Yesterday I got so sick of that stupid Seth Rogen superhero movie trailer that I turned to my ladycakes and said, "I would honestly like to smash that Green Hornet with a Blue Hammer." Inasmuch as I know how unoriginal I am, I was sure that image---the cobalt ballpeen (my high-school nickname, btw)---must be a distant echo of something I absorbed in the long last past. But what was it? Did "The Blue Hammer" refer to:a) A sad Tom DeLay, former House of Reps Republican recently convicted of campaign-financing shenanigans and now living in limbo until Texas decides where to send him as he trades pinstripes for prison stripes?b) A Na'vi Mickey Spillane character who roams Pandora delivering justice on a hot platter of ecologically sound lead?c) A one-hit rapper known for his baggy shiek pants, suddenly asphyxiated and in the throes of rigor after years of yelling "U Can't Touch This" to anyone who still remembered the heady days of 1990?No! The Blue Hammer, I suddenly remembered, was the final entry in Ross Macdonald's Lew Archer series. So I went and downloaded it on my Kindle and read it in an evening. Like most Archer mysteries, the plot involves a missing person and the implications on the family structure. Nobody really springs from the loins of who they thought they did in an Archer book. In this case, there's some fun satire of the painting industry, though nothing as intricate and historically specific as Willeford's killer BURNT ORANGE HERESY. The book is also dialogue-heavy; after reading any number of recent rants by literary writers about how too many people are using too much dialogue in fiction bc of short attention spans, I was mildly asmused. It ain't a new issue, narratological purists.In the end, I would give the book 3.5 stars---not quite a 4 but still above average. The problem may be that once you read a few Archer novels you learn to predict what the big missing person revelation will be; sure enough, I knew the twist about halfway through (though Macdonald is canny enough to give the twist its own little twist that complicates what might otherwise seem fairly transparent). And mybe this plaot was a might TOO intricate in the number of bodies, kidnappings, and long contemplative walks on the beach it took to unmask a killer.But ultimately, as the final Archer mystery, "The Blue Hammer" seems to suffer mostly from its time setting. If I'm reading the chronology right, it takes place in 1975 (it was published in 76). At this point Macdonald's California doesn't seem as skeezy as we've come to expect from contemporaneous California mysteries---there's something almost genteel about Macdonald's foray into cults and drugs. I think there were two great periods in the Archer series: roughly 49-52 or so, when Macdonald was creating his own post-Chandler noir, and, say, 66-66, when Archer was dealing with the swinging youthquake (The Zebra-Striped Hearse---awesome title! I only wish he'd written one called Murder A-Go-Go). By the time of the Blue Hammer Archer would be mid-fifties at least, and considering how many generations of illegitimate children and formerly promiscuous women run around the plot, it starts to feel like a homicidal Golden Girls. Indeed, the femme fatale here comes off like a centenarian. "I'd bang you, Archer, but my hip replacement can't take the strain!" Of course, that's age-ism speaking, but the chronology issues call attention to the problems you have when a series runs this long but the character seems frozen at a hardboiled forty.That said, it's still a fun, quick book. And the revelation of what the title means is boffo, even if it's not directly connected to the plot.
Plot – 3, Characters – 4, Theme – 1, Voice – 4, Setting – 3, Overall – 3 1) Plot (3 stars) – A painting is stolen and Lew Archer is called upon to find it. But, surprise surprise, the case is much more complex than that and soon he’s digging up decades of dirt to find out what happened. This is a classic detective story, so you’re going to get a man walking around and talking to people to pick up clues. Naturally, there’s going to be mystery and tension, but I thought the flames on both of these elements were set a little low to keep me reading, and the pacing was a bit slow to boot.2) Characters (4 stars) – Lew Archer is the tough and cynical yet watchful and clever private eye lead. Everyone he bumps into is ready to argue or lie or fight or trick him, and so the tension is always high and the dialogue full of conflict. I was impressed with how textured everyone was. For a hardboiled detective book, characters were sure dealing with some sensitive emotions.3) Theme (1 star) – Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any message or point to the painting hunt. And without some big purpose (or even a medium sized purpose), I began thinking “who cares if he finds the thing” and started skimming.4) Voice (4 stars) – The writing is quite good. There’s the typical rough, cynical, wise cracking detective language which is always fun to read and imitate. But there was also something more in here—subtle descriptions and clever metaphors. It became very obvious that if MacDonald wanted to try out a different genre, he’d have little problem making the transition.5) Setting (3 stars) – California in the 1970s. The moneyed establishment mixed up with the poor hippies. It was described fine, but I didn’t really feel transported there.6) Overall (3 stars) – I enjoyed the witty banter and language, but couldn’t find a reason to care if the case was solved, so I can’t recommend it.
