Review: Two Much


How happy could I be with either,
Were t’other dear charmer away!
But while you thus teaze me together;
To neither a word will I say;
But tol de rol, &c.

John Gay.

“Humor is like a fountain,” I said.

“That’s life.  Are you a native New Yorker?”

I frowned at her.  “What’s that got to do with comedy?”

“There are theories about the humorist as the outsider,” she said. “We can make it work both ways.  If you were born and raised in New York City, you must feel isolated from the rest of the country: ergo, comedy.  If you came from Kansas or somewhere, you feel isolated and rootless here in New York: ergo, comedy.  I just want to know whether you go under Column A or Column B.”

“I go with the West Lake Duck.”

“Foreign or domestic?”

Westlake ‘only’ published two novels in 1975: both for M. Evans & Co., both of them stand-alone works, both featuring a thirty-ish unmarried male protagonist who gets into trouble, both ranking among his most interesting works.  And I’d say only the latter of the two protagonists would qualify as a Westlake ‘Nephew’ (not that Westlake ever used this term, that I know of).   But the protagonist of the book we’re looking at now is, I would suggest, an anti-Nephew.

And he’s something else you wouldn’t call most of Westlake’s leading men–an unmitigated cad.  Had this book (which inspired two film adaptations) been written three or four decades earlier, and then made into a Hollywood film (notwithstanding the fact that the cad in this book is a Yank), there really would have been only one actor in all the world to play him.

For back in that era, who but He Who Was Addison DeWitt could have portrayed such a irredeemable rogue and made you like him?  (Errol Flynn may have been the superior cad in real life, but movie-goers only liked him as a hero).  The same way he could pull off a line in the film Death of a Scoundrel–when a married lady he propositions says she is already taken, he replies with the most impeccable aplomb, “I don’t want to take you.  Just to borrow you.”

Mr. Sanders’ scoundrel comes to a bad end in that film, as he did in many others, and he’s forced to recant his wicked ways, as he was in the very disappointing and heavily rewritten ending of the otherwise surprisingly faithful film version of The Moon And Sixpence.   Because, you see, the movie-going public is heavily composed of folks like Strickland’s thick-witted son in Maugham’s book, making fatuous comments like “The mills of the gods grind slow–” and thinking they’re quoting scripture when they do.  Rarely do we let Don Giovanni descend into hell without making him apologize first.   Makes us feel better about ourselves for admiring him.

Maybe it doesn’t take a Mozart (or a Da Ponte) to portray an unapologetic cad, but it’s a rare storyteller who can make one work as the hero of a popular work of fiction.  Charles Willeford was writing this kind of protagonist as far back as 1953 (High Priest of California), not that anything he wrote before the Hoke Moseley books was popular (and ‘cad’ might be too gentle a word for some of his protagonists).   Westlake may have been responding more to Willeford than to any other living storyteller when writing this one, though he’d toyed with this type of character before.

Many of Westlake’s best short stories depicted cads (also a novella we’ll be looking at soon), but making one the center of a full-length novel is more challenging.  Alan Grofield has his caddish moments, true, but he only dabbles at it.  When we first met him, he got involved with a girl while pulling a heist, let her talk him into taking her with him, was ready to stand up to Parker himself to defend her life, and ended up marrying her–a happy  and devoted marriage it seems to be, in spite of his wandering eye–and for all his incessant wisecracking, he’s deadly serious about his two professions.

Eugene Raxford, narrator and protagonist of The Spy In The Ointment is clearly another prototype for this book’s ‘hero’ in terms of his glib freewheeling anti-authoritarian style, but he’s sincerely devoted to the cause of ethical pacifism, and is madly in love with his beautiful klutzy heiress girlfriend, even if he won’t ever admit that to us.

Westlake protagonists, written under any name–with this one exception we’re looking at now–either have a conscience, or (in Parker’s case) a sort of instinctive code of conduct that serves in place of one.  This guy has neither. Rotten to the core, and he likes it that way.  If he ever feels a pang of remorse, he suppresses it rigorously.  As I shall have to do now myself, because cad that I am, I am going to give away some major plot twists of this book (while sparing many others, because I can’t possibly cover them all in one review), but I don’t see how I can talk about what this story means without talking about what happens in it. Seriously, I’m not going to give the whole book away, but if you haven’t read it, stop reading now.  This one’s available on Kindle.   It won’t take you long.

Another thing Westlake protagonists all have in common is that we never see them die.  Westlake came close to showing us one of them kick it in Killing Time, but it’s possible–barely–that Tim Smith was telling his story to the cops from a hospital bed.  All we know for sure is that a very pissed-off Italian guy pointed a gun at Tim while his girlfriend screamed in the distance.  How would you show a first person narrator’s death, anyway?  I mean, if you weren’t going the Jim Thompson ‘exit interview in hell’s waiting room’ route, or a spectral voice-over monologue, ala Wilder’s  Sunset Boulevard?   Westlake has decided to kill this narrator off before our very eyes.  Is this a spoiler?  Not exactly.

I know it must seem I’m avoiding the central point of this book–that it’s about a man pretending to be twins in order to fuck twins.  That’s certainly the main point of the two films made from it, and going by the online synopses, they both totally miss the point.   The twins are mere matching MacGuffins.  This is a book about identity, of course–Westlake wrote it.   And the twin motif serves that end most admirably.  But it’s not really the axis the plot spins upon.  What is?  Money.  I’ll try to keep the synopsis brief this time, if only because I haven’t done a one-part book review in what seems like ages.

What can we say about Art Dodge, aside from the fact that he owes his pun-laden name to Charles Dickens?   He’s thirty years old–the age Westlake believed that we become true adults, and must make choices about how to live the rest of our lives, or else have them made for us.  He’s a philanderer par excellence, exceptionally successful with women, through some combination of good looks, wit, and roguish self-confidence, but he also has bad eyesight and a receding hairline–as did Westlake himself.

He’s a former military brat, who lived all over the place, and has a sister he’s not very close to–Westlake was in the Air Force, and had a sister he rarely if ever referred to in public.  Art’s mother ran out on Art’s dad–and on Art–when Art was still a kid.  This doesn’t seem to refer to Westlake’s own mother, but the hero whose mom checked out on him in some way is a theme you can find in other of Westlake’s books, such as 361.

I don’t know what that’s about–I do know Westlake’s mother had to work long hours to help support the family.   That can feel like abandonment, even though it isn’t.  His children’s book Philip has no father, and an ever-present mother.  That is not an autobiographical work–that is an expression of a lifelong yearning for female attention that permeates most if not all Westlake’s work for adults, and it can also help explain how a fellow gets married three times in twenty-two years.

Art apparently used to work in advertising, but at some point he struck out on his own, and founded a tiny and perpetually indigent greeting card company, Those Wonderful Folks, aka Folksy Cards.  The cards are all ribaldly humorous, full of not terribly subtle sexual innuendo and the occasional ethnic slur.  Art writes them all himself, then cons artists into doing the visuals, then finds ways to avoid paying them, and then his distributor finds ways to avoid paying him, and this is the rugged capitalist spirit that made America great, folks.

