Edmund Wilson On Hammett

I went back and read “The Maltese Falcon,” which I assumed to be a classic in the field, since it had been called by Alexander Woollcott “the best detective story America has yet produced” and, at the time of its publication, had immediately caused Mr. Hammett to become what Jimmy Durante, speaking of himself, has called “duh toast of dub intellectuals.” But it was hard for me to understand what they had thought—in 1930—they were toasting. Mr. Hammett did have the advantage of real experience as a Pinkerton detective, and he recharged the old formula of Sherlock Holmes with a certain cold underworld brutality which gave readers a new shudder in the days when it was fashionable to be interested in gangsters; but, beyond this, he lacked the ability to bring the story to imaginative life. As a writer—despite the praise of him one has heard—he is surely almost as far below Rex Stout as Rex Stout is below James M. Cain. “The Maltese Falcon” today seems not much above those newspaper picture strips in which you follow from day to day the ups and downs of a strong-jawed hero and a hardboiled but beautiful adventuress

Hammett's Novels dates written and published

Red Harvest - Draft  - April 1928,  Published  January 1929
Dain Curse - Draft  - June 1928,     Published  June 1929
Maltese Falcon  Draft - June 1929,  Published  January 1930
Glass Key - Draft  - August 1930,  Published  January 1931
Thin Man - Draft  - October 1933, Published February 1934

Hammett - Book Reviews

Red Harvest (1929) -   lots of violence, lots of wisecracks, lots of tough talk. Not much characterization or believability.  I had a hard caring about any of characters, no one seemed likable or real.  Rating - **

The Thin Man (1934) - A much better movie than a novel. Hammett invented Nick and Nora but William Powell and Myrna Loy made them Pop Culture Icons.  Anyone expecting a souffle of tuxedo's, champagne, wisecracks,  and a little murder mystery will be disappointed. The novel is much darker, duller, and slower paced. Seeing the movies first no doubt spoiled the novel to a certain extent but I'm still disappointed.Rating - **1/2

The Maltese Falcon (1930) - Without a doubt not only Hammett's best novel, but one of the best detective novels of all time.  Hammett takes his great style and adds 4 distinct memorable characters and a very interesting story. Rating - ****

A Reading Comprehension Quiz

A Response to someone raised by Atheists:
No offense, but I feel sorry for you.  To be denied the comforts of religion but to be subjected to parental preaching on the subject is the worst of all worlds. I'm fairly agnostic myself, faith is a gift, but Atheism is a dead end. My cat is an atheist    It is destructive to both society and the individual.  Leaving aside Heaven and Hell,  Christianity bestows large benefits to both society and individuals, Atheism offers nothing. If you can't believe, don't keep others from doing so.

Read the above paragraph.  What is implied?

1)  Dogs are Devout Christians
2)  Atheists are cats
3)  Religion is like a big comfy chair
4) No one expects the Spanish Inquisition

Halleck on Sherman Removing Civilians from Atlanta

September 25, 1864

General Sherman: Your communications of September 20th in regard to the removal of families from Atlanta, and the exchange of prisoners, and also the official report of your campaign, are just received. The course which you have pursued in removing rebel families from Atlanta, and in the exchange of prisoners, is fully approved by the War Department. Not only are you justified by the laws and usages of war in removing these people, but I think it was your duty to your own army to do so. Moreover, I am fully of opinion that the nature of your position, the character of the war, the conduct of the enemy (and especially of non-combatants and women of the territory which we have heretofore conquered and occupied), will justify you in gathering up all the forage and provisions which your army may require, both for a siege of Atlanta and for your supply in your march farther into the enemy's country.

