Dashiell Hammett: Man of Mystery Paperback – June 7, 2016

well written bio on a person not worth the paper used to write the story. multi std's from whores ,alcoholism in the umph degree even wreaked his spline as well as his liver. sick in body as well as mind. sad story about the "pits ' man will go for self gratification . this is about someone who wrote 3 books had national fame and abused himself to death. a welll written story about a wasted life

an interesting approach to a very complicated man.i was concerned the approach would be feminateor just redux; far from it.this is a good read by a writter who understands her topic and offers a fresh perspective.well done.

I've read his books and some of his stories; I knew something of him from Hellman's Pentimento. This biography, though, strikes me as written to a pre-determined conclusion. She wrote to find examples of his behavior rather than to determine what that behavior was and what impact it had on the man and his relationships, personal and professional. I suppose you could say my rating is to damn with faint praise, as that is how I see it.

I enjoyed this book because of it's excellent research. The writing was limpid. The writer clearly understood DH's psychology and the basis of his motivations and blockages.

I've read a lot of Hammett since the early 90s and biographies of him in the last decade or so. His writing was remarkable and his worldview, sober and mature. What genuinely set Hammett apart from other detective writers in his day (and before) was his epistemological focus. He set how we know what we know on its ear by countering the puzzle-assembly approach to most mystery stories. And he did it with a style of prose that was disciplined, spare and remarkably concise. What imagist poets were doing in verse, he did in prose at least as well, if not better, than Hemingway.While she acknowledges the comparisons, Cline spends very little time on this. Her assessment of Hammett's actual writing (that is, why we know of him at all) appears well-informed, but it is minimal to the extreme. She seems much more interested in his alcoholic dissipation and in perception of him through the eyes of Lillian Hellman. (I for one do not want to read about Sylvia Plath through the eyes of Ted Hughes, for example!)Cline's obviously not that much of a fan of him as a person (somewhat understandable), but that would seem to warrant more focus on his writing. (Think of Isaacson on the very difficult subject of Steve Jobs. The work is unflinching in its reporting of Jobs' various idiosyncrasies and affronts, but also delves deeply into what Jobs Did at Apple and other ventures). This biography of a writer just doesn't spend that much time on his writing. Worse, Cline's focus on Hammett as perceived of by Hellman serves to undermine the character and achievement of Hammett--a knowing affront as Hellman's accounts of Hammett and others are about as subjective and inaccurate as Hemingway's in A Movable Feast. Why write large chunks of a biography of a historical figure through the eyes of someone largely known (including by Cline) as unreliable?Cline's motives seem suspect when we see what she does choose to include (how many times must we read about Hammett contracting gonorrhea?), and not include (how about some further analysis into the post-modern elements of A Maltese Falcon? Maybe some detailed deconstruction of his prose in that or in The Dain Curse?)Think about it: a biography of a writer intent on STD humiliation rather than assessment or perception of the writing.Cline's work also seems to go out of its way to disprove Hammett's detective achievements, which he never claimed to be monumental. Rather, he accounted of them as experiences that taught him not just about crime, but about the nature of knowing, about randomness, about the fallacies of deductive reasoning and the (relevant to now) shoddy reasoning exhibited by DAs and police.Finally, Cline's own prose often seems scattered and tangential.

A complex man. Enjoyed reading his life story because I enjoyed his writings.

Interesting story of his life, loves and demons. Also a good history lesson.

A Complex Personality of Talent

All biographies are depressing, because ultimately the subject dies, and - let's face it - few people die with dignity. But biographies of American writers are the most depressing of all because they all seem to be feckless, promiscuous, wife-beating alcoholics. Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Chandler, Jack London, John O'Hara...A thoroughly despicable lot. Dashiell Hammett was one of the worst. We will never really know how bad because, unlike his contemporaries, he didn't go around bragging and courting public attention. But from what we know from previous biographies - and I have read them all - his was a car-crash life and he wrecked the lives of almost all those he came into contact with. This is the first biography of Hammett that I have read since 'Hellman and Hammett" back in 1997; that book was so badly written and told such a depressing story that it made me feel suicidal. So it was with some trepidation that I approached this biography by Sally Cline. It's quite an easy read, but that doesn't mean it's well-written. I despair of authors who refer to "a bouquet of flowers" and use the word "wracked" (or "wracking"). Did they not learn anything in English lessons at school? Neither does Cline have any respect for chronological sequence or a sense pf structure. What is the point of starting the book when Hammett is in his twenties, rather than at the beginning? What is the point of quoting from book and film reviews in random order, rather than chronologically? What is the point of having parts that only only one chapter long?Despite inserting herself into the narrative several times to insist that she has done original and groundbreaking research, this biography does not seem be much of an advance on previous biographies, and in many passages its style is imitative of that of Diane Johnson's. Yet it is far less detailed, lacking in insight, and nowhere near as vivid. You could race through it in an afternoon if you had a mind to, and then ask yourself whether you have gained anything by reading it - the answer to which would be 'no'..One comes away with the impression that Cline is not really all that interested in Hammett, particularly as a writer. She barely engages with his short stories and novels, or the film and TV adaptations, or with his original screenplays. Now, I would have thought it important to mention that, for instance, his best-known character, Sam Spade, did not carry a gun and that he was killed in a later short short story. I would also have thought it worth mentioning that all the murders in the movie 'City Streets' take place offscreen. But no: not a word. Cline also does not appear to realize that the movie 'Roadhouse Nights' has nothing whatsoever to do with any story written by Hammett; it was an original screenplay by Ben Hecht. Like other biographers, she also completely overlooks the movie 'The Black Bird', in which Sam Spade Jr searches for the 'real' Maltese Falcon.Once Hammett stops writing - or at least finishing - novels and meets Lillian Hellman, the book, which up to that point is not very good anyway, goes downhill at an increasing rate. But then everything deteriorates whenever Hellman enters the picture. She has to be one of the biggest liars and fantasists in literary history (a sort of female Hemingway, I suppose), and one wonders how much Hammett would have involved himself in politics had he never met her. Not much, is my guess. His desertion and betrayal by Hellman and the left-wing intelligentsia is glossed over by Cline, which does not come as much of a surprise. The truth is too ugly, But at the end of the day, whenever I read about Hammett, I come away feeling sorry for his wife and kids, who really got a poor deal they did nothing to deserve.