires his services.

An American courier has been killed in Copenhagen, and he happened to an old friend of Professor Jonathan Hemlock, who is seduced back into harm’s way by “Control”, an albino ex-Nazi who now heads one of our most clandestine federal agencies. Before long Hemlock is on his way to sanction one of the two assailants, and the chase is on. By dint of coincidence, Control discovers that the other assailant is included in an international mountaineering party, which will assault Switzerland’s Eiger the coming summer. Naturally, Hemlock is manipulated into preparing for the climb as a replacement climber.

Once we finally make it to the mountain, the action is literally non-stop, quite accurate technically, and absolutely riveting to read about. The author holds our rapt attention with a plot that unfolds in a quite plausible and inevitably tragic fashion with no one necessarily spared as the frenzy reaches its natural conclusion. This is a terrific spy thriller. This is great entertainment, and something I can heartily recommend as a great summer read. Enjoy!

[1] Barron Laycock, “Terrific Thriller by Trevanian!” at Amazon.com, downloaded January 23, 2017

[2] Trevanian (1973) [pseud. Rodney William Whitaker]. The Loo Sanction. New York: Crown Publishers

[3] Trevanian (1979, 2005). Shibumi: A Novel. New York: Three Rivers Press

The Loo Sanction


Title:                      The Loo Sanction

Author:                 Trevanian

Trevanian (1973) [pseud. Rodney William Whitaker]. The Loo Sanction. New York: Crown Publishers

LCCN:    73082951

PZ4.T8135 Lo

Subjects

Date Posted:      January 24, 2017

KIRKUS REVIEW[1]

Trevanian, you’ll remember, can keep up with the old Len Deighton and this is the second appearance of Jonathan Hemlock, ex C11-art critic who finds a still life in the loo, his. This also has something to do with inter-organizational activities and with a Loo organization, run by a Vicar, and sanctions which are assassinations (bodies used as covers or the means of leaking the wrong information) and a girl called Maggie Coyne. You’ll miss her—he does. In a word, irreducible, with the decisively punchy, stylish clout as before.

 

[1] Kirkus, downloaded January 24, 2017

The Manchurian Candidate


Title:                      The Manchurian Candidate

Author:                  Richard Condon

Condon, Richard (1959). The Manchurian Candidate. New York: McGraw-Hill

LCCN:    59008533

PZ4.C746 Man

Subjects

Date Posted:      January 20, 2017

Review by Louis Menand[1]

Most people know John Frankenheimer’s movie “The Manchurian Candidate,” which stars Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Janet Leigh, and Angela Lansbury in the story of an American soldier who is captured in Korea and programmed by Chinese Communists to kill on command. And most people probably think of the movie as a classic of Cold War culture, like “On the Beach” and “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”—a popular work articulating the anxieties of an era. In fact, “The Manchurian Candidate” was a flop. It was released in the fall of 1962, failed to recover its costs, and was pulled from distribution two years later, after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It turned up a few times on television, but it was not shown in a movie theatre again until 1987, which—nearly the end of the Cold War—is the year its popularity dates from. The true artifact of Cold War culture is the novel, by Richard Condon, that the movie was based on.

Condon’s book came out in 1959 and was a best-seller. It was praised in the Times (“a wild, vigorous, curiously readable melange”) and The New Yorker (“a wild and exhilarating satire”); Time named it one of the Ten Best Bad Novels—which, from a publisher’s point of view, is far from the worst thing that might be said about a book. The novel’s success made Condon rich; he spent most of the rest of his life abroad, producing many more works in the genre that Time had identified, including Winter Kills, in 1974, and, in 1982, Prizzi’s Honor. His adaptation of that novel for the John Huston movie received an Academy Award nomination in 1986. He died in 1996.