He has a long-suffering secretary named Gloria, who is equal parts gal friday, best friend, mother confessor, and more of a sister to him than his actual sister. He does pay her–occasionally.  She puts up with the irregular paychecks because working for him is so much more interesting than her last gig at Met Life (my mother sold insurance for Met Life–small world).

His best male friend is an earnest and staggeringly innocent young attorney named Ralph, who vicariously enjoys hearing about Art’s many conquests, and never once suspects that the mother of his children is one of them.  Her name is Candy, and she’s not really that sweet, but neither is Art.  Anyway, as the story begins, Art is staying with Ralph and Candy and their kids in their tiny summer cottage on Fire Island.  Since Ralph has to go into Manhattan on work days, Art has ample opportunity to take Candy from–eh–too easy.    Anyway, he’s only borrowing her.   In Candy’s mind, she’d like to be on permanent loan.

Then at a party he meets Liz Kerner, a busty brunette in a blue bikini, who turns out to have a house in Point o’ Woods, a tiny exclusive enclave on the island.  It’s not her only place of residence–not by a long shot.  Liz is loaded, being the daughter of a self-made lumber magnate and a mother who came from old money (that had started to run out, hence the lumber magnate).

She’s also a twin.  Their parents perversely named them both Elizabeth, only the other twin spells it with an ‘s’.  Her sister’s everyday name is Betty.  If you want to know what this name game means, I refer you to a quote I put in my review of Adios Scheherazade (Part 2).  But in brief, Liz is a party girl, and Betty is more straight-laced and respectable–in her own fashion.

The sisters, now in their mid-twenties, were orphaned a few years before, when a piano fell on their parents’ limo.  Yes, I suppose we all would love to drop a piano on some rich people from time to time, but the nice thing about being a writer of fiction is you can actually do it and not get arrested.   We get a few more conservative justices on the Supreme Court, probably even that imaginary loophole will be closed.

So Art and Liz, much to Candy’s disgust, head off for bed, and that outcome was never in doubt, so Art doesn’t really know why he suddenly piped up and said he was a twin as well–with an identical brother named Bart.   But clearly somewhere in the back of his mind is the dream all men have dreamed ever since seeing an attractive pair of siblings (please note I left room for gay guys in there), and particularly twins–“Could I have both, please?”  And having tried to pull the sister-switch before, he knows it just does not work.  There’s only so much even the most intrepid of men can accomplish–but suppose he were not one man, but two?

As he meets the equally well-endowed Betty, and finds himself expanding upon the myth of Bart, Art realizes he’s just got to try it.  He normally wears contacts, but he’s got an old pair of glasses, and he does something with his hair, and without really trying he comes up with an alternate personality for himself–he basically just leaves out all the things that make him interesting, becomes a real straight-arrow gee-whiz kind of guy (a male Betty, in other words), and somehow this seems to give him depth in the very gullible Betty’s eyes (the more cynical Liz is not impressed, but she’s got Art).  Art, as Bart, gets very drunk the night he beds Betty, and when he wakes up, they’re engaged.

Art can’t believe it either.  He’s so overwhelmed by his success, he keeps ignoring the little warning bells going off in his head, telling him that you can take a con too far (Kenny Rogers hadn’t yet recorded that song about how you gotta know when to fold ’em, and anyway, when it comes to busty brunettes, it’s so much more fun to hold ’em).

Art started out looking for random sex with a sultry stranger who smells of salt and sand and sweat–but now he smells money, something he’s never had enough of, and it’s skewing his judgment.  How much can he wangle out of these two matching marks before it’s time to call the charade off?

As he puts it, “I’ve never been familiar enough with money to feel contempt for it,” but like his creator, he feels no end of contempt for those who are excessively familiar with it.  He meets Betty at a party the sisters are throwing to find a suitable buyer for their Point o’ Woods house, and he just can’t believe what a bunch of hopeless squares they are.   You know, the way most of us reacted to the Romneys once we’d had a good look at them?

What kind of party was this to be hosted by two girls in their mid-twenties?  There were perhaps forty people present, but only about a quarter of them were under thirty, and they were as stiff as their elders.  There was no dancing.  In fact, there was scarcely any commingling of the sexes at all; women stood with women to discuss department stores, Arthur Hailey novels, absent friends and other parties, while men grouped with men to talk transportation, taxes, politics, and horses–breeding, not racing.  I actually did hear one man say, as I was strolling past, “After all, racing does improve the breed.”

“Quite the contrary,” I said.  “In point of fact, all our effort is the other way, to make breeding improve the race.”

This being the most incisive remark any of them had ever heard in their lives, I was immediately absorbed into the group, where the man I’d contradicted thrust his hand out and said “Frazier.”

I gave him my honest grip, and said “Dodge.”

Another man said “Of the New Bedford Dodges?”

“Distantly,” I said.

So if the unscrupulous Mr. Dodge is the hero of this story, who could the villain possibly be?   Well, you can’t go wrong with a lawyer, can you?

Mr. Volpinex had apparently been my age when he’d died, several thousand years ago, and in the depths of the pyramids had been given this simulacrum of life.  The ancient chemists had died his flesh a dark unhealthy tan, and painted his teeth with that cheap gloss white enamel used in rent-controlled apartments.   His black suit was surely some sort of oil by-product, and so was his smile.

“I take it,” this thing said, extending its hand, “I am addressing Mr Arthur Dodge?”

“That’s right.”  His hand was as dry as driftwood.

“I am Ernest Volpinex,” he said, and gave himself away.  No real thirty-year-old would have reached into his vest pocket at that juncture and given me his card.  So my first guess was right; he was the undead.

Volpinex introduces himself as the attorney for the Kerner estate, though it comes out later he only works for Liz, not Betty–and he would like very much to marry either of them, Betty in particular, but he’d settle for Liz.  He’s as mercenary as Art, but so much less amiable, and he sees the more charming Art and his more virtuous twin as threats to his supposed hegemony over the Kerner sisters, which is indeed the case–though not in quite the way he thinks of course, because a man of his humorless temperament couldn’t imagine the twin con in a million years.

Volpinex–is this a little wink of the eye at Ben Jonson’s Volpone?  I rather think so, but I also think he’s another of Westlake’s beast-men, like Parker, only corrupted (like Quittner, or Leon Ten Eyck)–a fox in human form, but no Reynard the Trickster he (that would be more Art’s line).  He readily admits to having no functioning sense of humor, seeing it as a sign of unreliability.  Rather critically to our story, he is exactly the same age, height, and build as Art, though no one could ever mistake them for twins.  He’s a Starkian doppelganger,  invading the world of a Westlake protagonist, but in his mind, Art is the intruder.

In a later, very telling conversation he and Art have at his club, Art tells him humor is what separates us from the animals, to which Volpinex responds rather perceptively that parrots tell jokes and hyenas laugh.  Art asks him what does separate man from the other animals, then.  “Nothing,” he responds, and they proceed to have a very civilized lunch, full of raw oysters, fine wine, and veiled threats.

As Volpinex runs background checks on him and Bart, Art asks the thick-headedly loyal Ralph (still in the dark about Candy) to run a check in the other direction, and it comes out that Mr. Volpinex’s wife died under mysterious circumstances a few years previous.  We are left in little doubt that he has already murdered someone very close to him to clear a path between him and the Kerner fortune.  In for a penny, in for a pound.

