Sometimes I read a book that inspires thoughts and feelings, but not enough thoughts and feelings to inspire a full review. (Often the book just isn’t dark in the way I was hoping it would be.) Even the way I write, with lots of asides about where I bought the book and what random thoughts I had while reading, there’s just not enough for a coherent thousand words or so. When this happens, I save them up and throw together some mini-reviews. Let’s talk about three of these books:
Ghosts of Denver: Capitol Hill by Phil Goodstein
This didn’t merit a whole review because it’s not really about ghosts. The spooky font and haunting line drawing on the cover promised me ghosts galore, so I was bitterly disappointed to find nearly six hundred pages and almost no ghosts at all. This is about 5% ghosts and lurid tales of Denver hijinks, 95% very detailed history of the Capitol Hill section of Denver focusing largely on architecture. I love history included with my ghosts stories, especially when that history involves colorful locals and either criminals or disasters. I like architecture and I’ve actually spent a few hours looking at cool buildings in the area this book is about, but this is way more detail than I ever wanted.
I did learn a handful of interesting things, though. I learned that Denver used radium tailings in some of their roadbeds, which made them radioactive enough to require cleanup efforts in the 1990s. I learned that 1920s Denver was kind of run by the Ku Klux Klan. I learned that during the Great Depression, movie theaters used to raffle off groceries. (That’s much more wholesome than the radium roads and the Klan thing.) There are a couple strange stories of murder and a couple of interesting ghost stories, but this book felt like a bait and switch. They lured me in with the promise of ghosts and then made me learn about city planning.
Reprisal by Arthur Gordon
Funny enough, I grabbed this book in Denver’s Capitol Hill area. I’m pretty sure I got it at Kilgore Books, a few blocks down from the fittingly named Capitol Hill books, where I got the ghost book with no ghosts in it. I was pressed for time on this book-finding trip so I grabbed several books based on hunches and cool titles, and this was one of them.
Turns out Reprisal is trying to show us the complexities of race in the Jim Crow south. It was written in 1950 by a rich white dude from Savannah, Georgia so . . . he nails it, obviously. Deep and rich understanding of the grievances and injustices that led to the Civil Rights movement soon to gain momentum and sweep through the south.
Just kidding. He doesn’t nail it at all. It’s awkward and unsatisfying to read. The center of the story is Nathan, whose wife was lynched along with three friends. Several of the men involved were eventually brought to trial only to be acquitted by a jury of their white small town peers. When Nathan hears of the acquittal, he returns to Georgia to take justice into his own hands. This part is interesting and Nathan is a sympathetic character. Unfortunately, our author spends most of the novel following various characters who aren’t Nathan, trying to present a wide range of views on the lynching in particular and race in general. (Of course, most of these characters are white.)
There are so many characters that none of them are particularly deeply drawn and following them all bogs down the story’s pace while not saying anything particularly enlightening about race or segregation. In the story’s first few pages, a reporter wants to cover the trial and its aftermath and his editor warns him that “if you’re going to tackle the race problem–which has been hammered almost to death lately–try to write about the negroes as people, will you? Not symbols of suffering humanity or shuffling clowns. If you can make ‘em people, with fairly coherent thoughts and reactions and emotions, you’ll have done something no other feature writer has done yet . . .” This feels like the author’s mission statement and honestly, I’m not sure he succeeded. Maybe by 1950 standards . . . .
To be fair, I don’t know what book from the pre-Civil Rights era south would meet a modern reader’s standards. It does seem like Gordon was trying to fight racism in some way with his book, which is more than most authors were doing. This book kinda sucked on both a technical and a moral level but I found the attempt weirdly interesting to think about.
The Broken Gun by Louis L’amour
I picked this up at a used book shop purely because I wanted to try out Louis L’amour. I was booked to stay at the historic Strater Hotel for a weekend and Louis L’amour apparently stayed and wrote there often, preferring room 222. There’s a little brass plaque on the door now commemorating him. I thought it would cool to read L’amour in the hotel where he stayed. For the record, it was cool and this is a good book. It’s not my usual dark vibe, though, so an entire post on this fun L’amour book I read for goofy reasons felt like too much.
This isn’t one of L’amour’s most famous books, it’s just the one I happened to find the day I went looking. This one is set in the 1960s (and also written in the 1960s), following a writer of Westerns, Dan Sheridan, as he researches an old mystery and ends up in deep trouble. He visits the remote ranch of Colin Wells for research and immediately starts to realize Wells means trouble. Stuck in the Arizona wilderness, miles from help, Sheridan looks for a way to escape while trying desperately to figure out why Wells would want him dead at all.
It’s a tight mystery with exciting action and interesting wilderness survival scenes. L’amour is more famous for writing what his character Sheridan writes, historical frontier fiction, but if all his books are as tense and tightly written as this I can understand his fame. Used bookshops here in the southwest are usually well stocked with L’amour so I’ll probably grab more eventually. Maybe he’ll show up in the next Stubs post I put up. Who knows?
As always, embrace the darkness here or on Substack. Read more (and darker) books! Happy New Year!
Darker Books 