Review: The Mercenaries (AKA The Cutie)


It’s 1960.   You walk into a bookstore–or perhaps a drugstore.   There on the revolving rack, you see the above cover (the image of which I filched from ebay, sue me).  You are probably going to think it’s a book about soldiers of fortune.   Which in a way it is.  You are not going to recognize the rather distinctive-sounding name of the author, so prominently featured on the spine, as if he were already an established player–though you may have noticed before now that Random House’s mystery division does this for many other writers you’ve never heard of, perhaps as a way of making potential book-buyers think they’re  missing out on the Next Big Thing.   This particular Next Big Thing, until just now, has never published a novel under his own name, but he’s lucked into a contract with the dominant publisher of that time (and this)–and a hardcover contract to boot–a break for which any aspiring writer would gladly give his or her right arm for, if he or she didn’t need it to type with.  Nothing like starting at the top, though it is a long way down from there.

Though you won’t likely be aware of this, Mr. Westlake has previously published quite a large number of (shall we say) erotic novels for rather more disreputable houses under various other names, which you might likewise have found at the drugstore, or perhaps some other kind of store.  He’s also published a fair few short stories of differing quality and genres in magazines–some science fiction, some crime fiction, some detective stuff, police procedurals, etc.   But now he seems to have made a choice.  For better or for worse, he’s going to be a guy who mainly writes about crime—and more often than not, from the perspective of criminals.   Though hardly run-of-the-mill criminals.   Criminals like none the literary world has ever seen before.

It’s a mob book–organized crime.   Quite popular at the time, though not as popular as it’s going to be once this guy named Mario Puzo gets involved later on.  Westlake doesn’t know a damned thing about organized crime (in 1960, not many do).   Detailed knowledge of the Mafia’s inner workings isn’t required for this job–it might even get in the way.  He does know something about people–and about choices.   And he’s going to use the mob and its mercenary ‘soldiers’ as a way to tell a story about a young man who has to make some unpleasant choices he’d have just as soon not have had to make.  Though as we learn, he had already made a conclusive (and perhaps fatal) choice years earlier, that is coming back to bite him on the ass now.

The protagonist/narrator of this story is named Clay–get it?.   His original name was George Clayton, but now he’s just common Clay–and he’s been molded into (as he puts it) a ‘governess’–somebody who handles family-related problems for crime boss Ed Ganolese–makes sure that members of Ed’s large and complicated organization don’t do anything to cause problems for Ed, or if they do, to make the problems go away.   And sometimes make the people who cause the problems go away as well.

Clay was drifting before he joined up with Ed’s outfit–got out of a brief stint in the military with no purpose in life, studied at a little known upstate NY college a few years (this is all ripped from the author’s own life, as you might possibly gather from the author bio on the dust jacket).

Then he got into an accident–ran over a waitress crossing a mountain road, while out on a joyride in a stolen car with a friend–who went through the windshield, leaving Clay as the only survivor.  These mob guys, one of whom was Ganolese, happened by, and got him off the hook, expertly wiping his prints from the car, and giving him a ride home.  Clay took their friendly advice to lie through his teeth to the cops, who knew he was lying, but couldn’t prove it.   He tried to go back to his life, such as it was, but he found out everybody at the college also thought he was lying.  Even his own father didn’t believe him, and though he knew he really was guilty of killing that woman, Clay resented the world at large for unfairly assuming he was a liar when he might have been telling the truth, like all those unjustly accused heroes in the Hitchcock movies.

Feeling like the ‘straight’ world had nothing to offer him (this is back before ‘straight’ meant that you liked girls),  Clay went up to Ed the next time he saw him, and asked for a job.  Ed asked him what he could do.  He replied “Anything you tell me to do.”   He turned out to be an untapped talent; hard-working, smart, resourceful, and tough as nails.  He enjoyed all the perks of being a mob boss’s good right hand–money, women, nice clothes, a really nice car (Mercedes-Benz 190SL), flexible hours.  He says he looks like a Madison Ave. junior executive type, and he does actually come across as the Mafia’s answer to Don Draper of Mad Men (I cast a 30-something Jon Hamm in the movie adaptation going on in my head, about one chapter in).  So because of a tragic mistake, this previously unshaped Clay had found the role he was born to play, the life he was meant to lead.   Or had he?