Let the disloyal families of the country, thus stripped, go to their husbands, fathers, and natural protectors, in the rebel ranks; we have tried three years of conciliation and kindness without any reciprocation; on the contrary, those thus treated have acted as spies and guerrillas in our rear and within our lines. The safety of our armies, and a proper regard for the lives of our soldiers, require that we apply to our inexorable foes the severe rules of war. We certainly are not required to treat the so-called non-combatant rebels better than they themselves treat each other. Even herein Virginia, within fifty miles of Washington, they strip their own families of provisions, leaving them, as our army advances, to be fed by us, or to starve within our lines. We have fed this class of people long enough.

Let them go with their husbands and fathers in the rebel ranks; and if they won't go, we must send them to their friends and natural protectors. I would destroy every mill and factory within reach which I did not want for my own use. This the rebels have done, not only in Maryland and Pennsylvania, but also in Virginia and other rebel States, when compelled to fall back before our armies. In many sections of the country they have not left a mill to grind grain for their own suffering families, lest we might use them to supply our armies. We must do the same.>

I have endeavored to impress these views upon our commanders for the last two years. You are almost the only one who has properly applied them. I do not approve of General Hunter's course in burning private homes or uselessly destroying private property. That is barbarous. But I approve of taking or destroying whatever may serve as supplies to us or to the enemy's army. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, H. W. HALLECK, Major-General, Chief of Staff

Who voted against 1964 civil rights bill

Democrat Southern (21):
Alabama - Hill* - Sparkman*
Arkansas - Fulbright*  -McClellan*
Florida - Smathers* - Holland*
Georgia - Russell* - Tamladge*
LA - Ellender* - Long*
Miss - Stennis* - Eastland*
NC - Ervin* - Jordon
SC - Johnston* SC - Thurmond*
Tenn - Gore  - Walters
VA - Byrd* - Robertson*
W.V - Byrd

Republican Southern (1)
Texas - Tower (R)

Republican Northern (5)
Arz.-  Goldwater
Iowa -  Hickenlooper
NH - Cotton
NM - Meecham
Wym - Simpson

* = one of 18 Senators who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Bill

Strom Thurmond's America - Book review

This is a well written, interesting biography on a South Carolinian Senator who had a long distinguished career. A self-described "Health Nut" Thurmond lived to be over 100, and served 48 years in the US senate (1954-2003) and 4 years as SC Governor (1948-1953). Crespino writes from a fair but liberal perspective and gets it right mostly. The books has three major flaws (1) he spends far too much time on Thurmond's post 1972 career (1/4 of the book) which is well known to anyone over the age of 40. (2) the author didn't know Thurmond personally and there's no evidence he interviewed members of Thurmond's family or staff (3) too much of the book is based is based on newspaper clippings and secondary sources. For example, I wanted the author source for "J.Edgar Hoover was aiding Southerners in their fight against Civil rights" and "waging a covert war against MLK" and all I get is a reference to a book called "America in the King Years" and a clipping from the April 1964 New York Times.

I was also disappointed in the vague, superficial coverage of Thurmond's fight against the civil rights bills of 1957 and 1964. What was Thurmond's role in both these struggles? Why did he put so much effort into what he knew was a losing cause? What did he think of the bills in later years - did he regret opposing them? Crespino never provides many details. Further, he states that Thurmond's attacks and predictions regarding the 1964 proved incorrect, but the imposition of affirmative action and school busing seems to indicate just the opposite.

Finally, Crespino never adequately addresses the role of Southern White Democrats in the 1960s and 1970s. Of the 21 Southern Democrat Senators who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights bill only Thurmond became a Republican. Why? What made Thurmond different from George Wallace (who died a Democrat), former KKK member Byrd who became Democrat Senate Majority Leader, or even his fellow SC Senator Fritz Hollings (responsible for Flying the Confederate Flay over that SC State Capital)? Why was Thurmond able to win election as a Republican senator when SC voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976, and gave Nixon only 38% of the vote in 1968? He never provides the context; preferring to focus narrowly on Republican party. The movement of old-line Democrats like Thurmond to the Republican party during the 1960-1980 time period is never given a broader focus.