Condon was a cynic of the upbeat type, not unlike Tom Wolfe: his belief that everything is basically shit did not get in the way of his pleasure in making fun of it. He learned that attitude in the finest school for it on earth, Hollywood. Before he was a novelist, Condon was a movie publicist. He began, in 1936, at Walt Disney Productions, where he promoted “Fantasia” and “Dumbo,” among other animated masterpieces, and moved on to a succession of studios, finishing up at United Artists, which he left in 1957. He didn’t know what he wanted to do next; he just wanted out. “The only thing I knew how to do was spell,” he later explained, so he did the logical thing and became a writer. Condon claimed that his work in Hollywood had given him three ulcers. He also claimed that he had seen, during his years there, ten thousand movies, an experience that he believed gave him (his words) “an unconscious grounding in storytelling.”

Frankenheimer called The Manchurian Candidate “one of the best books I ever read,” but admirers of Frankenheimer’s movie have not been so gracious. Greil Marcus, in a characteristically overheated appreciation of the movie in the British Film Institute’s Film Classics series, calls the novel a “cheaply paranoid fantasy,” and he goes on, “That the story would lodge in the nation’s psyche and stay there was the work of other hands.” The film historian David Thomson describes it as “a book written so that an idiot could film it.” No doubt Condon wrote The Manchurian Candidate with a movie deal in mind. It was his second novel; his first, called The Oldest Confession, was also made into a movie—“The Happy Thieves,” starring Rex Harrison (a flop that stayed a flop). But the claim that Condon’s Manchurian Candidate is not much more than a draft for the screenplay (which was written by George Axelrod, the author of “The Seven Year Itch”) is peculiar. Michael Crichton writes books that any idiot can film; he practically supplies camera angles. But Condon’s is not an easy book to film, in part because its tone is not readily imitated cinematically, and in part because much of it is, or was in 1962, virtually unfilmable. Strange as the movie is—a thriller teetering on the edge of camp—the book is stranger.

Time, a magazine whose editors, after all, have daily experience with overcooked prose, was not wrong in seeing something splendid in the badness of Condon’s book. The Manchurian Candidate may be pulp, but it is very tony pulp. It is a man in a tartan tuxedo, chicken à la king with shaved truffles, a signed LeRoy Neiman. It’s Mickey Spillane with an M.F.A., and a kind of summa of the styles of paperback fiction circa 1959. The writing is sometimes hardboiled:

The slightest touchy thing he said to her could knock the old cat over sideways with an off-key moan. But what could he do? He had elected himself Head Chump when he stepped down from Valhalla and telephoned this sweaty little advantage-taker.

Sometimes it adopts a police-blotter, “degree-zero” mode:

“Thank you, Major. Dismiss,” the general said. Marco left the office at four twenty-one in the afternoon. General Jorgenson shot himself to death at four fifty-five.

Occasionally, and usually in an inconvenient place, it drops a mot recherché:

Raymond’s mother came out of her chair, spitting langrel. [“Langrel”: irregular pieces of iron loaded into shell casings for the purpose of ripping the enemy’s sails in naval battles; obsolete.]

He clutched the telephone like an osculatorium and did not allow himself to think about what lay beyond that instant. [“Osculatorium”: medieval Latin, for a tablet that is kissed during the Mass. There appears to be no connotation involving clutching.]

It signals feeling by waxing poetic:

Such an instant ago he had paddled their wide canoe across that lake of purple wine toward a pin of light high in the sky which would widen and widen and widen while she slept until it had blanched the blackness.

It signals wisdom by waxing incomprehensible:

There is an immutable phrase at large in the languages of the world that places fabulous ransom on every word in it: The love of a good woman. It means what it says and no matter what the perspective or stains of the person who speaks it, the phrase defies devaluing. The bitter and the kind can chase each other around it, this mulberry bush of truth and consequence, and the kind may convert the bitter and the bitter may emasculate the kind but neither can change its meaning because the love of a good woman does not give way to arbitrage.

