NB: A version of this post also appears on Existential Ennui.
Let’s return to the novels Donald E. Westlake wrote under the nom de plume Tucker Coe in the 1960s and ’70s, all of which star disgraced former cop Mitchell Tobin. I reviewed the first of those, 1966’s Kinds of Love, Kinds of Death, a couple of weeks ago, adding its 1967 British Souvenir Press dust jacket—designed by S. R. Boldero—to Existential Ennui’s Beautiful British Book Jacket Design of the 1950s and 1960s gallery, and I’ll be doing the same with this latest Westlake Score: the scarce 1968 Souvenir Press first edition of the second Coe/Tobin book, Murder Among Children, which again features a striking Boldero cover, this time one that, to my knowledge, has never been seen online before.
Originally published in the States by Random House in 1967, Murder Among Children finds Mitch Tobin still at a loose end, still building his symbolic-but-also-quite-concrete wall around his back yard, still unwilling to rejoin the world a year on from inadvertently causing the death of his partner and consequently getting thrown off the force. Once again it’s Mitch’s wife, Kate, who urges him into action, this time to assist a female cousin, Robin, whose West Village coffee house is being targeted by a corrupt policeman. But when Mitch arrives at the coffee house, he finds Robin covered in blood and clutching a knife, and a dead man and woman in a room upstairs. And so, even more reluctantly, and at the behest of another of the coffee shop’s owners, a young black man named Hulmer Fass (and at the behest of Kate), Mitch agrees to look into the crime, as the bodies begin piling up . . .
As with Kinds of Love, Kinds of Death, one of the chief draws of Murder Among Children is the selection of interesting characters Westlake populates the story with. Hulmer Fass especially I found an agreeable companion—smart, witty, and hip—as indeed does Mitch, for whom Hulmer becomes a kind of unofficial sidekick. And of course Mitch himself is as intriguing as before; although he does less soul-searching than in the first book, his powers of observation are as acute as ever, except coloured by his own situation and, let’s face it, depression. At one point he watches Hulmer walking away down the street . . .
. . . youthful, optimistic, humorous, bouncing on the balls of his feet, I found myself envying him in half a dozen different ways. I envied his youth, of course, and his optimism, and his humor, and I envied the absence of scars on his psyche that made the youth and optimism and humor possible. But beyond that I envied him for being young now, and black, and alive to the world in a way that I had not been for years, in a way that I perhaps had never been in my life.
That sense of the now (or rather the then-now) is evident throughout the book. Westlake paints a vivid picture of a New York sweltering under a summer heatwave: shirts drenched with sweat; the cooling relief of air conditioning. And there’s an escalating tension, too, as Mitch has a near-brush with death on a tenement stairwell, and then towards the close of the novel becomes a suspect for the murders himself. In the end, he’s offered an olive branch by a police captain, along with a glimmer of hope of a wiping clean of his slate, and even, perhaps, a return to his former life as a cop. But Mitch knows that’s a delusion, and as in Kinds of Love, Kinds of Death, all he wants to do at the finish is get back to building his wall.
The back cover of the Souvenir Press edition of Murder Among Children carries British reviews of Kinds of Love, Kinds of Death, the fourth one down of which caught my eye. It’s credited to the Oxford Mail, which means it’s almost certainly by spy novelist Anthony Price, who, as he explained in the interview I conducted with him last year, was reviewing crime fiction for the Mail around this period. It’s nice to find that an author for whom I have a great deal of respect enjoyed Westlake’s work—even if he probably didn’t know it was by Westlake—and makes me wonder if Price reviewed any others of Westlake’s novels. And oddly enough, after Murder Among Children, in the 1970s the remaining three Mitch Tobin novels would be published in the UK by Gollancz—the same publisher that was home to Price’s David Audley novels in the ’70s and ’80s.
S. R. Boldero’s dust jacket for Murder Among Children has now joined his other wrappers in the Existential Ennui Beautiful British Book Jacket Design of the 1950s and 1960s gallery—and I’ve another, lovelier Westlake wrapper waiting in the wings, this time from an earlier novel, penned under Westlake’s own name, and which to my mind is one of the best things he ever wrote. Look out for that—and an attendant review—next week.