To make things worse, Mr. Volpinex is a martial arts expert, as well as a squash player who takes the name of his game a mite too literally, as Art finds out after lunch at the club.  And perversely, his ever-escalating threats, mingled with the occasional bribe, just make Art more determined to follow through with his scheme, even though he’s just making it up as he goes along, and he hasn’t really figured out any kind of endgame yet.  This is very much out of Peter Rabe, by the way–the criminal protagonist keeps getting himself deeper and deeper into an impossible situation, partly because he’s determined to defeat a rival even worse than him who is after the same unreachable prize–he wins–and it doesn’t matter.  The game was not worth the candle.  But hey, a Pyrrhic victory is better than none.

Before he actually ties the knot with Betty, Art meets a rather different kind of girl than either of the Kerner sisters.  Linda Ann Margolies, a grad student at Columbia, finishing her master’s thesis on comedy.  She’s extremely familiar with Art’s work, both as an ad copywriter and a purveyor of snarky greeting cards, and she arranges to meet with him at his office, looking to do some research.  You know how I like to say that while Westlake’s protagonists don’t invariably make the right choices, he always gives them a chance to do so?  Linda’s the chance.

Ah, yes, there are moments when I understand cannibalism.  Food imagery kept filling my head as I looked at this lush morsel: home-baked pastry, crepes suzette, ripe peaches.  If she were any shorter, it would be too much, overblown, fit for a gourmand rather than a gourmet, but she was just tall enough to cool the effect slightly and thereby become perfect.  Sex without loss of status, how lovely.  “Come in, Miss Margolies,” I said, and ignored the jaundiced lip-curl of Gloria in the background.

You know how I know when Westlake is describing his feminine ideal?  When his description of her is simultaneously rapturously evocative and frustratingly vague.  Just as with Claire Carroll, we never learn the color of her eyes or hair or anything, we just know she’s very full-figured (in contradistinction to the model-slim Claire–like any true admirer of female beauty, Westlake knew that perfection comes in many sizes and shapes).  Margolies is typically a Jewish name, of course.  Which doesn’t tell us what she looks like, but we can make some educated guesses.  If they made yet another movie adaptation right now–


(Hey, Linda’s got to work her way through Columbia somehow).

So we have a lively exchange of questions, answers, ideas, and one-liners, part of which you can see up top, climaxing with Art, feeling correctly that Linda has dared him to come around his desk and take her on the floor, does precisely that, to their very mutual pleasure.  You know, maybe Don Juan will always wind up in hell in the end, and Captain MacHeath is going to the gallows in all but the most contrived of finales, but somehow one can’t help feeling there are compensations…

Westlake had by this time fully mastered the art of having a narrator tell us more than he intends, or even realizes, and it’s obvious to us–but not to Art–that Linda is more than just another easy lay to him.  Mr. Westlake has dangled a potential soulmate in front of his anti-Nephew, someone who can not only accept him as he is, but prefer him that way.  Only she’s got no money.   She’s just another penniless adventurer, albeit of a more intellectual bent.  And he finds it oddly disconcerting that she knows him so well when they’ve only just met.   She was reading those cards very closely.  She knows what the clown is hiding behind his puns and pratfalls.  She was seeing what he wrote between the lines.  Somebody please love meThe real meWhoever that is.

And this is, sadly, the last we see of the luscious Linda in this novel, though she periodically reaches out to Art, by phone and by mail, sensing their connection, wanting to make something of it, and he thinks about it, even yearns for it, but there’s so much else going on right now, you see.  And this is Westlake testing Art, hitting him over the head really, yelling in his ear, “Hey–dummy!  That’s The Girl.”  But Art is just too much in love with his own cleverness to listen.  Until it’s much too late.   And much as I wish we men were not that stupid–well, as my female readers (I must have some) will know all too well, we’re just precisely that stupid at times–even when we don’t have rich sexy twins to distract us.

So it’s back to the fortune hunt, and what follows is not so much a tango as a lively gavotte, with Art changing partners (and identities) at a rate that both we and he have a hard time keeping pace with.  The only variation we don’t get is Liz sleeping with Bart, but she does propose marriage to Art, much to his horror–and temptation, because she’s offering (via a contract drawn up by Volpinex) an arrangement any penniless Lothario would cheerfully sell his soul for, if he had one.  No romantic strings attached, on either side–and two thousand a month for Art.   And hey–what is it about these Kerner sisters that makes them so eager to get hitched to twin brothers they barely know, who they’ve never even seen in the same place at the same time?

The answer keeps coming out the same way–money.  See, Liz had told Art half a truth–that if she didn’t get married soon, she’d take a huge tax hit (Pre-Reagan era, remember, the rich had to work harder to hold onto their money back then).

But in fact, she and Betty are suing each other for control of the Kerner fortune, along with a host of minor relations, and because of the terms of their father’s will, they both need a husband to win out, and their social circle simply doesn’t include anyone who is both presentable and available, the way Art and Bart so prodigiously are.   Okay, it probably doesn’t hurt that they’re both so good in the sack (though in a rather identity-rattling moment for Art, when Betty cheats on her non-existent husband with his increasingly confused ‘brother’ one night, she whispers in Art’s ear that he’s better).

Betty, more accomplished at fooling herself than Liz (because she’s so much more invested in the culture that goes with their class), believes she is genuinely in love with Bart, who was concocted mainly as a male version of herself.   Liz, by contrast, is genuinely like Art in many ways, and has been rebelling against her class with her hard-partying lifestyle and sarcastic asides, but it’s all an act, and she knows it.  She doesn’t own the  money, it owns her–at one point, she asks Art how he thinks she’d have reacted if he’d turned down her very unromantic proposal. “You would have loved me more, but you wouldn’t be marrying me,” Art suggests.  And she’s very unhappy to realize that’s exactly right.   He sees her looking at herself in the mirror later, frowning strangely.  Art’s is by no means the only identity crisis in this story.  But it’s the only one that gets definitively resolved.

So many twists and turns in this one, so many ruses, reversals, and revelations.  I could easily turn this review into a two or even three-parter recounting only half of them, but you all know what bedroom farce is, right?   That’s the fun part of the book, and there’s quite a lot of it (286 pages in the first edition hardcover) but it’s not all sex, lies, and gigolo japes.  It’s got a lot to say, and as Bernard Shaw had his Don Juan remark, there is much to be learned from a cynical devil–you definitely won’t find a sentimental one here.

The identity of an adventurer–or a comedian, same difference–isn’t terribly well-rooted to begin with.  Constantly putting on masks, rarely if ever letting them slip, Art is barely on speaking terms with himself, but he is capable of moments of real insight when prodded.  Like what he tells Linda, about a minute before he fucks her on the floor.   She’s just asked him why some people choose comedy as their defense against the many dangers of this world.

Taking a deep breath, I said “Because the comic is a killer himself, that’s why.   The comic is the last civilized man to feel the killer inside himself.  We’re omnivores, little girl, and that means we’ll eat anything that stands still, we’ll eat anything that doesn’t have flashing lights.  ‘Comedy instead of some other defense,’ you said, and that’s right.  Comedy is surprise.  I make you laugh, that means I surprise you, that means you’ll keep your distance, you won’t attack.  Laugh meters should record in megadeaths, because that’s what comedy is all about; I kill you for practice to keep you from killing me for real.”

