S is for Sue Grafton

I just finished reading  S is for Silence--Grafton's new Kinsey Milhone book (19th in the series). If you haven't read the novel, here's a brief recap: the adult daughter (Daisy) of a mother (Violet) who went missing in 1954 asks Kinsey to solve this very cold case. She does (of course), with her usual cool common sense. A good read, full of the usual Kinsey stuff that we all enjoy: junk food, Kinsey's minimalist life-style, and the on-again/off-again relationship with her current flame that always reminds me of Nancy (Drew, of course) and Ned what's-his-name. But it is the structure of this novel that interests me, as a fellow first-person novelist.

Grafton's series will soon catch up to the longest-running first-person mystery writer of all time: John D. MacDonald, who wrote 21 Travis McGee novels. But there aren't all that many of us, for a very simple reason. First-person mysteries are hell to write, and nineteen of them--well, damn. Is there anything worse than hell? I just finished #15 in the China Bayles first-person series (Spanish Dagger will be out in 2007), so I should know.

So when I see that Grafton is telling the backstory (the victim's story, the story of the crime) through multiple points of view (including the killer's, but not the victim's), I'm intrigued. This is a new narrative strategy for Grafton (in this series), and one that I'm planning to use for China in the Shaker book (set in Kentucky) that will be published in 2009. About half of S is for Silence is told in Kinsey's first-person voice, as she goes about investigating Violet's disappearance. Alternating chapters are narrated from various points of view, relating the story of the few days in July, 1953, that led up to the murder. This layered, multiple view-point narrative gives Grafton the opportunity to do something that a first-person novelist cannot do: go deeply into the other characters in the story, their motivations, fears, desires, feelings, and hidden thoughts. In first-person narration, the only character you can show deeply is the viewpoint character: your protagonist, who can only see what the other characters reveal to her or what she surmises about them. In third-person narration, you can go deeply into as many characters as you choose.

First-person narratives invite readers to identify with the character and create a strong reader-character bond. (Much of the China-mail I get is from people who say, in one way or another, "I love China.") But it's also terribly limiting, because the rest of the characterization is confined to externalities (spelled s-u-p-e-r-f-i-al), unless you give your protagonist the power to read others' minds.

So I was delighted to see Grafton's compositive narrative form: first-person point of view, alternated with shifting third-person point of view. She did an excellent job, especially with the several people who were strongly motivated to kill Violet, each for his or her own very good reasons. In fact, the motivations were all so strong, and so many of the potential killers had the opportunity to commit the murder that the reader doesn't know who did it until Grafton is ready to open the curtain. A good job, well done.

Of course, this strategy risks the ire of people who will feel cheated because they didn't get enough Kinsey. And since the novel is set in a different town, they're going to miss the usual series characters. But I felt there was a good balance here. Aside from minor quibbles (too many distracting, show-off details of 1953 brand names, for one), I enjoyed the book, learned from it, and congratulate Grafton on breaking out of the first-person form.

Reading Notes:

The writer's point of view is a choice among tools.--Tracy Kidder
I know I walk in and out of several worlds every day.--Joy Harjo

Comments

[Susan Albert]

Pleasant Hill is what I'm aiming for, Gin. I've saved one
day of this year's tour schedule to spend there--not nearly long enough, but I'm hoping to go back before I start writing the book. That won't be for a couple of years, since there is another book (Nightshade--2008) twixt China and the Shakers ( 2009--Wormwood is the title I'm currently using for it.

[Gin]

Shaker? Kentucky?? ::ears perk up:: Will you be researching at Pleasant Hill and/or South Union?

[Susan Albert]

Dani, look here:

http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=112&category=events
This story mentions a 3-day July 4th holiday in 1926. (Do a search on "three" on the page and you'll find it). I think I remember 3-day holidays during the 50s over Memorial Day, because that's when the Indy 500 was run. Grafton's dates are accurate for 1953 (I just looked at a calendar for that year).

I didn't have any trouble with the dates, but I did have trouble with the 75-cent minimum wage. I had my first job in 1956, and distinctly remember getting 35 cents an hour. But then I figured that maybe Woolworth's (my employer) didn't have to abide by the Federal minimum since I was part-time. I googled it, and sure enough, Grafton is right: 75 cents an hour. My nearly 17-year-old granddaughter (part time at a fast-food restaurant) is getting $7.50 an hour. Whew.

Facts are fun, as long as we get them right! (Are you listening, James Frey and Oprah?)

[Dani G.]

I'm so glad you read the new Grafton book and I'm curious about something that has bugged me about this book, even as I was reading it. I'm going to show my age here ;).... pivotal to the plot is a 3-day holiday. Yet, if memory serves me, the concept of a 3-day weekend to extend the holiday is really quite recent. I don't remember in my youth having a Friday or Monday off if July 4th fell on Saturday or Sunday. Do you? I can't imagine it happening in the 1950's. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if not.... then I think this might be stretching artistic license a bit. Just my two fathings worth. Fans can be so tiresome, can't they?
PS If you feel this comment will ruin the book for someone, please just reply direct.