Thrilled again

SPOILER ALERT

First, as soon as she sees the killing ground and hears who is accused of the murder, Paddy believes it couldn't have been done by the two boys without adult supervision. To herself, she repeatedly berates the press and the police and the public in general for taking what she sees is the easy conclusion -- the two boys are horribly evil -- instead of what she believes is a tougher but still obvious solution: Only an adult could have done this.

But this is exactly upside-down. Whenever another school shooting or schoolkid rape hits the news, it's hard for many people to accept the idea that even pre-teens are capable of such savagery. They want to find an explanation that would still preserve some notion of childhood innocence. Finding some adult skulker or pedophile, as gruesome or upsetting as that might seem, is actually consoling to a degree. This kind of evil makes some sense. A 10-year-old boy murdering his 5-year-old brother for no real reason doesn't.

More importantly, it's clear from the first few chapters of Field of Blood that the narrative we can expect is the 'Brenda Starr, cub reporter" story: young wannabe journalist breaks the big story and wins love. Ms. Mina considerably darkens her cub reporter narrative with the lengths to which Paddy goes, and the violence she provokes, plus her estrangement from friends and family. But that's still the basic story.

Put another way: Paddy doesn't really lose anything from her tough choices. True, even noir novels generally end happily (except those of James M. Cain and Jim Thompson). But often what happens is that the detective has to give up something -- the woman he's attracted to, the money he's been promised, a friendship, even his own self-respect. That's one reason the moral choice I alluded to in my earlier posting is a tough one: It's not just unclear or morally compromised; it can have rotten consequences. Look at Humphrey Bogart's glistening eyes as he tells Brigid in The Maltese Falcon that she's going to take the fall. It's why he's bitter; he's losing a piece of himself.

But with Paddy, although she sheds one boyfriend, she's rewarded with an even better one. Although she alienates her family, she gains workplace esteem. And so on. For those who've read the story and admire it, consider what it would be like if Paddy had broken the case but still didn't win much respect from the male reporters. Or if, in breaking the case, she pissed off her new boyfriend. It would make for a more complex, bluesier story. As it is, she pretty much wins all around.

Nonetheless, Field of Blood was good enough, certainly worth the reading, that I'm going to proceed through some of the other suggestions readers offered. This, then, will probably be a series of reports on my encounters with noirish female thriller-writers.