And, self-evidently, to keep from having to kill anyone else for real, and here’s the thing about Art–he’s a complete and total bastard, not a redeeming trait in him, but he’s got not one ounce of malice in him–towards anyone.  He just wants to enjoy his brief time on earth as best he can, to have both a variety of pleasurable experiences and absolute liberty, and that’s hard, folks.  Very few ever manage that balancing act for long (some rich and famous people can fake it to beat the band, but it’s all done with mirrors) and he’s been teetering on the high wire for some time now.   He wants the money the Kerners proffer, because he thinks that will stabilize him.   Oh that it will, Art.

Volpinex had him pegged, at the club, when he offered Art 30 grand in venture capital in exchange for backing away from the Kerner sisters.  It seems an improbably on-target assessment from such a soulless drip, but we all have hidden depths, I suppose.

“You are not quite the standard fortune-hunter,” he said, “some money-mad chauffeur out to make a quick killing.  You are better than that, more educated, more intelligent, more talented.”

I put my fork down and stared at him.  “Now you’re trying to sell me an encyclopedia.”

He ignored that, saying, “If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll admit that you enjoy the life you already have: the freedom, some sense of adventure and experiment, the opportunity to employ your talent.”

“And the bill collectors,” I said.  “They’re my favorites.”

He nodded, thoughtfully.  “The money Elizabeth offered you has gone to your head, and why not?  It’s a lot of money.  But it isn’t what you really want.”

Ah, but you see, Mr. Volpinex, for a man to know what he really wants, he has to know what he really is.  Maybe you know it reflexively, being more of a Starkian figure, however corrupted.   But Art Dodge is just a man, and he’s never taken the time to figure himself out, because the answers would have come with a few too many inconvenient questions, that might get in the way of his fun.  That might force him to grow up.

He just figures he can kill Bart off when the time is right, so Art can thrive–or the other way around–what’s the difference?   What’s in a name?  It’s just another Dodge.

When the whole twin act falls to bits, as Art always knew must happen eventually, he’s unprepared for it–he’s got no escape hatch ready.  He has to start killing people to keep his secret.  Or else honestly face up to the consequences of his myriad deceptions, something no cad ever willingly does–that’s what makes him a cad.   And if the comedian kills you symbolically, to keep from having to kill you for real, that means Art Dodge is comedian no more.   He’s the other kind of murderer, and his identity has been irreparably compromised.  Not least by the fact that he has become fabulously wealthy and powerful–and it turns out he’s very good at it.  Money has no loyalties, you know.  The Kerner money is Dodge money now.  And it couldn’t care less.

A strange way to punish a rogue.  A strange hell for Don Giovanni to descend into.   But that is precisely what we’re witnessing here.  Art Dodge is dead.  And damned.  And there’s not enough left of him to care.

It doesn’t happen all at once.  He resists.  He tells himself “I am becoming Volpinex” and the thought truly horrifies him (choose your enemy carefully…).  But the inexorable twin pulls of survival and money keep dragging him down, forcing him to become an alien creature, as spiritually mummified as his now-deceased rival.

As the story concludes, he’s in his old office, giving up Folksy Cards, giving Gloria two thousand bucks severance–clearly saddened at the end of their relationship, she asks won’t he need a secretary where he’s going?  He suggests she talk to the consortium of disgruntled artists he’s held at bay for years, who will take his place.   She can see something is terribly wrong, but she can’t understand it.  He tells us she squints at him, as though he’s surrounded by smoke.  We realize that there really was somebody who loved this clown for himself–and will mourn his passing.

And maybe one other.  Gloria hands Art a card from Linda Ann Margolies–whose master’s thesis he tried to read, found it rather frivolous, how could he have been attracted to someone so common, so immature?  Sitting at his desk for the very last time, he concludes what we now realize was an extended epitaph for his soul.

I very nearly tossed it out at once–something about my brief encounter with that girl bothered me, I couldn’t say what–but curiosity got the upper hand.  Opening it, I found a greeting card inside of the kind I used to publish, though not one from my company.  The front showed a man in the front half of a horse suit, with a theater’s stage in the background.  Inside, it said, “I just can’t go on without you.”

Was that supposed to be funny?  I threw it away.


In the massed ranks of the books Westlake published in his lifetime,  there is only one that can stand beside this in terms of a truly chilling anti-climax (still a ways off, and much more in the Starkian mode, with more than a touch of Coe).

For all his understandable cynicism about the human race, his black Irish melancholia, Westlake was a hopeful optimistic person by nature, and something in him hated to let his heroes die–even if they lost everything, they still had themselves (indeed, losing everything might prove the very best way to find yourself, as many a visionary has opined).  Perhaps this aversion to killing his protagonists stemmed from him wanting to be a just God to the people he breathed life into–perhaps because it was too much like suicide by typewriter.

But in this breezy bedroom farce of his, having so much in common in its style and plot material with the desultory sleaze novels he’d cranked out under false names earlier in his career,  he truly does rise above the material at last, even as he shows his hero sinking ever-deeper into moral quicksand.  There were a million ways he could have ended this one, and he chose the truest and most painful.   And it seems damned few people at the time appreciated that.

‘Newgate Callendar,’ whose New York Times review of Butcher’s Moon I referenced a few weeks back, just could not seem to wrap his mind around the fact that Mr. Westlake was never going to be content to be a mere composer of light entertainments for our momentary diversion.   The first edition of the next book we’ll be looking at bore a blurb from his review of this one, acclaiming Westlake “The Neil Simon of the Crime Novel,” but read in context, that’s not so much a compliment as a politely worded put-down.

Callendar always paid warm tribute to Westlake’s skill as a writer, while obtusely failing to understand his choices as a storyteller (it’s tragic but hardly surprising that he succeeded the far more qualified Anthony Boucher as the prime writer on the mystery genre for the Times).  As he saw it, this book “belabors a situation that is impossible to begin with, ends up with too pat a solution and turns farce into tragedy.  The author of the book is the deus ex machina and that is always a cop-out.”

Leaving aside the tiresomely obvious fact that the author of every book ever written is the deus ex machina, it is precisely the turning of farce into tragedy that elevates this book above most of the other stories Westlake wrote about confused harried bachelors with overly complex personal lives.  Newgate Callendar, in his everyday guise of Harold C. Schonberg, may have been a brilliant music critic–when it came to discussing mere technique–but why do I suspect that if he’d been critiquing Mozart while the latter was still alive, he’d have missed the point of every opera?  Just like most of Mozart’s contemporaries did.

Diabolus ex machina would be more to the point, since Westlake has tempted his hero with Mephistophelian ingenuity–while still clearly pointing him towards the path to redemption, which he fails to follow, or even recognize.  And this is entirely logical for the character we’ve been shown.  It’s no cop-out–it’s a fair cop, as the Brits say.  And yes, contrived as all hell, but that’s no less true of the Dortmunders, which Callendar heartily approved of–because he didn’t take them seriously.  More fool he.