And, when appropriate, it salivates:

Her lithe, solid figure seemed even more superb because of her flawless carriage. She wore a Chinese dressing gown of a shade so light that it complemented the contrasting color of her eyes. Her long and extremely beautiful legs were stretched out before her on the chaise longue, and any man but her son or her husband, seeing what she had and yet knowing that this magnificent forty-nine-year-old body was only a wasted uniform covering blunted neural energy, might have wept over such a waste.

Some people like their bananas ripe to the point of blackness. The Manchurian Candidate is a very ripe banana, and, for those who have the taste for it, delectable.

The magnificent forty-nine-year-old body in the last passage belongs to the mother of Raymond, the assassin, who in Frankenheimer’s movie is played by Angela Lansbury as a proper and steely middle-aged matron. For Condon, though, Raymond’s mother is no matron. She is a sexually predatory heroin addict who commits double incest. She is the serpent in the suburban garden of Cold War domesticity, and, in imagining her and her history, Condon almost certainly had in the back of his mind the book that, three years earlier, had become the first blockbuster in American publishing, Grace Metalious’s Peyton Place—a story that also had to be sanitized for the movies. The plot of Peyton Place turns on incest (as, for that matter, does the plot of Lolita, a sensation when the American edition came out, in 1958). But the luridness of Condon’s novel did not make it to the screen. There is no equivalent in the movie, for example, of the proto-Pynchonesque sequence in which Raymond’s stepfather, Johnny Iselin, attempts to have sex with an Eskimo. Frankenheimer’s idea of satire was a lot more conventional than Condon’s. He was also a Hollywood filmmaker, of course, and obliged to observe a different decorum.

Counterintuitive as it sounds, the secret to making a successful thriller, as Michael Crichton and Tom Clancy have demonstrated, is to slow down the action occasionally with disquisitions on Stuff It Is Interesting to Know—how airplanes are made, how nuclear submarines work, how to build an atomic bomb. Ideally, this information is also topical, food for the national appetite of the day. In The Manchurian Candidate, the topic is brainwashing.

Fear of Communist brainwashing seems an example of Cold War hysteria, but in the nineteen-fifties the fear was not without basis. United Nations ground forces began military action in Korea on July 5, 1950. On July 9th, an American soldier who had been captured just two days earlier delivered a radio speech consisting of North Korean propaganda. Similar broadcasts by captured soldiers continued throughout the war. At the end of the war, the Army estimated that one out of every seven American prisoners of war had collaborated with the enemy. (The final, generally accepted estimate is one out of ten.) Twenty-one Americans refused to return to the United States; forty announced that they had become Communists; and fourteen were court-martialled, and eleven of those were convicted.

The term “brainwashing” was coined by a journalist named Edward Hunter, who had served in the Morale Operations section of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services during the Second World War, which he spent mostly in Asia, and who became an outspoken anti-Communist. Hunter’s book Brainwashing in Red China: The Calculated Destruction of Men’s Minds appeared in 1951. In it, he explained that “brainwashing” was his translation of the Chinese term hsi-nao, which means “cleansing of the mind,” and which he said he had heard frequently when speaking with Europeans who had been caught inside China in 1949, the year of Mao’s revolution.

In 1955, two years after the armistice ending the Korean War, the Army issued a huge report on the treatment of American prisoners called POW: The Fight Continues After the Battle. The Army had interviewed all surviving prisoners of war on the ships that brought them back across the Pacific—more than four thousand soldiers—and had learned that many of them underwent intensive indoctrination by Chinese Communists. The Chinese had carefully segregated the prisoners they had identified as incorrigibles, sometimes housing them in separate camps, and had subjected the prisoners they judged to be potential converts to five hours of indoctrination a day, in classes that combined propaganda by the instructors with “confessions” by the prisoners. In some cases, physical torture accompanied the indoctrination, but in general the Chinese used the traditional methods of psychological coercion: repetition and humiliation. The Army discovered that a shocking number of prisoners had, to one degree or another, succumbed. Some were persuaded to accuse the United States, in signed statements, of engaging in germ warfare—a charge that was untrue but was widely believed in many countries.