The story is told from Clay’s perspective, in the ever-reliable first person mode (that limits perspective, and narrows the focus).   Who is he telling this story to?   Don’t ask stupid questions.

As the story begins, he’s in bed with his very recently-acquired girlfriend Ella, a predictably voluptuous raven-haired goddess–not-quite-so-predictably sympathetic and understanding and decent and basically every man’s fantasy of a schoolmarm in the body of a showgirl–not too well fleshed out as a character, though the physical description sure dwells heavily on her flesh.   Okay, you think, standing there in the drugstore, perhaps mildly aroused–this Westlake likes girls.   A lot.

The doorbell rings.  It’s a stuttering halfwit named Billy Billy Cantell–an associate of Clay’s, sort of.   A pusher who works for the Ganolese syndicate.   He’s desperate.   The law is after him.   He’s been framed for killing a woman named Mavis St. Paul–a crime Clay knows this born patsy is constitutionally and even physically incapable of.  Clay figures maybe Ed will want Billy Billy bumped just so the cops will stop investigating, but Ed says the guy has connections, and they have to try and get him off.   Clay is the trouble shooter in the organization, so it’s his job to find out who set Billy Billy up–and then deliver that ‘cutie’ to Ed for punishment.

You won’t know this back in 1960, standing there in the drugstore (remember the drugstore?), but the novel you’re holding was originally called The Cutie–referring to the murderer Clay is looking for, whose actions precipitate the events of the narrative.   Random House decided that title wouldn’t do, hence The Mercenaries, which refers to nearly everybody in the book, and particularly its protagonist.  Many many years later, it will be republished in paperback under the original title–with cover art featuring a curvy redhead in a little black dress, loading a revolver, and looking suspiciously like the actress Marg Helgenberger, who I’m guessing was not compensated for the uncredited use of her likeness, but that’s an old trick with crime paperbacks.   There are no redheads, with or without firearms, in the novel.   The cutie referred to in the title is not a woman.   It’s misleading, but what the hell.   Thank you for the affordable reprint, Hard Case Crime.

So anyhow, Clay, the jack of all trades, gets a new one.  Detective.  He doesn’t like it.   He’s not comfortable in this role he’s been pushed into, though he learns it fast–has to, because the titular cutie is out to kill him as well, before he can solve the mystery.  The irony that he is out to prove the innocence of a guy who actually was framed for killing a woman does not seem to occur to him.   He’s got to go talk to a bunch of people who knew the woman who got killed–some of whom are also going to die, as the killer tries to cover his tracks.   He’s going to learn a lot about this woman, who was herself something of a mercenary–an aspiring actress/singer, who attached herself to various men in an attempt to further her career.   It’s a bit reminiscent of Laura–but only a bit.  For one thing, this girl isn’t very sympathetic, and for another she’s very definitely dead.   Reading about Clay’s various interviews with people in the entertainment world of New York City, you might guess Westlake has some knowledge of that world, and perhaps somewhat ambivalent feelings about it.   You glance back at the author bio again, and what do you know–he did a stint in summer stock.  The bio won’t mention that he married an actress, or how that marriage turned out, but you don’t really need to know that.

So it’s a detective novel, which is what Random House’s mystery division typically publishes–but the detective in question is 1)A crook and 2)Not interested in a permanent career change.  He’s Ed’s ‘Good Right Hand’, his errand boy, and this is just the errand he’s running right now.  Ella tells Clay he could be his own boy instead of Ed’s, but he’s steadfastly loyal to his employer–not so much a personal loyalty, though.  He’s loyal to the organization.   He doesn’t want to be his own boy.  Too much responsibility.   He will do what he’s told, always.  If he’s told to kill, he kills–without emotion.   Clay is very emphatic about this–emotion is a bad thing to bring into your work.   He tells us he just switches it off when it gets in the way of doing what has to be done–it’s very zen, in a sense–like the samurai ethos.  If  you kill someone without emotion, because your rightful lord commands it, you’re not really a murderer.   You’re no more guilty than the sword you swing, or the gun you shoot.   And no more the master of your own fate, but Clay says he’s fine with that.  He says it maybe a few times too often to be fully convincing.