All this modern-day Faust had to do was say to Linda “Stay, thou art beautiful!” (the precise meaning of her name in Spanish) and he would have been saved, even if he remained as lecherous, light-fingered, and leering as ever.  His damnation lay in his failure to know himself well enough to withstand temptation–not of the flesh, but of filthy lucre (Westlake whole-heartedly approved of temptations of the flesh; much as they may need to be resisted at times, to resist them at all times is to fail at life).

And yet, I fear it was Newgate Callendar’s take on this book that won out, at least in the short term.  People wanted the farce, bedrooms and all, sans the tragedy–the people making movies certainly did.  Film producers hear “Neil Simon” and think “Money”, so it got two film adaptations, as already noted–one French and one American.  The French one starred one of those comic actors nobody but the French care about, and had a happy ending. I suspect this is the better of the two, but it still sounds pretty bad.

The American one came ten years later, and starred Antonio Banderas (well, at least that makes Art’s romantic prowess more believable), and the sisters were played by Melanie Griffith and Daryl Hannah, which of course destroys the whole twin angle, and Art is an artist (the kind who paints), and I’ve never seen it, and I don’t care if I ever do.  I mean, if you have to stick a happy ending on it, why not Art and Linda going off into the sunset?  Because Linda is too small a part to tempt a big star, and of course one big star has to end up with another big star.  And virtue has to be rewarded–not self-understanding, which was the point of the book.  For some reason, self-understanding isn’t usually a big thing in Tinseltown.

“Thus do we artists adapt the facts of our own lives to the purposes of our art.”  So Art Dodge tells us, as he scrawls the text for yet another witty greeting card on the Fire Island Ferry.  Westlake knew the temptations of money very well–and I think he often lusted for big material success, the blockbuster best-seller he never got–and feared it at the same time.  Somebody as talented and prolific as him really should have been rich at some point, right?  Why didn’t he ever get there?  Maybe, on some level, because he didn’t want to.  Because without the need to get up every day and dodge bill collectors, dodge exes, dodge rivals, the supreme dodge that is art would fall away from  him, never to be regained.

It wouldn’t necessarily for everyone.  I’m sure Stephen King is a nice enough person in real life, and he’s written some very good books since he got rich.  If he’s written anything as good as Two Much, I’m not aware of it.  Well, that’s just my opinion.  And it’s a different thing to earn your money through creativity than through connivance.  Not all rich guys with political aspirations are stick-in-the-mud bores, as we’ve had occasion to learn recently–but self-understanding will never be theirs.  And their only real love affairs are with themselves.  But they provide ample material for the true clowns of the world.  So ridi, Pagliacci.  Ridi.

Our next book could not be more different from this one, and yet I’d argue it was intended as a companion piece to it–Westlake must have written one right after the other, maybe working on both at the same time.  It features a slightly older and ultimately much wiser protagonist, and a Nephew he is, to his very core–but he’s a Nephew with lots of brothers, and that makes all the difference.  And if you’ll excuse me now, I’ve got to try and get that review finished by October 25th.  I must say, I’ll be very impressed with any of my readers who understand why that particular date.  Oh, for a muse of fire….

(Part of Friday’s Forgotten Books)


Filed under Donald Westlake film adaptations, Donald Westlake novels, Two Much

32 responses to “Review: Two Much

  1. Anthony

    I first read this in paperback – the one with Art Dodge lying sideways in front of the two blonde instead of brunette girls in the pink bikinis. You probably cannot tell from the jpgs, but these were interesting because the bikinis and the words Two Much were a fuzzy pink fabric glued to the front of the book. As a teenager at the time, I had to hide it from my mother.

    You nailed it – Art Dodge is an out and out bastard, although without malice. Just pure selfish I want IT and I want it NOW and nothing else matters.

    • You can’t tell from an online image, but I know exactly what you’re talking about, since that was also my introduction to Two Much, though I now additionally own an M. Evans first edition, courtesy of my currently absent colleague Ray Garraty’s collector-mania (he bought up a huge lot of Westlakes on ebay, and he only wanted the ones he didn’t have already shipped to him in Russia). I think Art looks like Ryan Reynolds on that one. I hate Ryan Reynolds. His wife seems nice (said in my best George Sanders voice). 😉

      Art, at the cusp of adulthood, had to choose between two paths–the hard and painful path to maturity–and maybe love–or the path to wealth and power and spiritual death. He chose the latter. Many have. It hurts to watch him die. Honestly, if I were put in charge of a film adaptation, I’d be sorely tempted to get him out of that fix, send him into the waiting arms of Linda Ann Margolies, keep the clown alive and kvetching. Westlake must have been tempted too. But he was listening closely to his character, and he let the story go its own way.

      • Anthony

        Another complaint about the fuzzy cover (besides the blonde Misses Eliz-sabeth). Art in a suit and tie? Did the artist assume Dodge was a Frazier or a Grahame?

        • I have to give that artist credit–he (or she) picked up on the fact that Liz and Betty are two very different people, in spite of being physically identical. Liz is holding up a glass of champagne or whatever, and Betty is mincing like a good girl, only you know she’s not really that good down deep. So he got the hair wrong, big deal. The two brunettes on the British cover are probably truest to the physical description, but there’s no attempt to give them different personalities.

          I assume Art puts on a tie when he has to–protective coloration, as I mentioned elsewhere. Anyway, maybe he’s the kind of womanizer who likes to ‘suit up’. 😉

  2. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers (twins, even)…

    I must say, I admire Two Much for sticking to its guns and declining to redeem an irredeemable character. Westlake had me good and snookered, confident that our “hero” would find a shred of scruples before the proceedings were done. But no. It’s a dark thriller disguised as a comic romp. Bravo.

    I find it fitting that you reference Sunset Boulevard. Wilder is one of my favorite directors. He imagined many a regular-guy protagonist whose morals had never been seriously tested before the events depicted onscreen, characters who had always more or less gotten by on hustle and charm. Some (C.C. Baxter, Joe/Josephine, John Pringle) manage to find the humanity within themselves before the film’s end, while others (Walter Neff, Joe Gillis, Chuck Tatum) do not. But Wilder, genius that he was, made us feel for all of them, root for them even.

    I don’t know if I was exactly rooting for Art/Bart, but I stayed with him every step of the way. He never completely lost me, even when he added murder to his resume. I haven’t seen either film adaptation, but I can’t imagine either one of them working, not without a filmmaker as acerbic as Wilder at the helm. And really, what present-day director is that acerbic? Okay, I’ll answer my own question: The Coen brothers. If they decide to adapt Two Much, let me know. Until then, I’ll stick with the book.

    • Yeah, what Wilder said at Ernst Lubitsch’s funeral (and William Wyler’s response) applies just as much to him. There are levels of what I’d call compassionate cynicism that only he could reach–in a movie. Westlake certainly matches Wilder jape for jape in this one.

      And Westlake can do what no filmmaker ever could–show us the hero’s soul-death from the inside–how hard was that transition to write? I can’t see the joins, for the life of me. It just sneaks up on you that in the course of telling his story, Art’s become a completely different person.

