Joseph Commings: Banner Deadlines (2004)

(All biographical information in this piece is gleaned from editor Robert Adey’s introduction to Banner Deadlines, and Edward D. Hoch’s afterword). 

Joseph Commings (1913-92) never made it big as a writer, but nonetheless had a career that spanned the years from World War Two to the early 1980s. A lot of his output was the kind of soft-core sex paperbacks that are a lost art today, but he also wrote some 33 short stories about Senator Brooks U. Banner, an amateur sleuth who specialized in impossible crimes. Fourteen of those stories are collected in this posthumous volume.

The Banner stories fall into four periods:

1947-50: eight stories appeared in surviving old-school pulp magazines: Ten Detective Aces, 10-Story Detective and Hollywood Detective (home of Dan Turner, the private skulk whose cannon yammered “chow-chow!”). When these mags went out of business, there was no more market for Banner stories until…

1957-63: fourteen stories appeared, most of them in a magazine called Mystery Digest. Before and during this period, Commings kept trying to sell to Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine, the top publication in the field, but never succeeded; his explanation was “the editor took a dislike to me.” (But that may not be the whole story, as we shall see.)

1963-68: after Mystery Digest folded, Commings kept trying to sell Banner stories; four made it into print, three in The Saint Mystery Magazine and one in Mike Shayne Mystery Magazine. 

(In the early 1970s, Commings had two strokes, which pretty much put an end to his writing career. Not entirely, though…)

1979-84: In 1979, Commings and Edward D. Hoch collaborated on a new Banner story and sold it to MSMM. Encouraged, Commings dusted off six unpublished Banners and found them a home in the same market over the next five years.

Adey’s introduction also says that as the short-story market dried up, Commings wrote no fewer than four novels about Banner, only one of which appears to have involved impossible crimes, and none of which found a publisher. No copies of any of the manuscripts appear to exist.

I think there are several reasons why Commings never made it to the top rank of mystery writers.

1. Style

There’s no way around it; Commings’ writing style is adequate at best. At worst, it’s just plain clumsy, to the point where it made the stories in this book tough for me to slog through. Commings learned his trade during the early 1940s, when pulp magazines were already starting to die off but were still significant players in the magazine game. It’s no secret that many of the most successful pulp writers ground out their tales fast and with little to no regard for graceful prose, and not only was Commings of that school, he continued to write that way throughout his career, long after commercial short fiction had moved on.  Here’s the first paragraph of “Murder Under Glass”, the first story in Banner Deadlines: 

In his soup-and-fish [i.e. his tuxedo] Senator Brooks U. Banner stood waiting under the six-arm crystal chandelier and juggling a cocktail glass in his thick fingers as gingerly as if it were a soap bubble. He was tall and girthy. His stiff, horse-sized collar was rasping the folds of his thick red neck. His ancient claw-hammer coat had cloth-covered buttons and trick pockets in the tails. There was an acre of boiled shirt front; his black shoes were mirrors. He weighed 270 pounds stripped – and wished he were.

Let’s compare that with how John Dickson Carr introduces a detective. From the first page of his novella The Third Bullet:

Colonel Marquis was a long, stringy man whose thick and wrinkled eyelids gave him a sardonic look not altogether deserved. Though he was not bald, his white hair had begun to recede from the skull, as though in sympathy with the close cropping of the grey mustache. His bony face was as unmistakably of the Army as it was now unmistakably out of it; and the reason became clear whenever he got up – he limped. But he had a bright little eye, which was amused. 

In introducing Banner, Commings just states one physical detail after another, which is how a lot of the pulp writers did it. Carr’s description is a lot smoother and not only tells us what Colonel Marquis looks like, but hints at what kind of character he will turn out to be. 