The Army report instigated a popular obsession with brainwashing that lasted well into 1957. Stories about the experiences of American prisoners appeared in The Saturday Evening Post, Life, the Times Magazine, and The New Yorker. The term itself became a synonym for any sort of effective persuasion, and writers struggled with the question of whether aspects of contemporary American life, such as advertising and psychiatric therapy, might really be forms of brainwashing. Condon must have read much of this material; he did know Andrew Salter’s Conditioned Reflex Therapy (1949), a book he has the Chinese psychiatrist in his novel, Yen Lo, cite in the speech in which he announces his successful brainwashing of the American prisoners. Yen Lo names a number of other studies of hypnosis and conditioning, including “The Seduction of the Innocent,” by Frederic Wertham, an alarmist account of the way comic books corrupt the minds of American youth. (Yen Lo evidently has, in addition to his other exceptional powers, a crystal ball, since “Seduction of the Innocent” was not published until 1954, after the Korean War was over.) These books and articles apparently persuaded Condon that brainwashing, or psychological conditioning using a combination of hypnosis and Pavlovian methods, was a real possibility—as the recent experience of the Korean P.O.W.s had persuaded many other Americans that it was.

Condon’s book played on the fear that brainwashing could be permanent, that minds could be altered forever. By the time Frankenheimer’s movie came out, though, it had become clear that most conditioning is temporary. In 1961, in Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of ‘Brainwashing’ in China,” the psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who had conducted some of the shipboard interviews with returning P.O.W.s, concluded that the indoctrination of prisoners was a long-term failure. All of the “converts” eventually returned to the United States, and the former prisoners who had come home praising the good life to be had in North Korea soon reverted to American views.

Still, conditioning is the theme (if “theme” is not too grand a term) of Condon’s novel. Even before Raymond falls into the hands of Yen Lo, he is psychologically conditioned, by his mother’s behavior, to despise everyone. His mother is conditioned, by her early incest, to betray everyone. And the American people are conditioned, by political propaganda, to believe her McCarthy-like husband’s baseless charges about Communists in the government. It is not, in Condon’s vision, the Communist world on one side and the free world on the other. It is just the manipulators and the manipulated, the conditioners and the conditioned, the publicists and the public. In such a world, it’s probably better to be the publicist, if you can deal with the ulcers.

Frank Sinatra, who plays Marco, the only friend Raymond has, is supposed to have asked his friend Jack Kennedy for his approval before Frankenheimer’s movie was released. United Artists was apparently afraid that the assassination scene might give some nut an idea. Kennedy, as it happened, loved the movie; he was, after all, the world’s most famous Ian Fleming fan. He was killed a year after The Manchurian Candidate came out. Did Lee Harvey Oswald see it? The problem has been examined in depth by John Loken, in a book called Oswald’s Trigger Films (2000). Loken concludes that although the evidence is not definitive, Oswald almost certainly did see it. “The Manchurian Candidate” opened in Dallas in November, 1962, and played there for several months; Oswald, who was living in Dallas at the time, had a habit of going to the movies by himself (he was in a movie theatre when he was arrested on November 22, 1963); and Loken has determined that the bus Oswald probably took to work passed within ten yards of a theatre where the movie was playing. (Loken is much struck by the fact that references to “The Manchurian Candidate” are almost nonexistent in the literature, official and otherwise, on the Kennedy assassination. He concludes, in the spirit of all scholars of that assassination, that “the probable Oswald connection, so utterly obvious if one but thinks about it, has been suppressed for decades by a powerful conglomerate that might aptly be called the ‘media-entertainment complex.’ “)

Immediately after Kennedy was shot, Condon got a call from a newspaper reporter asking if he felt responsible. Condon couldn’t see the relevance, and he was not being defensive. He had not introduced political assassination to popular American culture. Robert Penn Warren’s All the King’s Men was published in 1946 and was made into a movie in 1949; a version for television, directed by Sidney Lumet, was broadcast in 1958. Assassination is the subject of John Huston’s “We Were Strangers” (1949) and Lewis Allen’s “Suddenly” (1954), also starring Frank Sinatra. Oswald might easily have seen those movies as well. More to the point: The Manchurian Candidate is the story of a man programmed to kill at the command of other people. What self-respecting assassin would take such a character for his role model? Either Oswald acted according to his own wishes, in which case he wasn’t imitating Condon’s killer, or he really was programmed by the Communists, in which case the question isn’t whether Oswald saw Frankenheimer’s movie but whether his Communist masters did.