      Actually, if he were only good at light playful comedy (and he’s not, sadly), David Cronenberg might be the very man for this one. I’m thinking of his version of The Fly, and A History of Violence. He knows how to get that kind of terrifying transformational performance out of an actor. I wonder what he’d have done with The Ax?

      Well, if there’s one thing we know about Westlake, he never gets the right people to adapt his work. And you think that’s just bad luck? I wonder. He could have held out more often, waited a bit longer, fielded a few more offers–yes, he needed those Hollywood checks, but think how much bigger they’d have been if he’d gotten the right production team–never one hit movie made from any of his books, and some of the movies had big stars. I have to wonder if that’s at least partly the Art in him, dodging too much success.

      Art commits three murders, which as I said earlier, disqualifies him from consideration as a Nephew, and yet I think if he’d only killed Volpinex, he might have come out of it. It was the other two, still reflexive but somehow more considered killings that sunk him. And in fact, other than Parker killing the treacherous Alma in The Man With the Getaway Face (who clearly had it coming), I don’t think any Westlake character ever gets away with willfully murdering a woman. He always pays for it–but rarely if ever in the obvious way.

      (And I am most impressed, but then, I always am.)

      • It’s also the birthday of one of the Dodge brothers.

        • And for all I know, this is the first time anywhere that anybody has noted this–publicly, at least. Other than Westlake, of course. But you see what I mean about all the little jokes he buried in his books, like easter eggs waiting to be discovered. These two in particular really are companion volumes–the basic Westlake protagonist taken to his two possible extremes. Meaning, I suppose, Westlake himself trying to gauge his own two possible extremes. Though he found a few others before he was done.

  3. I actually thought of that quote when Westlake died: “Worse than that. No more Westlake novels.” That turned out to be not entirely true, but we’ll get to that.

    I can think of one other Westlake protagonist who gets away with murdering a woman, but I suppose “willfully” is giving you some wiggle room.

    • You don’t mean the one right after The Ax, right? That protagonist would have preferred prison or the chair to what he came home to after the fade. I confess, having only read it once when it came out, I’m a bit fuzzy on the fine plot details of that other book you reference by inference, but Westlake never published that one. It’s a lot of stories to keep straight in one head. I’m constantly surprised when I reread each book for the review.

      It’s not as if Westlake thinks murder is okay if you didn’t mean it. If anything, that may make it worse, particularly in a Stark novel. But in some situations, killing doesn’t automatically make you a killer. It depends, perhaps, on how you react to it. Or don’t react to it.

      Editing–ohhh, I know which one you mean! Monsters don’t count. 😉

  4. I am talking about The Ax, but the ending you’re alluding to sounds more like The Hook to me. But we’re both being somewhat cryptic, so we might just be commenting past each other.

    • My first guess was The Hook, and then Sacred Monster. No point talking in code here. The Ax is all about murder, so it’s something of a special case. I didn’t remember Devore killing a woman in that one–collateral damage, I guess? I hope I can cover that book in two parts. Not making any promises.

      • Collateral damage indeed. A case of mistaken identity and a mother who badly misreads the situation.

        But if I could un-tangetize the conversation for a moment: In Two Much, I love that it’s never clear if Volpinex actually is a fortune hunter, as Art assesses him, or if he’s exactly what he proclaims himself to be: a man in love with Betty and deeply invested in the welfare of both sisters. He’s certainly right that Art/Bart are very bad choices forth Eliz(s)abeth. Since we only see him from Art’s cynical, near-sociopathic perspective, we never get an unbiased read of the character. I kept expecting a final reveal that would lay bare his true intentions, but damn if Westlake didn’t dash that expectation as well.

        • I think it’s pretty clear, Greg. Art tells us that it comes out after Volpinex gets blamed for murdering Betty and someone who never existed that investigators felt the circumstances of his wife’s death were suspicious–and his reaction to Art accusing him of murdering his wife is not that of an innocent man.

          After all, Liz could solve her problem very easily by marrying Volpinex (who she’s been screwing on the side anyway), and she won’t–because her survival instincts are telling her this is not somebody you ever allow to get the upper hand (Art slips past her radar, somehow–people always underestimate the comedian).

          And it’s so very Westlake to have a murderer take the rap for murders he never committed, instead of his own.

          But I would say that Art is, to some extent, projecting his own comically sublimated murderous feelings onto his Starkian doppelganger–who ends up becoming the template for his new existence, even as his body goes up in smoke. In that sense, Volpinex wins their duel–not in the flesh, but in the spirit. He gets what he was after all along–not the twins, but their money–but through a surrogate.

          By the bye, I know Westlake was never much impressed with police forensic methods–primetime television towards the end of his life must have been a source of endless chagrin for him, all those perpetually propagating procedurals and their irritating initials–but wouldn’t Volpinex have gone to the dentist sometime? Isn’t checking dental records pretty much standard operating procedure in a case like this?

          Ah, but Art shot him right in the face–right in the mouth, it seems (Art says in his ‘drainpipe’)–maybe there was too much damage to those glossy whites for them to be forensically useful. The main thing is, the cops had a viable suspect, whose fingerprints were on the murder weapon, and as Westlake knew qite well, in real life, as opposed to procedural TV dramas, police often prefer closing a case to genuinely solving it.

          • I don’t know if I agree. Volpinex is an unpleasant character to be sure, but I don’t believe he’s (necessarily) a villain. All those suspicions about his wife’s death only come to the surface after Art frames him for two other murders. I think it’s another example of cops trying to close a case rather than genuinely solve it. Or maybe there is not case. Maybe it really was an accident, but a small-town Maine cop is trying to grab some of the big-city spotlight by asserting a tangential connection to a splashy murder case. And again, everything is filtered through Art, and Art projects the worst aspects of himself onto everybody he encounters.

            • And Volpinex thinks there’s no difference between people and animals, and while I may not be willing to dismiss that argument out of hand (as you know, I tend to think we’re rather worse when we put our minds to it), that isn’t the attitude of a man who is above killing, if need be. However, he’d always prefer to do his murdering by legal methods.

              They are mirror images of each other, two very different types of bastard–otherwise, why would it be so horrible that Art becomes Volpinex? As himself, he can’t live with what he’s done, it horrifies him. As Volpinex, he doesn’t give it a second thought. That’s a big part of his transformation. Adaptive coloration. You become what you hate.

              As I said, this is a pattern Westlake got from Rabe, more than anyone else (though you can find it elsewhere, in Thompson, for example). To make the audience identify with a bastard, put him up against a worse bastard. Have him win, but only at a very high price.

              Art wasn’t really a killer until Volpinex pushed him into being one–he had the potential, but only because everyone does. He could never have planned that kind of thing, because he’s an amateur. Volpinex is a professional. It can’t be proven, and for the purposes of the story, it doesn’t need to be, but I think he did it. It’s just too convenient that he met the Kerners, saw their money, and his wife died in an accident.

  5. Anthony

    I have a different perspective on the genesis and fate of Linda Ann Margolies.

    This comes back to something I’ve read in several Westlake interviews. He said often that he wrote in a style he called “narrative push,” meaning that he’d set something up and let the characters lead the way through the story. Example: the question “what would happen if Dortmunder crossed paths with Tony Soprano?” ultimately ended up as Watch Your Back. This approach didn’t always work, which is why some projects morphed into something else (like the birth of Dortmunder) and others were abandoned along the way, but it usually got him a complete novel.

