Boy, this book was a task to get through. There were no clear goals or obstacles to overcome, no clear story, and a lack of strong characterization. This book read like a draft that was still being tweaked; ideas from a brainstorm. Even the title doesn't have anything to do with the 'story.'The main character was Dogeron Kelly, usually called 'Dog' for short. He's described as having a crew cut and a face that is hawk-like, and is middle-aged. I'm assuming this character is based on Mickey Spillane himself. Dog always has women of all ages swooning over him and is always witty. Also, he seems to be an illegitimate child who is the heir of an estate which other people want to get their hands on - although, again, that part isn't quite clear. I didn't get a sense of the environment the characters inhabit in this novel. I found myself trying to keep up with all the characters, even the minor ones which are given names and don't seem to actually move the 'plot' forward. (Of course, I use the term 'plot' very loosely). I found it difficult to figure out the locales Dog visited. For example, he's dealing with Italian criminals at one point and I wasn't clear whether or not he was still in New York - I believe he's in New York for majority of the novel - or Europe. Even though the book overall is pretty poor, there was a particular scene that still stood out as iffy: Dog is lead to the restroom of a diner by another character. This 'other character' (I forget his name and I forget whether he was a cop or just another one of Dog's acquaintances) takes Dog's gun and shoots it at the toilet, then hands it back to Dog. Now, even though there is no clear reason why that little exchange happened, Dog and the 'other character' walk out of the restroom, no one else in the diner is said to be frightened by this gunshot except Dog's pretty blonde companion. While I'm probably going to read Spillane's other novels, especially his Mike Hammer novels, I don't see myself coming back to this particular book for a second read. I actually was attracted to this novel by the original cover and the title. And, while the cover gave an idea of how the women where in the novel: sexy, blonde, described in detail (especially when they were naked) that was the extent of their characters.
This is a stand alone book, not Mike Hammer or Tiger Mann series - which means I liked it better than most. It's also based on a short story, "The Bastard Bannerman" which can be found in The Tough Guys, a collection of 3 short stories.Spillane changed all the names & expanded the short story by tossing in number of different threads - basically everything he could think of plus the kitchen sink. There's a European connection, a movie, a dying company, rotten family, lost love(s), renewed friendships, old connections & much more. The action is nonstop up to the very last page. Lots of fun.I've re-read most of Spillane's novels. They're hoaky, dated & fun. I don't care for the Tiger Mann books much. He gets really hoaky with them - tough guy who screws around on his virginal fiancee but loves her so much he aches. The later Mike Hammer books go that way too. Mike Hammer ranks a little higher with me, but not a lot.I enjoy Spillane's stand alone stories more. The love interests are about as bad, but less detailed. The heroes are just as tough & the plots are fair with lots of action. They're a good, quick read.
What do You think about The Erection Set (1972)?
I had to rate this 1 star for literature's sake, but if you're intelligent enough to understand the difference between objectively good writing and objectively bad writing (think James Joyce vs Twilight), this book is extremely entertaining for all the wrong reasons.Mickey Spillane is the most ham-handed, awkward, and arrogant person to ever put words onto a piece of paper. Now, that alone is not an insult, more of an explanation of "style" really. Because he is so out of touch with the concepts of story and character development, everything he writes is pure gold, like reading a 14 year old girls diary. It's super dramatic and you can tell it means a lot to the writer, but it just isn't relate-able to any normal person.That being said, Spillane was the Stephenie Meyer of his day, one of the world's best-selling authors (still), that just happened to not actually understand how books are written and that every main character needn't be a thinly veiled version of one's self.
—Derek Hansen