United Artists withdrew “The Manchurian Candidate” from theatres in 1964, although the movie could occasionally be seen on television and in art houses. In 1972, Sinatra bought the rights and, in 1975, removed it from circulation entirely. Whether or not he was motivated by guilt over Kennedy’s death is unclear. He did, however, give his daughter Tina permission to produce a remake, and it is being shot, this fall [2003], by Jonathan Demme. (Demme’s previous movie, “The Truth About Charlie,” was also a remake, of Stanley Donen’s “Charade,” of 1963. His method, judging from that effort, is to update the story and then salt it with allusions to the period of the original. “Charade” was filmed in Paris at the time of the French New Wave, and so in Demme’s version there are appearances by Charles Aznavour, Agnès Varda, and the grave of François Truffaut—none of which have anything to do with the story. Demme has reportedly set “The Manchurian Candidate” in the time of the Gulf War; Liev Schreiber plays Raymond, Meryl Streep is his dragon mother, and Marco is played by Denzel Washington. We can be fairly confident that at some point Denzel Washington will be seen listening to a Frank Sinatra song.)

The Kennedy assassination does not fulfill Condon and Frankenheimer’s prophecy. On the contrary, it buries it. If any assassin might plausibly have been a Communist puppet, it was Oswald, a man who had lived in the Soviet Union for three years, who had a Russian wife, and who once handed out leaflets for an outfit called the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. These facts were widely known within hours of Oswald’s arrest, and yet the theory that he was an agent who was directed, wittingly or not, by Communist handlers has never been an important part of the folklore of the Kennedy assassination. Until the late nineteen-seventies, the official line (endorsed, incidentally, by Condon at the time) was that Oswald acted alone. Dissenters from that view have been drawn mainly to theories involving the Mafia and the Central Intelligence Agency, even though hooking Oswald up with those entities requires a far greater imaginative stretch than associating him with the Soviets. Almost no one thinks of Kennedy (except in some convoluted way) as a casualty of the Cold War, and his death does not represent the culmination of the national anxiety about Communist infiltration. It represents the end of that obsession, and of the panic that Condon’s novel and Frankenheimer’s movie both so happily exploit.

[1] Louis Menand, “A Critic At Large, ‘Brainwashed: Where the Manchurian Candidate’ Came From,” The New Yorker (September 15, 2003) Louis Menand has contributed to The New Yorker since 1991, and has been a staff writer since 2001.. Downloaded January 20, 2017

The Paper Thunderbolt


Title:                      The Paper Thunderbolt

Author:                  Michael Innes

Innes, Michael (1951) [pseud. for John Innes MacKintosh Stewart]. The Paper Thunderbolt. New York: Dodd, Mead

LCCN:    51013659

PZ3.S85166 Pap

Subjects

Date Posted:      January 20, 2017

Review by ealovitt[1]

Sir John Appleby, Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police [London] shows up only every now and then in The Paper Thunderbolt to tidy up the plot or rescue his sister, Jane from various predicaments. The main narrator is Albert Routh, a seedy little conman who cheats housewives out of shillings and pence. When he takes a turn on his two-stroke motorcycle toward the sleepy village of Milton Porcorum, he never dreams that by nightfall he will be the most hunted man in England.

