I literally cracked up reading this book. I am not one of those who reads anything advertised as "mystery" but truly appreciate those who do. The book is literally full of tongue in cheek reviews of these sometimes long forgotten travesties of mystery literature. I plan to read this again and take some notes this time on what to avoid... or maybe not to avoid. Don't miss this one!

Filled with great facts and thoroughly researched this book weaves together the facts to turn an interesting tale of a wonderful topic into a must read.

Mr. Pronzini's reviews are always a good time and his clear joy and appreciation of these "alternative classics" is hard not to share. He's having fun and that comes across - would I want to read any of these novels? I mean, maybe? I'm not above a twisty narrative involving double crosses, cursed books, hard-nosed dames, etc., but that doesn't seem to be the point, more that we all love these books and should revel in that! A recommend.

#SonOfGunInCheek #NetGalley #Vintage

This vintage novel from 80's is a charm. The delightful mix of drama and mystery is perfect book to read during travels or during the weekend at the cottage.

This is mystery novelist Pronzini's second look at the, um, idiosyncratic prose that made pulp fiction (and other types of mystery novels) famous. A lot of the best material is in the first volume (like the Robert Leslie Bellem material), but there are still plenty of gems here, like his look at the work of prolific novelist Michael Avallone.

You don't have to be a mystery fan to enjoy this. Any book reader with a sense of humour will get a kick out of it.

Princess Fuzzypants here: I like to read good mysteries. I do get frustrated with heroines who are smart but do really dumb things but if there is a good plot and it is well written, I am a happy kitty. There are times though when you read a book that is so awful, it is almost good. A bit like watching an Ed Wood movie or looking at something that is so ugly, it is beautiful.
Bill Pronzini has put together a snapshot of a number of “classics” from the early part of the 20th Century. At times it is the plot; other times it is the dialogue; some are combinations of both and so much more. These stories give cheesy pot boilers a bad name. It is an easy book to dip in and out without having to go cover to cover in one sitting although your could do that. It is entertaining both in the excerpts he includes and his loving but tongue in cheek descriptions. There was a previous tome along the same lines. I may have to find it somewhere.
I give it five purrs and two paws up.

This book is funny and made me laugh hard at times. A really enjoyable book about the worst of mystery novels.
Some are so bad that they can become a trash cult and Bill Pronzini is very good at describing the trash and humoristic side.
Strongly recommended.
Many thanks to Dover Publications and Netgalley for the ARC

I had read about one-third of this book when I went and bought Gun in Cheek, the author’s first book about the worst mystery fiction, as audiobook. That way I could listen to it during all those times when I needed my hands and/or eyes for something else and couldn’t read my copy of Son of Gun in Cheek. That already tells you how much I enjoyed this. I already talked about my love of bad books and pulp fiction of any kind is obviously a treasure trove of this; after all many authors wrote dozens of books per year, that doesn’t leave much time for elaborate plotting (or much revision).

Still, not everybody who writes a lot writes truly bad. Many of them will just have plots that are somewhat ridiculous with some odd phrasing thrown in. Chances are that if you pick up any pulp fiction mystery to read it you will be bored most of the time and smile slightly in some places. Or at best find a few truly hilarious phrases in an otherwise meh book.

And this is where Bill Pronzini comes in. Because he has done all that work for us and now writes about all the mystery plots that aren’t just unrealistic but defy logic and common sense in every possible way (and often also break the scientist), villainous schemes that only work because the victim a) has an incredibly obscure habit and b) is extremely stupid and “heroes” who can’t interpret the obvious clue until it is (almost) too late to save the damsel in distress (who is of course required in all good bad mysteries). And if the stories aren’t as noteworthy but contain phrases like “she apostrophized”, “corpses were falling around us like pulpy persimmons from the tree” or describe a woman’s breast as having “nipples like split infinitives” he’ll write about that.

If you want to look for faults you could argue that this leads to a slight jumble: you get chapters that focus on specific authors, chapters that summarize the plot of a few novels in great detail, chapters that summarize the plot of several novels in a few paragraphs each, chapters that consist mostly of quotes, and chapters that have a bit of everything. But then it’s not possible to treat every book the same if different things stand out every time (and Pronzini says as much in the introduction and adds that the chaoticness should be considered an homage to the books he’s writing about since those were also very chaotic).

I don’t mind the lack of cohesion that much. Much more important is that Pronzini is never needlessly cruel or mean. Sure, he makes fun of the stories but he never suggests that a pulp fiction author should be held to the same standards as a writer who takes one or two years to finish one novel. He also calls out sexism, racism, and homophobia and does so quite harshly (which honestly surprised me, since this is a re-release of a book written in the 1980s and I had not expected that level of awareness at that time).

In case you are still not convinced: I am currently considering getting Six Gun in Cheek, which does the same for Western pulp fiction despite the fact that my knowledge of Western begins and ends with The Magnificent Seven. I’m sure that wouldn’t stop me from finding this just as hilarious.