*No Spoilers…
The Petty Rant
I don’t know if anyone remembers, but in the early 2000s Kevin Smith was adapting and developing Fletch Won for film. Jason Lee was to play the title role. This was all in the works until, as the story goes, Harvey Weinstein: the guy who everyone in Hollywood used to sing the praises of, endlessly, and the guy who anyone associated with Miramax would tell hero stories about, endlessly… stories about how shrewed-Harvey saved their indie movie from permanent shelving because shrewed-Harvey was the only one who believed in it… the guy who everyone sucked the ass of until around 2016 and then just stopped wholly and completely (for some reason)… ol’ Harvey put the final Nails Brand Cigarette in the development coffin of Fletch Won on the grounds that Jason Lee wasn’t good for box office. Or, so the story goes.
Bah!
I would have bought a ticket, maybe even of left the house to see it…
Back in the early 2000s Smith was still in top-form creatively and Jason Lee could play an earnest everyman quite well in addition to supercilious goofballs who made their obnoxiousness just charming enough. Lee would have been perfect for the role, and Smith would have treated the source material with the reverence it deserved. Smith’s Fletch Won would have been at least interesting, I suspect.
And yet, in a certain petty (petty petty petty) way, I’m glad the film wasn’t completed. Because, if it had been, every single iteration of McDonald’s novel’s covers would be replaced, unceremoniously and crassly, by the film’s poster. Even my bought-and-paid-for Kindle version of Fletch Won would have this new cover added, without my permission, via a Kindle sync. Don’t believe me, look what they did with Confess, Fletch once the movie was released (you know, the movie with Jon Hamm as Fletch and absolutely no one as Flynn…). Imagine if a bunch of studio bureaucrats periodically burst into your house to tear off the covers of your novels, recently adapted for the screen, to scotch tape some uninspired 8x4 movie poster in their place.
I don’t like having the visage of a novel character forced into my head by a crass and presumptuous Hollywood. Not the perfect (and hand-picked by Gregory McDonald) Chevy Chase, not the undoubtedly competent Jason Lee, not the… not Jon Hamm. I’m petty that way.
The Fun of Fletch
I really like the Fletch novels. They’re written as damn-near play-like, but this is fine. The dialogical backs-and-forths are really the most organic means with which a person like IM Fletcher would gather information. There are no hamm-fisted or contrived attempts at verbal exposition - the kind where a room full of people inexplicably share information with each other that everyone already has. There are none of these attempts because Fletch doesn’t know the details himself. We’re investigating along with him by proxy.
McDonald seems to have not forgotten, as so many have, that not-so-popular fact of storytelling: dialogue can be as confrontational, shocking, action-packed, and suspenseful as anything kinetic. In the right medium, with the right amount of care, dialogue can be downright riveting, and McDonald knows this (and McDonald capitalizes on this).
I suspect there’s some rationale for why so much writing advice pushes the show don’t tell principle instead of, say, the more McDonaldian:
Tell when that’s the most organic way for a character’s ignorance to be allayed, but tell in a poetic, witty, dialectical, way.
I suspect the rationale for defying this principle is thus: show don’t tell is necessary for screenwriting, screenwriting only comes to fruition if filmed, films are massively more popular than novels, therefore, by implication (and a certain begged question): show don’t tell novel narration is necessary for a novel to be massively popular.
This is wrong-headed.
It’s wrong-headed for the simple fact that McDonald’s Fletch novels are massively popular, solid mysteries. They’re also incredibly fun to read.
Fletch Won
Fletch Won is the eighth of the Fletch books to be published, but the first in terms of the narrative’s chronology. We’re introduced to Fletch (full name: Irwin Maurice ‘IM’ Fletcher… or so he says, and so says his driver’s license, but who knows…), as a dissatisfied wedding announcement writer turned obituary writer, wanting nothing more than a sports beat. He’s in the process of being chewed out by his editor, Frank, for acting the reporter instead of transcriptionist (the latter being all that’s required of a writer of wedding announcements and obituaries). He can’t help it, he has investigative reporting in his blood… or at least the blood (and other fluids) of people he’ll come to investigate…
In his investigating the circumstances of a couple to be wed, Fletch found out the bride and groom had a ‘royal’ relationship of sorts (the kind that gives their kids a drooly underbite), so he includes this fact in their wedding announcement.
In his investigating the life of a recently deceased woman, he finds she’s accomplished absolutely nothing. Impressed by this feat, he mentions it in her obituary.
He’s a reporter. Reporters report the facts. These are the facts.
He’s also a wise-ass where his boss knows, if Fletch is going to take shots at people, he ought to be punching up. Frank gives him a society beat (writing about the foibles and oddities of upper-crusters, to “cater to the anxieties of … middle-class readers”. Fletch’s first assignment is covering the generous donation of an otherwise non-philanthropic lawyer named Donald Edwin Habek.