And his argument, which is not without its merits, is that everybody is like him–the syndicate is just a business–when Ella protests that there are legal businesses, he responds thusly–

“Sure there are–and they operate the same way we do.  They fight and claw for the customer’s dollar.  They do their damnedest to get rid of the competition.  They try to produce something the consumer is going to buy.  Within their organization, if somebody isn’t producing, they fire him.  And  you know when they do most of their firing?  At Christmastime, if you want to talk about morality.  They fire at Christmastime, because January is a bad month for business.   When we fire somebody, we do it permanently, that’s the only difference.  We do it permanently because we can’t afford to have somebody outside the organization who knows too much about organization matters.  And don’t tell me the big corporations don’t wish they could fire permanently too, rather than see their ex-employees going over to the competition to spread the word on what Amalgamated Incorporated is planning to do next year.”

He makes a lot of angry self-defensive speeches like this in the course of the book, to Ella, to the cops, to the reader–basically to anybody who’ll listen.  Who is he trying to persuade here?   Everything he says is true as far as it goes, but is it a good argument for sticking with an organization whose employees may literally get the axe?  Clay is exceptionally smart and self-aware, but he’s also portrayed to us as selectively blind to the full significance of his own pronouncements.   He’s a stranger to himself.

And so, it seems, are many other people in the narrative–nobody is quite what he or she seems to be, except maybe Ella and this one honest cop named Grimes who dislikes Clay because he’s “a penny-ante crook with half an education, half a conscience, and half a mind.”   Clay responds to this observation with one of his “Everybody’s a crook” speeches–he knows full well a lot of policeman are crooks, since Ed has so many on the payroll, but he also knows Grimes isn’t one of them.   He knows he’s smart–why did that crack cut him so deep?

As the story winds down, the mystery is solved–the genre demands it.  I have been known to guess the murderer occasionally–for example, the first Matthew Scudder novel Westlake’s longtime buddy Lawrence Block published in 1976–might as well have put a neon sign up over the character saying “THIS IS THE KILLER”.   Westlake does a much better job with the sleight of hand here, distracting the reader from what should be obvious, so I didn’t crack the case with this one.   As murder mysteries go, it’s reasonably clever, without being too complicated to be plausible.  Who killed Mavis St. Paul is not what the book is really about, of course.   That’s true of most good mysteries, really.  The Mystery is the MacGuffin.  What’s the point being hidden behind it?

Here, it seems to be people with divided identities–a murderer who wasn’t who he claimed to be, a victim who was living a long series of lies that finally caught up with her, and the reluctant detective himself, who talks a good game, but keeps missing the point of his own lectures.   The other key theme is emotion–how we suppress it to do what needs be done, but that just means hiding from ourselves and how we really feel about what we’re doing, and who we’re doing it for.  Clay’s probably right that we’re all dishonest in one way or another, but he’s wrong to think that it doesn’t matter what kind of crook you are.   In that, he was kidding himself, and as the book ends, we’re led to believe he’s figured it out a bit late–the doorbell rings again, and the strong implication, that he himself is trying like hell not to believe,  is that he’s about to get fired ‘permanently’.

So we have a likable attractive protagonist, somebody the reader can easily identify with, who wins, gets the job done, catches the killer, does just what his boss told him to do, under exceptionally challenging circumstances, and was properly acknowledged as the valued employee he is–and he’s probably about to die.   Though, one supposes, if the book had sold really well, maybe he’d have run for the fire escape (the convenient presence of which has been established earlier in the story), and lived to equivocate another day.  Perhaps he could have become a 60’s version of Daniel Port,  a character created by a writer Westlake strongly admired–but reportedly Westlake didn’t admire those particular novels that much, and The Mercenaries may be in part his revisionist take on the Port series.

Clay’s won the game, and he’s lost everything–even Ella,  who he knows he’s in love with, and who clearly loves him.   Just before the doorbell rings that final time, he’s ended their relationship (without even telling her to her face that it’s over) because she’s confusing him.   She wants him to be somebody else, his own boy, and much as he was thinking she might be somebody he’d consider leaving the syndicate for,  as he muses over the way ‘The Cutie’ ended up–and why–Clay decides he can’t change his spots so late in the game.   He calls one of Ed’s boys to send up a girl–any girl, so long as she’s forgettable.  He’s finally made his choice.   So why was it the wrong one?