There were writers who got their start in the pulps but later developed a much more sophisticated style; Erle Stanley Gardner is the most famous example. (See Secrets of the World’s Best-Selling Writer for an instructive look at the way he wrote the original draft of the first Perry Mason novel, and how he later revised it to make it far less pulpy.) I suspect that Commings’ failure to evolve this way, more than any personal animus, was why he never cracked the Ellery Queen’s market. Choose a random issue of EQMM from the Forties or Fifites; pick a random story from that issue; whichever one it is, I promise you it’ll be better written than the Banner stories.

2. Characterization

Brooks U. Banner resembles nothing so much as an American version of Sir Henry Merrivale: a big fat man, a walker of the corridors of power, a man impatient with social convention, to whom the police gladly defer when there’s an impossible crime to be solved. For me, though, Banner never comes alive the way H.M. does even in a poor book like The Cavalier’s Cup; Carr’s detective is a person, while to me Banner comes across as more a collection of traits. (It doesn’t help that the way he talks is annoying. Carr knew how often to use “lord love a duck” and “burn me” and so on, and when enough was enough.)

Nor are the supporting characters in the various stories any closer to three-dimensional. Of course, there are plenty of mystery writers, from Christie and Carr on down, who make extensive use of stock characters, but most of Commings’ are plain old cardboard.

3. Plotting

“Okay,” you may be saying, “but I don’t read impossible-crime stories to savour the author’s style. It’s nice when the prose is graceful like Carr’s, but it’s not a deal-breaker for me if it’s less adept. And as you admit yourself, Carr pretty much had a standard traveling company of characters who reappear from book to book. It’s the impossible crimes and their solutions that count. How are Commings’?”

I’m sorry to say… most of the ones in Banner Deadlines are not very good. More precisely, Commings comes up with some intriguing situations, not just typical “locked rooms,” but for the most part the solutions made me say “saw that coming” or “there’s a flaw there” or “that would have a one-in-a-million chance of working in real life.” To be sure, I sometimes have one of those reactions with, say, a Dr. Sam or Great Merlini story, but Commings provoked them in me over and over again while I was reading this book. Even the collaboration with Hoch is well below the latter author’s standard; if you don’t guess how the impossibility in that one was pulled off, you may turn in your amateur detective’s badge.

Well, so much for my analysis of Commings’ writing. I had originally planned to do a story-by-story analysis of Banner Deadlines, but on reflection I’m not going to bother. What I just said of the stories in general is true of most of them individually, so why repeat myself?

That said, I did flat-out enjoy one story, “The Spectre on the Lake”. In this one, two men row out into the middle of a lake where they’re shot in the head at close range, even though neither had a gun, there wasn’t one in the boat, and no one else came near them. I  think it was inspired by a passing reference in a mystery by another author that was published before this tale came out, but I won’t be any more specific than that.

There’s also “Fingerprint Ghost,” in which a murder is committed using a dagger (polished just before the crime) that retains a clear set of prints, which don’t match those of anyone who could physically have done it. What’s good about the solution: it could work, and it’s completely different from the one in Carter Dickson’s Nine – And Death Makes Ten. What’s not so good is that I’d already seen it in a short story by another writer, whom I won’t name here. I imagine Commings and the other writer came up with the gimmick entirely independently, and if you haven’t read the other story, this one may baffle you.

And a word about “The X Street Murders,” which was reprinted in impossible-crime anthologies in 1994 and 2006 and is certainly the best-known Banner story. As you may already know, it involves a locked- (or rather, observed-) room shooting in an office, followed immediately by a courier delivering a sealed envelope to the murder site. The envelope turns out to contain a gun, which the crime lab reports to be the murder weapon. For me, this one had an intriguing set-up followed by a disappointing solution (and one really silly clue), but some other people hold it in higher regard. If you do, you may like the other stories in Banner Deadlines better than I did.

10 thoughts on “Joseph Commings: Banner Deadlines (2004)

  1. Well, this is…interesting. I’ve thus far only read ‘The X Street Murders’ and didn’t care for it for pretty much the reasons you list above (and I say that as a fan of pulp-ish writing and a bunch of writers who learned their trade and made their names in those very magazines). While Commings is discussed in similar terms to his contemporaries, he’s one author I’ve never quite summoned the will to engage with further — I imagine people might feel the same about Carr after slogging through The Hollow Man.

