A Family Affair - spoilers!
CharlasThe Black Orchid (A Nero Wolfe Group)
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1AdonisGuilfoyle
It was suggested in a previous thread on least favourite books in the corpus that another topic be started on the final novel - with a disclaimer warning about spoilers. I hope this is still OK.
I finished this book in a day, which probably indicates how easy it is to read - but I found it very sombre and philosophic, and I don't like that feeling with Wolfe and Archie. I'm trying to reverse the effects by re-reading some of the better stories, but I can't stop thinking of it as the 'end'!
As to the twist in the tale - I'm not convinced. It's not Orrie's character, more what the reader is expected to swallow:
Spoilers, obviously!
*
*
*
Orrie is supposed to have killed three people because he was having an affair with the wife of a jealous and powerful man, and the husband found out? A little drastic, surely? And the real issue is the method of killing Pierre Ducos, who was going to tell Wolfe - an exploding cigar tube? Where did he get it? There's no reference to the earlier novella, as I expected, where novelty cigars were used as explosives, and Wolfe and Archie kept the remaining device anyway - why such a far-fetched weapon? This would also seem to infer that Orrie planned all this - that he's a cold, amoral killer. A fit of passion - say, hitting Isabel Kerr with an ashtray, I could believe of him - but not such intricate and bizarre preparation.
Saul and Wolfe explain to the reader how everything is supposed to fit into place, but it doesn't for me. Yes, the twist made a surprising deviation from the tedious Watergate lecture that Wolfe was preoccupied with up until he suddenly tied in Orrie's womanising with the death of Bassett, Ducos and his daughter - huh? - but it upset the balance of the characters for me. Archie going easy on Orrie? Wasn't it more than Archie just wasn't as jealous of Orrie as he was of Johnny Keems - despite Stout laying clumsy clues to suggest the contrary? I have never thought of Orrie as devious and grabbing, like Johnny; Wolfe says in Doxy that Orrie hadn't found his place and settled, like Fred, but I think he knew his limits with Wolfe and Archie. And it was Wolfe who always hired Orrie to cover Archie's job, not Orrie who jumped around biting Wolfe's ankles, screaming 'Pick me! Pick me!'
Maybe it was Stout's development of Orrie that is at fault, not the events in A Family Affair, but I think he got it badly wrong.
I finished this book in a day, which probably indicates how easy it is to read - but I found it very sombre and philosophic, and I don't like that feeling with Wolfe and Archie. I'm trying to reverse the effects by re-reading some of the better stories, but I can't stop thinking of it as the 'end'!
As to the twist in the tale - I'm not convinced. It's not Orrie's character, more what the reader is expected to swallow:
Spoilers, obviously!
*
*
*
Orrie is supposed to have killed three people because he was having an affair with the wife of a jealous and powerful man, and the husband found out? A little drastic, surely? And the real issue is the method of killing Pierre Ducos, who was going to tell Wolfe - an exploding cigar tube? Where did he get it? There's no reference to the earlier novella, as I expected, where novelty cigars were used as explosives, and Wolfe and Archie kept the remaining device anyway - why such a far-fetched weapon? This would also seem to infer that Orrie planned all this - that he's a cold, amoral killer. A fit of passion - say, hitting Isabel Kerr with an ashtray, I could believe of him - but not such intricate and bizarre preparation.
Saul and Wolfe explain to the reader how everything is supposed to fit into place, but it doesn't for me. Yes, the twist made a surprising deviation from the tedious Watergate lecture that Wolfe was preoccupied with up until he suddenly tied in Orrie's womanising with the death of Bassett, Ducos and his daughter - huh? - but it upset the balance of the characters for me. Archie going easy on Orrie? Wasn't it more than Archie just wasn't as jealous of Orrie as he was of Johnny Keems - despite Stout laying clumsy clues to suggest the contrary? I have never thought of Orrie as devious and grabbing, like Johnny; Wolfe says in Doxy that Orrie hadn't found his place and settled, like Fred, but I think he knew his limits with Wolfe and Archie. And it was Wolfe who always hired Orrie to cover Archie's job, not Orrie who jumped around biting Wolfe's ankles, screaming 'Pick me! Pick me!'
Maybe it was Stout's development of Orrie that is at fault, not the events in A Family Affair, but I think he got it badly wrong.
2MrsLee
I think I pretty much agree with you AG, I always kind of liked Orrie, though I prefer the way Archie treats women, and Orrie always seemed a bit oily to me, I still thought he served his purpose. This was truly my least favorite book, and not only because it was the last, but I think for the items you brought up as well. I simply hated the ending.
3saxhorn
Since I just finished reading A Family Affair, I thought I'd echo what has been said.
This being Stout's last book, and the fact that he died within a year of its publication, I just thought that he had lost his touch. I had never read a story where he ranted so much, and I often wished he would get off his high horse and let Watergate drop. That really spoiled the story for me. I couldn't imagine Wolfe, who had seen all kinds of subterfuge as an Austrian agent, getting obsessed with it. Also, Wolfe seemed to speak in a more pedestrian vocabulary than characteristic.
Wolfe was really a minor character in this book. But, Archie didn't rise up to take his place. So, I just felt deflated throughout.
Decided to read some Hammett and Chandler for balance.
This being Stout's last book, and the fact that he died within a year of its publication, I just thought that he had lost his touch. I had never read a story where he ranted so much, and I often wished he would get off his high horse and let Watergate drop. That really spoiled the story for me. I couldn't imagine Wolfe, who had seen all kinds of subterfuge as an Austrian agent, getting obsessed with it. Also, Wolfe seemed to speak in a more pedestrian vocabulary than characteristic.
Wolfe was really a minor character in this book. But, Archie didn't rise up to take his place. So, I just felt deflated throughout.
Decided to read some Hammett and Chandler for balance.
4TLCrawford
The book was written in 1975, all the acts in the Watergate drama had been played out but all the facts were not yet known. I think that Stout was, and forgive me if this is so obvious it did not need to be mentioned, using Orrie as a stand in for ‘the person responsible for Watergate’ and letting Wolfe act out the scenario as Stout wished Nixon did, bring in outside investigators (but not to outside) and letting the chips fall. Many people, including most of my family, at that time believed Nixon’s only sin was protecting people loyal to him.
I think that Stout was a very honorable man and that the shenanigans in the FBI and Watergate really hurt him.
Having said that I always thought of Orrie as someone only as reliable as his paycheck. He is very competent but had no scruples about what jobs he took.
I think that Stout was a very honorable man and that the shenanigans in the FBI and Watergate really hurt him.
Having said that I always thought of Orrie as someone only as reliable as his paycheck. He is very competent but had no scruples about what jobs he took.