What do You think about The Blue Hammer (1976)?
Hardboiled. Traditional younger dame/damsel in distress, vaguely damaged and hard private detective. Okay story about a mysterious painter who disappeared. One of his paintings is stolen and Lew Archer is hired. The daughter of the owners goes missing. It all traces back to an interconnected drama in Arizona, where the owners, painter, and his wife are from. Painter's brother had been killed, there were various affairs between painter, eventual painting owner, mine owner, a model. Ends up that Fred, a weak, childish man who took the painting to examine it, is the fake son (actual nephew) of the painter, who didn't disappear but married the brother's ex wife, and he became a big drunk. People were killed because it was going to get out that he was still alive, and also he had killed his brother. The dame was a reporter who he had tied up.
—Peony
This is a great book. Even if you figure out the mystery early on it is still enjoyable to process getting to the resolution. Lew Archer is an interesting detective. He has a human side. He is capable of falling in love while realizing that he is making himself vulnerable and taking risks. And this is a credit to the writing of the book. The motivations of the characters seemed plausible. You could understand how they felt and what they were feeling. This is a credit to the author’s ability to create a scene and populate it with human emotions. I also enjoyed the scenes of poetic imagery interspersed through-out the book. The plot is self is fluid and has a nice momentum to it. As I said above, even when I though I had things figured out I still wanted to keep reading to see how the story was going to resolve itself. I would highly recommend this book.
—Andrew
The picture shows exactly what I imagined looking at the title of the book, but the image has exactly the same relation to the content of the book as yours truly to professional ukulele players: none. A very dysfunctional family hired Lew Archer to retrieve a stolen painting; they did not want any kind of publicity by involving police into their affairs. The police had to be involved anyway after Archer found a man beaten to death who recently handled the painting in question. The second dead body made any efforts in avoiding bad publicity futile. This is the final book of the series and the final book of the author who began showing signs of Alzheimer at the time. As such it is not as refined as what I expect from the series, but it is still a good book even if slightly lower than average. This was a very rare moment in the series when I was able to figure out what is going on exactly before Archer which was a letdown. He also recycled some of his own tropes that he invented and perfected earlier.It is fitting to speak about the whole series in the review of the last book. Is it worth reading? Very much so. The influence of Raymond Chandler shows very clearly in the beginning which is quite understandable - show me a noir writer who says he/she was NOT influenced by Chandler and I show you a liar. By the middle of the series Macdonald found his own distinctive voice. He is known as the grand-master of families-with-skeletons-in-the-closet plot device. I would say anybody using this device after Macdonald was inspired by him, directly or indirectly. He is also responsible for breaking one of my stereotypes. In my mind noir literature strongly associated with pre-WW2 US starting with twenties. Macdonald extended this time period all the way to seventies which feel practically like modern times compared to the beginning of twentieth century. This means there was at least one guy in 1976 who remembered how to write classic noir. I also like the idea which can be seen through the whole series: if you have a dark secret no matter how hard you try to cover it up sooner or later it will come back and bite you, hard.Coming back to this book I feel it is closer to 3.5 stars, but considering the fact that the author had a very good excuse (his illness) and out of my great respect for the series I round it up to 4 stars.
—Evgeny