    It is also clear that Westlake liked to try new things. His admiration of writers who could tell great stories without reliance on adverbs and descriptions of underlying emotions led to the experiment that became decades of Parker and Stark. A suggestion that he try something different from his standard body of work nagged at him until he wrote Humans.

    So I think he asked himself “can I write about a sociopath, make it funny, and get away with it?” then let the narrative push take over. The opening sentence about just wanting to get laid essentially racked up the balls, let him make a good break, then play the table (not to mention, it also allowed him to utilize his pulp past to good advantage now that the 70s were more open to sex in hardback).

    The book bounces around a lot between old fashioned screwball and, as you point out, darker realms. I don’t agree, however, that the introduction of Linda Ann Margolies to the narrative is as predetermined as you have suggested. I think narrative push brought her there because Art Dodge is a horndog and it was time to give him another ball to juggle in the screwball part of the plot. She turned out to be more or less his equal, at least wise-guy wise, so Westlake got to write some great dialogue and probably slept well that night as a result. Sure, maybe he was thinking this was a pathway to the standard guy gets the girl at the end, but my guess he was still waiting to see what further mischief Art could get into before deciding. In my pool table analogy, she’s the nine ball near a pocket, but there are more interesting shots to make first. And if the game rendered the nine ball irrelevant then that would be the last we’d have seen of Linda Ann.

    Of course, Westlake may have wanted to pave a way for a manila envelope that could be confused with another one, but who can say? I imagine he intended Volpinex to eventually figure out the Bart scam, and there are any number of screwball things one can do with identical looking items (What’s Up Doc?, Dancing Aztecs, the list goes on). But for Linda to have been brought in deliberately as Art’s unrecognized perfect woman strikes me as more outlining and planning ahead than Westlake ever acknowledged doing. It’s more of a lucky accident.

    I could see it if Westlake began the book KNOWING that Art Dodge would become a murderer at the end, and not just a murderer, but one who has no emotions about death beyond self-preservation. But I don’t think Westlake did. I doubt that he had anything else in mind when he started chapter one than having a cad narrate about pretending to be a twin so he could screw twins, then seeing what happened. What happened was that Art Dodge eventually found murder to be the solution and Westlake was curious enough to go with what was becoming a black comedy rather than standard screwball. After all, if it didn’t work, he could always rewrite the third act.

    But it did work. And having worked, he needed an ending with punch. “What do you know, I got away with it and now I’m rich” was weak. So Linda Ann Margolies, unbeknownst to her, returns to the narrative in order to be treated with the total indifference Westlake needed to demonstrate that Art’s “journey to the dark side was complete.”

    And I’m not sure he wrote as masterfully curt an ending to a book again until Comeback.

    • My reading of the chapter with Linda is, of course, heavily colored by my interpretation of this as an anti-Nephew narrative. In many respects, this is a Nephew story, and Westlake knew that he’d written a bunch of these types of stories before, and what do we find in all of them? The Girl.

      And whatever else you may think about Westlake, he believed in The Girl. He wouldn’t have gotten married three times, fully intending each new bride to be the last, if he hadn’t believed in The Girl. She’s out there somewhere. You just have to find Her–or let Her find you. Westlake was a romantic, and while he gave fullest expression to this side of him in Stark, it’s always there. Love in real life is very imperfect and often disappointing, but without at least the possibility of finding it, what’s the point?

      Now to be sure, there were some exceptions to the “Nephew Gets Girl” pattern–because as you say, he liked to change things up. The Busy Body and I Gave At The Office didn’t have that romantic happy ending. Neither does our next book. But they all have versions of The Girl in them, all of them flawed in some way. But suppose The Girl left nothing to be desired, but The Nephew failed to see what was being dangled right in front of his nose? As Nephews in real life do all the time?

      That’s narrative push. He lets the characters talk to him. He lets them show him where the story needs to go. Tolstoy starts writing Anna Karenina as a story of a bad woman who deserves her fate, and then Anna, only half molded from the clay, speaks to him, implores him, “I am a human being as well! What choices was I given? What would you have done in my place?” and he softens towards her, changes the arc of the narrative to give her some justice, making her final tragedy a thousand times more powerful.

      Linda isn’t just some incidental character, an extra dessert teetering at the edge of an already overloaded plate. She’s pivotal to the story, in spite of playing such a small role in it. That’s why the story ends with her making one last try to pull Art back from the edge of self-immolation. Because otherwise, as you say, the ending just kind of lacks something. That final grace note.

      Now as to whether he intended Linda to be there from the start–that’s a separate issue. She might have been added to the mix along the way. So might any number of other things that seem integral to the book. That’s how Westlake worked, you’re right.

      Hell, that’s how I work–when you’re reading this or that review, ponder the fact that many a seemingly crucial observation or quote I put in there wasn’t even remotely in my mind when I started writing it. If you know exactly what you’re putting into a piece of writing before you start, it’s probably not even worth starting. It’s the journey that matters, not where you plan to end up.

      It’s a bit like Michelangelo saying that the sculpture was already there in the marble before he started carving at it. The Girl was always going to be there in this kind of story before Westlake started writing it, but he might not always have known who she would be until it was finished. I see some hints that maybe he thought Liz was The Girl (which would have made her ultimate end that much more horrible–not sure Westlake could have done that). But she’s too much like Art to be his other half. And she understands herself too poorly to understand anyone else.

      No, the point is to show that not everyone in Art’s universe is crazy, not everyone is completely self-absorbed and lost. Art is the way he is because he assumes everyone else is either as cynical and selfish as him, or else a stupid mark lining up to be taken–and he’s got good reason to think that. But he’s still wrong. It’s Linda’s job to show both him and us that you can be wide-awake, full of laughter and joie de vivre, alive to the innumerable possibilities of life–and still give a damn about someone else.

      She’s there to show that the human enterprise isn’t entirely hopeless. We’re not all damned. It depends on the choices we make. But we’re free to make the wrong choices. Under the Great God Westlake, or whatever deity rules this more chaotic world we live in. And Westlake wouldn’t have it any other way. Without freedom, including the freedom to screw up, life isn’t worth living.

  6. Anthony

    Actually, it occurs to me that one flaw to my argument is the literal Chekov’s Gun Westlake introduces early in the story – implying he intended for Art to murder his way out of things (at least all things lawyerly) all along.

    Unless he went back and added it later when he knew that’s where Art was going.

    As you have not doubt thought yourself – Damn, it’s a pity he’s not around anymore so we could just ask him.

    The letters WTF were not in the vernacular when I was a teenager first reading this book, but that’s exactly what went through my mind. Not when he killed Volpinex. He was a “bad guy.” Ergo, he had it “coming” in the rules of storytelling long established in everything from John Wayne movies to bad TV cop shows.

    No, the WTF was when he killed Betty. THAT was one hell of a narrative push.