Before Fletch can even put a brush through the hair on a head with a brain with no clue how to schmooze the local elites, he and Frank learn of Habek’s murder. He’s been shot to death in the parking lot of Fletch and Frank’s own paper. Since Habek is his story, Fletch instantly goes from society reporter to crime reporter by loophole (much to the futile protests of Frank). Fletch gets to work gathering the facts…
A great many people, it turns out, had reason to murder Haybeck, the least of which were violent criminals. This seems counter-intuitive at first, but only until the reader gets to know the victim a little better. Haybeck’s a scummy lawyer you see, known for getting the worst of criminals off the hook, hence he’s loved by those worst of criminals (some who’ve depended on his services in the past, some who would have in the future). The least likely to kill Habeck are murderers. This is a great bit of farcical irony added by McDonald (as well as misdirection).
Alright, so all this sets the scene for our budding investigative reporter to start making a name for himself. The investigation scenes play out in a fairly straightforward manner: Fletch gathers all the background information he can on Habeck, picks out a list of people closest to him, questions them (as well as a few of his all purpose sources), and develops further leads.
Now, some of McDonald’s past mystery elements have been more intricate in structure, with many/much more twists and turns and shock and suspense… an intriguing complexity… where some have been more straightforward. As mentioned, Fletch Won is more straightforward. This isn’t a bad thing. The mystery is still satisfying and if it were any more intricate it would distract from McDonald’s gift for creating unique characters, giving us the story through their witty dialogue. You can strike a perfect balance between plot and character or you can tip the scales. As long as you don’t tip the scales so far the whole narrative apparatus topples, all is good. With Fletch Won, McDonald tips the scales (in the right measure) in the direction of character.
You could easily call the work character driven, even a character study, and you wouldn’t be wrong. It’s a rare character study too in that it doesn’t fall prey to that temptation to make every character a ‘character’. That is, the temptation to have ones characters be so original, they must be unlike any other character in fiction ever. This often results in characters possessing essentially no overlap in properties with any other character of the work. The characters are unique for uniqueness’ sake and nothing else.
The problem with the above mentioned maneuver is: if your characters have nothing in common with anyone else, they possess none of the standard human universals, are dehumanized therefore, and audiences can’t connect with them on any kind of human level. They become shallow and unendearing too, since to show depth of character is to betray thoughts, feelings, and values, hence humanity, hence certain of the human universals that would make the character too similar to others. McDonald avoids all of these pitfalls while still giving his characters a range of eccentricities, quirks, humanity too, where there’s uniqueness of character in whole, but commonality in heart.
Something else I found interesting: Fletch is near clairvoyant when it comes to human character. Take his finding out about Habek’s murder. He seems subtly elated at the idea of his society story turning into a crime report with the pull of a trigger, despite the crime involving a man’s loss of life… a man’s murder. This may seem callous, but the reader very quickly comes to learn that the murdered Habek is not a man to be pitied. On some sort of utilitarian calculus, the pain and suffering Habek has been causing in the world, due his legal practices, will be so much less now. Fletch seems to understand this from the jump.
There’s also a complete lack of irony, even a subdued compassion in Fletch, when he’s around people of various forms of mental disorders, delusion, and indoctrination. He applies all due decorum well before any disorder is apparent, so it really does seem like some special intuition at work.
You can set your watch to Fletch’s precognition of character, as, whatever is his measure of decorum is an equal measure of strength of character in the object of that decorum. If Fletch is callous toward you, you’re of a greater degree of viciousness. If he’s a wise-ass toward you, either you can take it, or you deserve it. If he’s neutral, even kind, there’s a vulnerability present. It’s a helpful subtextual cue for the reader comprehending and some additional character depth for the reader appreciating.
The only thing I can criticize about Fletch Won is the fact that Fletch’s love interest is once again someone he treats more like a news source than an object of affection. It really isn’t at all plausible that Fletch’s fiancee Barbara would have any real affection for a partner so distant. One could argue, this being a prequel, we know Barbara will eventually become Fletch’s ex-wife and so the emotional distance is only natural considering their future estrangement. Maybe, but this is par for the course with Fletch’s other relationships, too. The aloofness might also be an attempt at establishing Fletch’s single-minded doggedness and individualism. However, neither of these explanations make plausible the women in Fletch’s life hanging in there for so long, enduring Fletch’s unremitting emotional detachment.
Anything else negative I could say about the work would be a matter of relativity, of a conflict of tastes (but tastes I suggest be reevaluated). If you want bombastic kinetic set pieces and a creeping suspense born of character action, less deliberation, then the dialogical nature of a Fletch novel may not be to those tastes. But, to that I say, get better taste!
Alright alright… How about this, try to be open-minded to the idea that thought, deliberation, and the dialogue that betrays such processes, can be entertaining in and of themselves, even riveting. Even in cinema we’ve seen this work. Sydney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men is a perfect example of a film featuring a bunch of people talking, from start to finish, where we’re also engaged from start to finish. Another example that people may find a little out of left-field is John McTiernan’s The Hunt for Red October. I’ve often said, 90% of that movie is people poring over information and figuring out the intentions of others and it’s exhilarating.
If great movies can get away with being largely dialogical (pace to Denis Villeneuve), then obviously a novel can.
I’d definitely give Fletch Won a try.