Skeleton Keys: Why The Thin Man feels like a relic

Post from August 29, 2011 - delayed by power outage:
Finished Dashiell Hammett’s “The Thin Man” and at the, much as at the
outset, was very impressed by his ability to create a lead character,
or in this case 2 lead characters, Nick and Nora Charles, almost
entirely through smart dialog. These two proved to be his fortune, as
the made The Thin Man a popular success and led to numerous spinoffs –
according to the Library of America notes 5 movies and a radio series,
all of which brought Hammett revenue (and renown?). That said, the
novel itself is pretty lightweight entertainment – a rather
preposterous plot not credible even for a moment as a realistic
portrayal of any but the most perverse human behavior, and, even
worse, an extremely creaky narrative process. Huge tracts of the
novel, including the entire final wrapup, involve long expositions in
which Nick explains every nuance of the complex and far-fetched murder
mystery and it’s solution. Any editor today would quote the maxim:
Show don’t tell. Instead of having Nick give a long account of
[spoilers here!] the body found chopped up and sealed beneath the
cement floor, don’t you think he could make this discovery as part of
the solution instead of just figuring it out an telling about it? In
other words, Nick Charles is as cool a detective as they come, so cool
that he won’t even leave his luxury hotel to investigage a crime scene
- he doesn’t have to, doesn’t really want or need the work – but
aside from delineating his character, this makes the plot much more
talky and distanced than we expect or want today. A very influential
novel – established a certain tone and style that drives many crime
novels and reinforced the imprortance of a strong, distinctive, quirky
central character – but in some respects it’s an antique, like a 30s
roadster, cute and curious but a relic.