Jane and her fiancé, Geoffrey are both students at Oxford when Geoffrey goes missing. A professor of Art History also discovers that his fiancée and her child have vanished, and a posh asylum for alcoholics near Milton Porcorum seems to be involved with the misplaced fiancés. Conman Albert Routh is temporarily incarcerated at the asylum, which is also a center for biological research, and he escapes with a piece of paper that is the only copy of a mysterious formula.

Now the hunt begins.

This book has some of the best chase sequences in all of Innes, including the surreal climax in the vast subterranean stacks of the Bodleian Library by night. It also has some of his wickedest villains who want nothing less than to induce the lions of humanity to lie down with its lambs. They of course, will remain its only lions.

Note: the alternate title for this Appleby mystery is Operation Pax.

For more on Innes and his works see The Secret Vanguard[2]

[1] Ealovitt, “Appleby as ‘deux ex machina’, Amazon, downloaded January 20, 2017

[2] Innes, Michael (1941) [pseud. for John Innes MacKintosh Stewart]. The Secret Vanguard. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company

The Case of The Journeying Boy


Title:                      The Case of The Journeying Boy

Author:                 Michael Innes

Innes, Michael (1949) [pseud. for John Innes MacKintosh Stewart]. The Case of The Journeying Boy. New York: Dodd, Mead

LCCN:    49008751

PZ3.S85166 Cas

Date Posted:      January 19, 2017

Review posted in MYSTERIES in PARADISE[1]

Synopsis (Amazon)

Humphrey Paxton, the son of one of Britain’s leading atomic boffins, has taken to carrying a shotgun to “shoot plotters and blackmailers and spies”. His new tutor, the plodding Mr Thewless, suggests that Humphrey might be overdoing it somewhat. But when a man is found shot dead at a cinema, Mr Thewless is plunged into a nightmare world of lies, kidnapping and murder – and grave matters of national security.

My Take [Mysteries in Paradise blogger]

A rather intricate beginning in which two tutors are interviewed to accompany young Humphrey Paxton to Ireland. Mr Thewless is interviewed first and then informed in writing that he does not have the post. However the second successful interviewee notifies Sir Bernard that he is unable to accept the post after all. In the long run Mr Thewless meets his young charge for the first time on the railway station platform but his father fails to turn up to see him off, so during the train journey to catch the boat to Ireland Mr Thewless is beset by doubts about whether he has the right boy or not.

Meanwhile back in London the successful applicant is shot dead in a cinema and it rather looks as if Humphrey Paxton (whose actual identity is unknown to the police) may know something about the murder. Inspector Cadover attempts to identify the body, just knowing that he had recently got a position as tutor to the son of an atomic scientist and that he was meant to be escorting the boy to Ireland.

I don’t think I have ever changed my mind so frequently about the merits of a story. I started off being rather frustrated by the style, but ended up enjoying it.

At times the style is rather ponderous and long-winded, and the initial plot rather complicated. The writing is littered with quotations and rather academic in-jokes, which presumably meant something to someone at the time. But there is something rather akin to Boys Own about this book and after Mr Thewless and Humphrey have crossed the sea to Ireland, and face various perils on their way to Humphrey’s distant relatives, the action ramps up and it becomes a rollicking good story. Some people are not who they seem and both Humphrey and Mr Thewless turn out to have interesting characters. In the end, they seem to have got into a very tight pickle and I really wanted to know how they got out of it.

Not everybody’s cup of tea but an interesting insight into what appealed to readers in the uncertain times that followed the detonation of the atomic bombs at the end of World War Two.