Never saw that cover before. Far and away the best of the covers for this novel that I have seen. Tobin was not as fortunate as Parker in his cover art, by and large.
It’s a terrific book, continuing and expanding the theme of Tobin finding his way into a group of outsiders. In this case, young people of the emerging counterculture. I would not have agreed that people in their 20’s were children back when I was that age. I know better now.
Good point about Tobin finding his way into another group of outsiders, Chris: he did, of course, do the same with the mobsters in Kinds of Love, Kinds of Death. And thinking about it, that he had to become involved with outsiders or strangers in both cases is, I guess, a reflection of his mental state: to Mitch, at least at this point in the series, pretty much everyone is an “outsider”.
Or rather, Tobin is so much of an outsider now, having been expelled from the insider cop subculture he once belonged in that he has become uniquely able to put himself in the place of other outsiders. His former prejudices seem less and less significant, since in his present state of mind, nobody is worse than him. And this gives him a new perspective, and makes him a better detective, seeing everything from the outside, able to emphasize with anyone, even though he still wishes they would just leave him to his wall. He that exalts himself shall be lowered, but he that lowers himself shall be exalted. After a fashion.
Westlake expands on this idea over the next two books, but in the last one, it seems to be more about wrapping up loose ends, and the outsider theme is abandoned. Or is it? We can discuss that later, I guess.
Empathize, sorry. :)
Yeah, and in the only Coe I’ve read, A Jade in Aries, he explores the outsider world of Greenwich Village Homosexuals. It’s been a while since I’ve read Jade, but I remember DEW coming down on the “nurture” side of “Nature/Nurture” as to explaining Homosexuality. Brave topic to be explored in the 60s in a “mystery” book. I’m not sure I agree with his conclusion, though.
I was a little surprised, because I’d assumed DEW was primarily a Liberal but Jade muddied the waters idealogically. The article C. Lyons unearthed where DEW supported G. W. Bush’s call to war further obfuscated matters, so now I imagine DEW was probably largely non-partisan, and just called ’em like he saw ’em. Which I like. Immenseley. It’s my opinion the truly brilliant among us adhere to no idealogical/political roadmaps and consider each issue on it’s own merits, or as Marcus Aurelius put it: Of each thing, ask: what is it, in and of itself?
I’m not sure what DEW was politically but he the words nonpartisan or apolitical or maybe centrist. He certainly wasn’t a doctrinal conservative or liberal. This is a good trait for a writer since they tend to avoid the trap of painting all the characters who agree with the writer as champions of truth and justice and all that disagrees as evil incarnate.
I have a very hard time seeing Westlake as anything but a classic Liberal, albeit not of the Limousine variety. His stance on the race issue, his clear loathing for homophobes, his skeptical but sincere sympathy for the youth culture, his obvious distrust of authority (how many sympathetic policemen appear in any of his books?), all speak to us of a man who straddled a lot of divides. I would bet he voted for both parties, but there were lots of liberal Republicans back then. Bear in mind, political boundaries and orientations are always shifting, and labels invariably misleading. A man’s a man, for all that.
Except he could be construed by today’s standards as being homophobic just by endorsing the “nurture” pose. I wouldn’t see it as homophobic but some would–but people have to remember that was the scientific consensus at the time.
Oh, yeah, his pro-Dubya article wouldn’t be construed as a classic liberal move;-) lol
Thanks for these timely reviews! I plan on extending my Westlake exposure beyond the Parker’s in the very near future and the Tobin books have been on my radar. Now I definitely know this is where I want to begin!
Somehow, every time I read anything about Tobin, Pink Floyd starts playing in my mind…
Great point, Matthew. I see so many novelists paint their villains with a Conservative brush, or a Liberal one if they’re Conservative. I think for the most part DEW seemed pretty apolitical. Maybe leaning Left, but as Chris noted the Republican party of say the Goldwater era was a much different party. It would almost be considered what a centrist Liberal stance is now.
