
by Raymond Chandler
Rating: ★★★★½
Series: Philip Marlowe #1
Publication Date: February 6, 1939
Genre: noir
Pages: 231
ReRead?: Yes
Project: 2025 read my hoard, a century of crime
When a dying millionaire hires Philip Marlowe to handle the blackmailer of one of his two troublesome daughters, Marlowe finds himself involved with more than extortion. Kidnapping, pornography, seduction, and murder are just a few of the complications he gets caught up in.
It was about eleven o’clock in the morning, mid October, with the sun not shining and a look of hard wet rain in the clearness of the foothills. I was wearing my powder-blue suit, with dark blue shirt, tie and display handkerchief, black brogues, black wool socks with dark blue clocks on them. I was neat, clean, shaved and sober, and I didn’t care who knew it. I was everything a well dressed private detective ought to be. I was calling on four million dollars.
So begins The Big Sleep, the first of the novels featuring Philip Marlowe, the most famous and longest lasting of the hardboiled detectives in the noir tradition. Chandler writes like Hemingway, if I enjoyed Hemingway (and he wrote about crime). He has been imitated so many times that he is almost a parody of himself, except that he is so good.
I think I have read most of the Marlowe books previously, but never with any sort of intention. I have definitely not read Playback, the last of them. Has anyone read it? It never seems to be mentioned and may not be very good. I’m not sure if I’ve read The Little Sister. I’ve definitely read Farewell, My Lovely, The High Window, The Lady in the Lake and The Long Goodbye.
Chandler’s L.A. is a place, a character and a feeling. Nostalgia is a trap, and in the case of Marlowe, it’s a trap that is grimy, well-worn and slightly sordid. I don’t live in L.A., visit it only occasionally, and can barely think of it without thinking of Marlowe and Bosch, two characters that I associate most firmly with it.
The thing about The Big Sleep is that the plot is almost entirely beside the point. Everyone says that Chandler was all about character and place and I believe this to be true. Each sentence is beautifully crafted to convey a feeling – as the reader, I can see his characters; they are archetypes, but they are his archetypes and no one else’s, except for all of the admirers who came after and all of the compatriots who came before but maybe didn’t do it quite so well. I can see the places he writes about, as well, and smell them, and hear them, I can see the outline of the palm tree in the diminishing light, and smell the slightly unpleasant odor of salt water and sewage.
We drove away from Las Olindas through a series of little dank beach towns with shack-like houses built down on the sand close to the rumble of the surf and larger houses built back on the slopes behind. A yellow window shone here and there, but most of the houses were dark. A smell of kelp came in off the water and lay in the fog. The tires sang on the moist concrete of the boulevard. The world was a wet emptiness.
Damn. That is so good.
But, back to the plot, which is convoluted and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It is fable at this point that when Chandler was writing the script for the movie adaptation, he was asked about one of the murders and who had committed it because the book overlooked identifying the perpetrator. It is reported that he said that he didn’t know. He had forgotten to resolve the plot point, and no one reading the book seems to have cared very much.
And isn’t it crazy that this book – which feels completely modern – was published 86 years ago.