    It seems you’ve taken a bullet for me, and I’m very grateful; I’ll move onto other C&L collections (still got Hoch’s Sam Hawthornes to get round to, plus the newly-published William Brittain collection, then the Freeman Wills Crofts one coming out next year…that’s enough to be going on with) and perhaps consider this one in a dew years once I’m more up to speed on more promising authors. Many thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You’re welcome! And thank you in turn for alerting me to the fact that there is a Brittain collection coming out – I will have to look at C&L’s website more often. I have many fond memories of the Mr. Strang and Man Who stories from when they first appeared in EQMM.

      Brittain was never a big star but he delivered solid story after solid story (including a few impossible crimes). Your mention of him got me to thinking about some of the other steady contributors EQ had in those days, some big stars and some not – Hoch, of course (in every issue for decades!), Isaac Asimov, Jon L. Breen, Mignon G. Eberhart, Francis M. Nevins Jr., Michael Gilbert, Ruth Rendell, Patricia McGerr. There were some others whose work I didn’t care for as much – Hugh Pentecost, Robert L. Fish, Lawrence Treat, James Holding, Lillian de la Torre, S.S. Rafferty – but EQ was a magazine that published all approaches to the mystery, and this latter group was likewise made up of reliable professionals. Some of these authors have collections in the C&L catalogue and there are others who would be good candidates.

      “X Street” really is a good weather vane for whether Banner Deadlines is worth a reader’s time – if you (dis)liked it, you’ll probably (dis)like the rest of the book. Anyone who wants to check Commings and Banner out should find one of the anthologies that contains it and give it a read.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Sorry to see that you didn’t enjoy this one much. I will agree with you on much of what you say about Commings’s writing style, though I do think he improved a little as his career moved along. In my own review of this collection, I had some pointed commentaries on this issue.

    However, I seem to have more time for many of his impossibilities and solutions than you do, and since I can forgive a wooden writing style as long as it is not boring – and whatever he is, Commings isn’t boring – I find a lot to enjoy here

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, differences of opinion, horse races, and all that! If someone like a particular author more than I do, I’m certainly not going to try to convince them they’re wrong.

      I’m curious – what did you think of “The X Street Murders”? I want to test my theory that it’s a good indicator of whether someone will like the rest of the book.


      1. I liked it on the whole. There are some parts that are a bit far-fetched, particularly the reason why the murderer’s associate helps out with the whole thing, but I think the impossibility is great and the solution is really good as well.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Count me as one that liked “The X Street Murders,” and Commings as well. Maybe it was just inexperience, since I think “X Street” was like the eighth or ninth impossible crime I ever read. I enjoy the stories, very interesting situations, although I admit he tends to go for “magic trick” style solutions that are hard to clue if at all. But they’re fun, and I enjoyed them, for what it’s worth.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I’m with Christian and Dark One on “The X Street Murders,” although I understand your criticism, but comparing Commings with Carr is a little unfair. The only who can really stand comparison with the master is Hake Talbot. If you want to read Commings at his absolute best, you should track down “Bones for Davy Jones,” a stand-alone short story, in which an impossible murder is committed inside a sunken shipwreck. The premise of the story is as original as the solution and deserves the reputation “The X Street Murders” enjoys.

    By the way, I finally updated my blog-roll and your blog has been added to the list.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for adding me to your blogroll!

      It’s not just that I don’t think Commings compares to Carr, who certainly set the bar high… I don’t think he compares to Porges, Hoch, Rawson, or any other writer I’ve read who had a substantial body of impossible-crime work. And I have my issues with some of those authors. However, I will check out “Bones for Davy Jones” and report back my findings… a nautical setting is a plus mark going in, as far as I’m concerned!


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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