JDM is another hard nut to crack. One would think Left-Winger at first, but he was a true issue by issue thinker. God, I hate both parties. They’ve just morphed into grotesque caricatures of themselves. As I stated on another blog, the people who would be the best at the job would never run for office. Nick is lucky, at least in his homeland they have like twenty-odd political parties to choose from during an election, here we get the Republicrats and the Demonicans. And once in a while an oddball like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader slither through. We’re screwed and getting more screwed every day:-(
Westlake wrote the Bush piece at the behest of William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine and a huge fan. Kristol has promoted Westlake countless times, and even suggested he should be awarded the Nobel prize for literature. I have a link to Kristol’s Westlake obituary here: http://violentw.s424.sureserver.com/?p=116
Westlake’s thoughts on the post-September 11 actions of the Bush administration mirrored those of most Americans. He was initially very supportive and then soured as the wars dragged on.
I suspect Westlake was a centrist who probably leaned to the left, but not too much. I don’t think he much cared for politics. He certainly wasn’t a political junkie.
I largely stay away from political topics on this site, because they tend to get people upset with each other and Westlake appeals across the spectrum, but I did do a couple of posts a few years back that touch on them.
Parker and libertarianism: http://violentw.s424.sureserver.com/?p=1510
The Ax as agitprop: http://violentw.s424.sureserver.com/?p=2048
Again, labels invariably mislead, amd probably all systems of belief, political, philosophical, or religious, are to some extent attempts at making large numbers of people think they all believe the same things in the same way, when in fact no two people ever have or ever will.
Parker, of course, would see Libertarianism as another delusion, a trap to be avoided, or quietly laughed at. Why would anyone need permission to do as he or she sees fit–and shoulder the consequences of those actions?
Westlake made his feelings on that subject quite clear in “Anarchaos”, and rhey were far from complimentary. Men need freedom, but without laws to protect the weak from the strong, the poor from the rich, few would ever be free. And what “The Ax” tells us most of all is never trust your employer, and that in a world ruled by economic interests, all is lawful. Hardlly a conservative or libertarian message these days.
He had fans on all sides of the political spectrum, and it is hardly strange that under the extreme mental strain all Americans felt after 911, that he would want to believe the Commander in Chief knew what he was doing. But that he got away with speaking so irreverently of Bush, in a publication where that was treated as tantamount to treason at the time, makes me wonder if he was playing another grand prank. Maybe Harold Kunt wrote that article. With an umlaut. ;)
Nice article, Trent. Don’t know why I didn’t catch that before. I tend to agree with you. The Parker books could definitely be seen as what would an absurdist Libertarian world would look like. Another astute Parker fan, can’t remember his name, commented the books could also be seen as an attack on unchecked Capitalism.
DEW’s politics, like his work, defy easy labels. As I’ve noted, his stance on Nature/Nurture in the Homosexual community in the 60s could be seen as a more Right-Wing outlook, but at the time it was considered standard theory in Psychiatric circles. That view has come under attack by mainstream Liberals and Homosexuals later and maybe DEW’s outlook changed with time, but why should it? Why couldn’t he have that opinion even if other “Liberals” don’t? His being in the Majority (then) and in the Minority (now) on that subject dioesn’t make him any more right or wrong. It’s merely his opinion. One that, for all I know, could be 100% correct.
Same with Bush. I doubt if it was a prank that he changed his tune about the Dubya administration, that seeems too childish. I suspect as events unfolded, the logic of Dubya’s declaration of war seemed more and more faulty. That doesn’t mean DEW drifted from other Conservative tenets that admin. favored.
Also, Chris mentioned DEW’s favorable treatment of minorities, homosexuals, the working class in DEW’s work. I don’t quite see that in his Stark novels. I don’t think those issues even come up for the most part. Parker wouldn’t have an opinion on that stuff one way or the other, most likely. A major African American character doesn’t crop up until late in the series, and I don’t remember effeminate characters being treated very well in the books. Maybe in his non-Stark work he casts a more gentle eye on those subjects–I haven’t read everything he’s written yet–but certainly not in the Stark books.