About the author[2]

Born in Edinburgh in 1906, the son of the city’s Director of Education, John Innes Mackintosh Stewart wrote a highly successful series of mystery stories under the pseudonym Michael Innes. Innes was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, where he was presented with the Matthew Arnold Memorial Prize and named a Bishop Frazer’s scholar. After graduation he went to Vienna, to study Freudian psychoanalysis for a year and following his first book, an edition of Florio’s translation of Montaigne, was offered a lectureship at the University of Leeds. In 1932 he married Margaret Hardwick, a doctor, and they subsequently had five children including Angus, also a novelist. The year 1936 saw Innes as Professor of English at the University of Adelaide, during which tenure he wrote his first mystery story, Death at the President’s Lodging. With his second, Hamlet Revenge, Innes firmly established his reputation as a highly entertaining and cultivated writer. After the end of World War II, Innes returned to the UK and spent two years at Queen’s University, Belfast where in 1949 he wrote the Journeying Boy, a novel notable for the richly comedic use of an Irish setting. He then settled down as a Reader in English Literature at Christ Church, Oxford, from which he retired in 1973. His most famous character is John Appleby, who inspired a penchant for donnish detective fiction that lasts to this day. Innes’s other well-known character is Honeybath, the painter and rather reluctant detective, who first appeared in 1975 in The Mysterious Commission’. The last novel, Appleby and the Ospreys, was published in 1986, some eight years before his death in 1994.

[1]Review: THE JOURNEYING BOY, Michael Innes,” MYSTERIES in PARADISE, posted May 7, 2015, downloaded January 19, 2017

[2] This is from the blogger Mysteries in Paradise. For the New York Times obituary of Michael Innes (John Innes MacKintosh Stewart, see The Secret Vanguard.

The Secret Vanguard


Title:                      The Secret Vanguard

Author:                 Michael Innes

Innes, Michael (1941) [pseud. for John Innes MacKintosh Stewart]. The Secret Vanguard. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company

LCCN:    41001360

PZ3.S85166 Se2

Subjects

Date Posted:      January 19, 2017

KIRKUS REVIEW[1]

This comes closer to the pattern and standard set by the late John Buchan in his Richard Hannay stories than any other writer today who deals with secret intelligence. A good, fast-paced yarn, sometimes a trifle blurred through multiplicity of characters, but tightly plotted and entertaining reading. Scottish background.

From the New York Times[2]

LONDON, Nov. 15— J. I. M. Stewart, an Oxford don who wrote 49 mysteries under the pseudonym Michael Innes, died on Saturday in Surrey in southern England. He was 88.

His agent, A. P. Watt, did not give a cause of death.

Mr. Stewart, a fellow of Christ Church College at Oxford University and a professor of English literature, became one of Britain’s leading mystery writers and maintained his dual career through most of his life, starting in 1936 with the publication of the first Michael Innes mystery, Death at the President’s Lodging.”

The novel, set—as were many of his succeeding mysteries—in Oxford, introduced Inspector John Appleby. Over the years, the inspector aged along with his creator, marrying, rising through the ranks to commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, receiving a knighthood and eventually retiring.

Mr. Stewart, whose full name was John Innes Mackintosh Stewart, was born in Edinburgh on Sept. 30, 1906. He received a degree in English literature and language at Oriel College at Oxford, and began writing his first Innes mystery on board ship to Australia, where he taught at Adelaide University from 1935 to 1945. He became an Oxford fellow in 1949.

In his books, he concerned himself more with style and humor than with realism, and his work was widely admired. His best-known mysteries include Appleby’s End (1945), The Journeying Boy (1949)[3] and Operation Pax (1951).

In addition to the Innes stories, Mr. Stewart wrote scholarly books on Shakespeare, Thomas Hardy, and Rudyard Kipling under his real name, and was the author of Eight Modern Writers (1963), the final volume of The Oxford History of English Literature. In 1954, he began to write novels under his own name, including a quintet called A Staircase in Surrey.

He and Margaret Hardwick were married in 1932. They had three sons and two daughters. Mrs. Stewart died in 1979.

[1] Kirkus, downloaded January 19, 2017

[2] The New York Times (November 16, 1994). “J. I. M. Stewart, 49; Wrote Mysteries As Michael Innes,” downloaded January 19, 2017

[3] Innes, Michael (1949) [pseud. for John Innes MacKintosh Stewart]. The Case of The Journeying Boy. New York: Dodd, Mead