48
PARTISAN REVIEW
as a literary figure also had
" LOO
much on the ball. " In fact, Raymond
had been excessively grumpy the o nl y time he was invited LO Ian
Fleming's house in Victori a Square precisel y because we had all ta lked
a liul e (but to his mind too much ) of the pl easures of knowing Cyril.
He was in fact a brilliant class ica l scho la r who had read mo re widely
than Raymond, and his conversa ti on and writing could be a cornu–
copia of these treasures, LOgether with surpri sing wit, instant parod y,
sharp aphorism. Our admira tion of Connoll y made Raymond suspect
him (quite wrongly) of despising a "mys tery writer. " Cyril Conno ll y
appeared in Raymond 's fantasy as a curio us mixture o f hedonistic
dil euante yet pedantic and censorious critic who knew no thing of the
" rea l" world o f vio lence (nor of course did Raymond in hi s very
secluded life) and who when finding himself in an ala rming situa ti on
requiring instant tough phys ical action would be left helpl ess and
gas ping, whil st Raymond would stride in and mas ter the who le
dangerous predicament in a maller of minutes. Thi s fantasy o f
Chandler's physical invincibility was parti cul arl y sad when one looked
a t the sick and sh aky man who was entertaining one with these sto ri es,
the whole image having arisen out o f a single moment of annoyance a t
feeling sociall y negl ected.
In fact, a t tha t luncheon Raymond had been very much the center
o f a uention. He had arrived po inting a finger of triumph a t Ian and
crow ing, " You
forgot
the g lass of wa ter" for he had just read
Diamonds
Are Forever,
prided himself o n detecting all faults o f deta il , and was
referring LO the omission , in a scene a t a short-order counter in Las
Vegas, o f the first obj ect always placed before the customer; and Ian had
amiably deferred to the coll eague he so admired , and
LO
whom he
inscribed a book "T o Field Ma rsha l Chandl er from Pri va te Ian F1em–
mg .
But, as often happens with alcoho lics, Raymond was capa ble of
seizing upon some chance rema rk of a person he ha rdl y knew, brood–
ing upon it, and transpos ing it inLO hi s own p ri va te ficti onal contex t,
which then wholl y determined hi s subsequent auitude towa rds tha t
person . On the o ther hand he could be fiercely loyal to a fri end if
anyone else made wha t he tho ught to be an unjust or "caddi sh "
comment. He never forgot it and forever held it aga inst the speaker,
however unconsidered (and subsequentl y withdrawn ) the rema rk may
have been . At other times he could change hi s opinion within days,
" tha t slimy punk" having become " tha t sweet sad man " or vice versa.
He had a clear eye fo r deta ils but no t for the rea lities of the li ves around
him, since hi s novelist's selection and mani pul a ti on were a lways a t
work
LO
fashion the cha racters he projec ted from within.