Here’s what I think–Clay isn’t being punished for being a crook, or a killer, or forsaking true love for a series of empty hook-ups, or anything like that.   Those are all just symptoms of the real problem–that he’s a company man.   He gave up his individuality.  He compromised his identity, subordinated it to a higher authority, so he wouldn’t have to make his own choices anymore–or live with their consequences (like a dead waitress on a mountain road).   You, standing there in the drugstore, thumbing your way through this whole novel, while the clerk pointedly ignores you, might figure he was just unlucky, or it’s a standard ‘noir’ ending, like in those French movies you see at the art houses now and again–we’re all doomed, because fate is against us, and no doubt Sartre or Camus would put it better–but that’s not the message here.   We’re not all necessarily doomed.   Sure, everybody dies sooner or later, but that’s not the same thing.  We’re doomed because we make bad choices.   “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.”   You have to figure a guy who did summer stock would know that line.

And if we’re doomed because we make bad choices, it stands to reason that if we made good choices–ah, what’s the point, you figure, as you put the book back in the revolving rack, and head for the door, before the manager starts giving you the fisheye for not buying anything.  You see this one other guy there at the lunch counter (they still had lunch counters in drugstores back then)–skinny, dark hair, glasses, late 20’s–giving you a bit of a fisheye as you walk out.   What’s his problem, you wonder, but you forget all about him as you walk out into the majesty of New York City–and just for a moment, you think about how alive this guy Westlake made the city feel.   So full of characters, situations, possibilities.   Maybe next time you see his name on the cover you’ll actually buy the book and take it home.   Then again, maybe not.   Life is full of choices.



Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “Review: The Mercenaries (AKA The Cutie)

  1. Chris, keep these reviews coming. I immensely enjoyed this one.

  2. Thanks. I’m working on the “Killing Time” review right now–and guess who’s up after that? Well, no guesswork needed, when you’re doing the chronological order of publication thing.

  3. I try to read Westlake chronologically, but it’s tough. Price and availability of some of his books make it almost impossible.

  4. More and more are available as ebooks now–less satisfying than a nice hardcover or paperback edition, perhaps–but often much easier on the wallet.

    I didn’t read them all chronologically, by any means. I would read the ones available to me at a given time chronologically, and then come back for the ones I’d had to put off until later. However, I’d strongly advise anybody reading his franchise characters (Parker, Tobin, Dortmunder, even Sam Holt) to try to stick to publication order. Those are all easy enough to find online, or at libraries. They really need to reprint the Tobins, though.

    Some of his one-offs are just ridiculously rare and expensive–too few copies printed to begin with. I will probably never even SEE a physical edition of “Comfort Station”, other than the handful of copies waiting on the internet for some rich collector to scoop them up–which is why I let out a whoop of joy when I realized I could just download it to my iPad for a pittance.

    Granted, that doesn’t make up for not having the first (and only) print edition, with a blurb from Westlake himself on the cover saying “I wish I had written this book!”, and hey–just checked, and the prices have come down quite a bit, probably because of the ebook lowering demand. Maybe someday. 😉

  5. He’s going to learn a lot about this woman, who was herself something of a mercenary–an aspiring actress/singer, who attached herself to various men in an attempt to further her career.

    Who does Clay think he is, Mitch Tobin?

    • Yeah, I think Westlake felt like he hadn’t knocked that one out of the park, and so he came back to it. He did that a lot. Writing as much as he did, he really had to recycle sometimes, but I think it’s more the perfectionist in him, worrying at an idea until he’s pulled it off to his satisfaction.

  6. sdelmonte

    Good review of a good book. And seen in the light of this review, you can also see the path from Clay the company man to the independent operators of the Parker books.

    • He started with Clay, who sells himself out to the mob (a metaphor for the company). He moved on to Tim Smith, who considers himself an independent, but who has inextricably tied himself to a corrupt political machine, depends on it for his livelihood. Both those stories end tragically. Which is hardly surprising, for this type of hardboiled noir. But the way he explains it is specific to him. And entirely possible that he didn’t start either novel intending to end it that way. That he reached conclusions about the characters in the process of writing about them.