    • Yeah, that’s where you know for sure this is not a Nephew story. And it’s kind of brilliant how he blames Hollywood movies for that. Brilliant and unfair–I can’t actually think of any Hollywood movie that has a scene where the protagonist kills a bad guy in a fight, then kills a woman he’s involved with who discovers him with the body, just to shut her up–without even trying to explain what happened. Not even George Sanders ever did that.

      But maybe Art doesn’t think of himself as the hero of the piece? Any way you look at it, it wasn’t a common thing in movies, even in the 70’s. Which is why it never happened in either of the movies they made from this book.

      He does not have to do that, of course. He doesn’t know Volpinex has sent a copy of his findings to Liz. He could calm Betty down, tell her Volpinex was going to kill him (as opposed to beat him to a pulp and then turn him in to the cops)–he’s sold her far riper lines of bullshit. But basically, he was already in a disturbed state of mind, and her panic infects him. Shooting her is the only way for him to calm down.

      Thing is, if he really were a sociopath (or a predator in human form), that’s exactly what he’d have done. Talk to her first, find out what’s possible. Don’t make murder the answer to everything. He’s just a clown who suddenly found himself in the wrong story, and had to improvise. He never at any point plans a murder. Really, he never plans anything. He just deals with the consequences of things he did impulsively, starting with his telling a woman he just met he’s a twin. Amateur brilliance, Westlake called it–this, like the Nephew books, is about an amateur (in all matters other than amatory)–amateurs improvise. In a Stark novel, it always catches up with them. But this isn’t a Stark novel, so it catches up with him in a different way–he loses his amateur status–and his amatory nature. He can never love anything but money now.

      I don’t think Westlake ever made a sociopath the lead character in anything he ever wrote. I think he felt like that was a cop-out. We all have a killer inside us. You don’t need an elaborate back-story, ala Jim Thompson, to explain it. Some of us are closer to the edge of murder than others, but none of us are all that far away from it, if pushed hard enough. And with a gun in our hands–well–you’ve seen the news. There can’t be that many real sociopaths out there. :\

      If he were around, and we did ask him, I wonder if he’d remember? So many books, so many choices he had to make writing each one. You ask the right question, though–to what extent would ‘narrative push’ mean going back to fix earlier parts of the story, to make them match up?

      He said Jim Thompson’s biggest problem as a writer was that he was always on such tight deadlines–he wrote the books too fast, didn’t do enough drafts–Thompson used narrative push as well, but when he came up in mid-book with something he hadn’t thought of before that changed what he’d already written, he didn’t have time to go back and fix it. So you can see the joins very clearly if you look.

      Willeford, by contrast, wrote very slowly–so few books in such a long career. And yet his books always feel rawer, less finished than Westlake’s, even though they always make sense. Maybe that’s just the way he liked it. More than one way to skin a plot.

  7. How happy I could be with either of these two if both of them just went away. — Captain Jeffrey T. Spaulding

    • That is perhaps the more appropriate quotation, but I opted to go with the original. 😐

      • You can see why I brought up the paraphrase.

        • Having just watched Animal Crackers for the fourth or fifth time (first time was at the Hazlet Twin Cinemas in New Jersey, when they dug that one out of the vaults and released it theatrically), I should have thought of it myself, though let us admit that the two society females he speaks of, one played by Margaret Dumont, are not going to figure heavily in anyone’s sexual fantasies–retirement fantasies, maybe. Lillian Roth, in all her spunky ingenue spendor, might not have been a half-bad Linda. Thelma Todd could have played the twins with a bit of trick photography, but she’s not in that movie, and not so very long afterwards, she was no longer among the living. Oh well, let’s cry about it tomorrow.

  8. Reading your reviews and the subsequent comments should qualify for college credits. One wouldn’t even need to read the book under discussion. All you’d need to do is add a test.

  9. You mention Betty telling Art he was a better lover than his brother, but you don’t quote what I think is Westlake’s funniest line I am cuckolding myself! The two paragraphs are priceless.

    SUDDENLY, in the middle of the proceeding, the thought came to me, I am cuckolding myself! This was so startling that for a minute I wasn’t at all sure it would be physically possible to go on. However, I rallied, and I don’t think Betty noticed the slight sag in my narrative.

    But the thought did not go away. God knows I’ve applied the horns to other men’s brows, and I’ve always suspected the existence of some antlers of my own from my marriage to Lydia, so I know the appropriate state of mind for each of the potential roles, but what was I to think when playing both roles at once? Has such a thing ever happened before? Maybe somewhere in the Decameron, but what about real life?

    • You know, if I put every funny passage from this book into the review, there’d be no point reading the book. And there is no point I want to make more in these reviews than this–if you haven’t read it yet, stop reading this drivel I’m typing, and hie thee to a bookseller. Real or virtual. Hie thee.

  10. Dave

    This was a great read. As you said, savage. I sat up straight when Betty was killed.

    361 is next!

    • Westlake wrote a whole lot of sex comedy (sometimes with violence, sometimes not), early in his career, to pay the bills, for the paperback sleaze market. He hated it, because the formulas were so rigid–he and other talented wordsmiths (men and women) who made use of this short-lived publishing niche (created to get around laws against outright porn) looked for ways to relieve the sheer boredom and frustration that came with it, but it was, all the same, a good training ground for those who knew what to do with it.

      So at times, having liberated himself from the near-porn pits, partly thanks to Parker, he went back to them, on his own terms and produced some of his best work. But this time, he had real points to make, and the mature artistry to make them stick. This is one of the prime examples of that. Probably not quite raunchy enough for a sleaze, bit too cerebral, but the premise would have worked great–he’d have gotten himself a nice pat on the back from Scott Meredith, then told to go write a few dozen more. The deadlines were murder. If you can get a copy, try Adios Scheherazade, which is probably never going to be e-vailable. Believe me, I’ve suggested it, but somehow it never comes to pass. Too up close and personal. Maybe after everybody he ever knew (biblically or otherwise) is dead. And #MeToo as well, not that I disagree with its ends, but the means are, shall we say, unsatisfactory.

  11. Greg Tulonen

    Today I learned that apparently, there’s a THIRD movie adaptation of this book: “Naam Iruvar Namakku Iruvar” (“We Two, Ours Two”), an Indian Tamil-language film that came out in 1998 and was a huge success. This should not be confused with the ongoing Indian Tamil-language crime thriller television series also called “Naam Iruvar Namakku Iruvar”,” about twin brothers separated at birth, currently in its second season (and focusing on a different set of twins than the first season).

    According to Wikipedia, the film “Naam Iruvar Namakku Iruvar” was dubbed into Hindi in 2007 and renamed “Biwi No. 2,” but that should not be confused with a 2000 Hindi movie, also named “Biwi No. 2,” which was a dub of the 1998 Telugu romantic comedy, “Aavida Maa Aavide” (“She Is also My Wife”), the Hindi dub of which is available in its entirety on YouTube.

    And that’s about as far down the rabbit hole as I’m willing to venture this morning.

    • Did they at least get real twins to play the Kerners this time? (I assume they weren’t named Kerner, but you know what I mean).

      And were they true to the book’s ending?

      And yes, I can see the Wikipedia article has no synopsis, but I do see there’s just one lead actress listed, meaning they probably used trick photography, and this sucks. But they have a star system there, just like here.

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