      And while he’s writing these stories, he’s thinking about how you could believably write about somebody who faced the same odds, or worse–and come out on top, or at least survive. I mean, you can end a story any way you like. You can make your hero invincible–but will anyone believe you? Will you believe yourself? Westlake has to make himself believe in the hero in order for the hero to win. Even if that often means making the hero behave like a villain.

      He was fettered by what he thought was the expectation of the market–if Parker behaves like a bad guy, he has to die at the end. He didn’t want to kill Parker, he thought he had to. Bucklin Moon told him he didn’t–that Parker was only saleable as a series character. Free at last. His inner convictions confirmed by an external source (nobody is 100% independent).

      Once he’d written 361 and The Hunter, he’d figured it out. You have to know yourself. All of yourself. And you have to be willing to risk everything to remain yourself. You can compromise. But you can never sell out. This above all, to thine own self be true. And once he’d reached that epiphany, and figured out how to translate it into concrete storytelling, very few of his protagonists had tragic endings. Not because Westlake was such a cockeyed optimist–there’s a huge streak of fatalism in him. But because he was an individualist.

      His most tragic novel (that he never saw published) is about a man who has his memory taken from him. There’s nothing anyone can do about that, but even in accepting that he’s lost everything, that protagonist says he’s going to keep trying to live, no matter what. He’ll make a self out of nothing, if he has to. But after that, Westlake always gave his heroes a choice to make, and as long as they chose to be true to themselves, whatever that meant in each specific case, he’d see them safe to the end.

      From that time on, he knows he’s going to be the poet of the independents, just as Goodis was the poet of the losers. If you’re a Westlake hero, even John Dortmunder, you never lose. You may fail, but that’s not the same thing. You’re not a loser as long you still have you.

  7. Neal Fargo

    Great review! I just bought this book as I am a fan of Westlake’s Parker Series (using his Richard Stark pseudonym) and this seemed intriguing. I also remember being just old enough to peruse that book rack in the drugstore, where I first discovered Robert E Howard, Don Pendleton and John (I think John?) Whitlach. Great memories. Looking forward to reading this.

    • Yeah, it was John. I googled. Never heard of him, but the genre is vast, and nobody knows all the names. I remember seeing the Executioner paperbacks as a kid, but I’ve yet to read one. (I’ve read comics with The Punisher, and no, I don’t think Pendleton ever got paid for that). Robert E. Howard I first encountered in B. Dalton bookstores, along with his fellow teller of weird tales, H.P Lovecraft.

      Not all Parker fans become Westlake fans, but many do. It’s the same mind underneath, but works rather differently when he’s not being all–you know–Stark.

  8. bobhollberg

    I was going through an online newspaper archive and discovered references to The Smashers on 4/27/62 (Brooklyn Record) and 6/17/62 (L.A. Times). Do you know the reasoning behind that? I noticed that this was a few months after 361 was published.

    • They’re talking about the Dell paperback reprint. From 1962. People were much more likely to read this type of story in paperback than hardcover back then. The Mike Hammer novels always did much bigger sales in paperback.

      I doubt Westlake was happy with the title change, but the paperback publishers were inclined to go their own way with titles, and The Mercenaries wasn’t his original title anyway. They probably figured people would think it was about literal mercenaries, as opposed to gangsters. Wrong genre.

      I had blanked on The Smashers being a Dell reprint (that other reprints elsewhere used)–after Gold Medal, Dell was the biggest name in paperback mysteries, followed by Pocket. He’d gone to them with The Hunter, after Gold Medal turned him down, and got lucky the third try at Pocket, with Bucklin Moon. He would have been happy to score heavily on the rebound with this one. (But how weird is it they wanted The Mercenaries–as sloppy seconds–and not The Hunter?)

      I don’t much care for the cover. McGinnis was doing work for them by then; that would have been pretty cool. I just happened across a copy of a 1961 Dell with a McGinnis cover at a local bookstore (nabbed it for a buck!)–as usual, just the image of a sexy girl doing sexy things. But the girl has black hair. In the book she’s ash-blonde, described that way in the second sentence of the first paragraph.

      McGinnis very rarely read the books he did cover art for–I believe he may have read the six Stark novels he was involved with. One of which he drew himself into. (As Parker).

      But another reason he might not have drawn her might be that his model of the moment had black hair, and he was very likely sleeping with her. He’s 96 now. Life is not fair. And I digress.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s