Here’s the thing about character traits: they’re really neither good nor bad for the most part. Most of the time, it’s all about perception. For example, what some people might call stubbornness in some situations can be seen as perseverance in others. A sense of daring and willingness to take real risks may be seen as an important positive character trait during a war, but it might be perceived as recklessness in other situations. A look at just of few of the well-drawn characters in crime fiction shows a little more clearly what I mean.
Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes is an emotionally detached person. He certainly treats his clients with courtesy and sees them as human beings. He’s even compassionate. For instance, in The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton, Holmes takes the case of a client who’s being harassed by a notorious blackmailer. His contempt for the blackmailer and his compassion for his client are such that he’s even willing to – er – bend the law a bit to stop the blackmailer. But in the main, Holmes doesn’t really form any attachments to his clients. His interest in his cases is intellectual. Holmes’ detachment might be seen in a negative light; after all, he knows a lot of people but he doesn’t have what you’d call friends (other than Watson) and he doesn’t have a special person in his life. On the other hand it’s just that detachment that allows him to focus on the evidence and make sense of a case. He doesn’t get sidetracked by the lies people tell him or by appearances. In The Adventure of the Priory School for instance, Holmes finds that detachment useful when he is hired to find ten-year-old Lord Saltire, son of the Earl of Holdnesse, who has disappeared from his exclusive school. Holmes gets past the lies certain people tell him and some manufactured evidence and is able to find out what happened to the boy.
Agatha Christie’s Jane Marple is a keen observer, as she puts it, of human nature. And in The Murder at the Vicarage, in which she makes her first appearance, that tendency towards – oh, let’s be honest, nosiness – is shown in a fairly negative light. In that novel, local magistrate Colonel Protheroe is murdered in the vicarage of St. Mary Mead. Inspector Slack is assigned to the case and at first he has no patience at all with, as he sees it, the local village gossips, including Miss Marple. But it’s that very trait of being interested in people that has given Miss Marple a wealth of knowledge and a real intuition for the way people behave. And that intuition puts her on the right track in this novel and in the other novels that feature her as well.
Arthur Upfield’s Napolean ‘Bony’ Bonaparte is a half-Aborigianl/half-White Queensland police inspector. One of his character traits is a keen affinity for nature, especially the land in which he lives and works. Psychology experts might call this trait strong naturalist intelligence. And in the time in which these novels were written, Bony’s naturalist intelligence might be regarded as a negative trait, especially by Whites of the time who are already prejudiced against and suspicious of the Aborigines. But it’s precisely that trait that allows him to solve cases. One example is in The Bone is Pointed, in which he investigates the disappearance of Jeff Anderson. Anderson went out to work the Karwir ranch one morning, but only his horse returned. Now, five months later, Bony is assigned to find out what happened. Bony’s knowledge of the bush, the land and the people are crucial as he looks for the truth about Anderson. Bony also uses that knowledge in The Bushman Who Came Back when a young girl disappears after the murder of her mother. Everyone assumes that a bushman named Yorkie committed the murder and took the child because she was a witness. But Bony soon suspects the case is more complicated than that. It’s his tracking ability and his knowledge of the land that lead him to the answers.
Adrian Hyland’s Emily Tempest is not particularly good at following rules and policies. Even she will admit she’s not one for ‘toeing the line.’ And since she’s an Aboriginal Community Police Officer (ACPO), that can be a problem. Any cop in a supervisory position will tell you that there are reasons for policies. They protect both cops and citizens and they ensure that crimes are investigated appropriately. So it’s no light matter that Tempest has a tendency to go her own way, and she pays the price. But it’s that very independence of spirit that leads her to answers. In Gunshot Road, for instance, her decision to investigate the murder of Albert ‘Doc’ Ozolins gets her into a lot of trouble. When his body is discovered in his shack, it looks very like the tragic result of a drunken quarrel. And that’s the way her boss Bruce Cockburn wants the case to be written up. The police have their man, all the evidence seems to point in that direction and there’s no need to put scarce resources or personnel into continuing to investigate the matter. And most cops – even good cops – might agree. But Tempest sees evidence that suggests that Ozolins’ murder was more than it seems on the surface. Her willingness to break policy, disregard what her boss says and investigate alone gets her into real danger. It also solves the case, which turns out to be more complex than anyone suspected.
Michael Connelly’s LAPD cop Harry Bosch is one of the most dogged fictional sleuths there is. No matter what the case or the odds, Bosch does not give up until he gets the answers. And that quality certainly has its negative aspects. His dedication to getting the job done has cost him a marriage, among other things. He’s been suspended and demoted too, especially when he turns over proverbial rocks that the LAPD brass or other highly-connected people would rather keep in place. Because he puts solving his cases above just about anything else, he can be difficult to live with and not particularly easy to supervise. But that very same doggedness is what gets him answers. In Angels Flight for instance, Bosch gets interested in the murder of prominent lawyer Howard Elias. Elias has a track record of going up against the LAPD; in fact, just before his death, Elias was about to take his most recent case to trial. His client Michael Harris is in prison for the rape and murder of a twelve-year-old girl. Harris, though, claims that he is innocent and that his confession was coerced by police brutality. When Bosch discovers this, he sees that this case will pit him against the LAPD top brass as well as the cops where directly involved with Harris’ arrest. What’s more, this will mean that the original rape and murder will need to be re-investigated. But Bosch’s refusal to give up and his way of making his cases his top priority give him the motivation to go against the odds. And in the end, he finds out the truth about both murders.
There’s also Elizabeth Spann Craig’s retired schoolteacher Myrtle Clover. Being elderly means that she doesn’t have the energy she once did. She can’t chase suspects or physically intimidate people and her age does make her vulnerable. In fact, in both Pretty is as Pretty Dies and Progressive Dinner Deadly, she ends up being in real danger because of her age. But it’s that very quality that also helps her to get answers. In the culture of the small Southern town in which she lives, the elderly are to be treated with courtesy (if at times indulgence). So suspects and witnesses can hardly refuse to speak to her. And the fact that she’s elderly means that people are less likely to feel threatened by her. So suspects and witnesses tend to let their guards down when they speak to her. Her age also allows her to use the ‘Oh, I’m just a gossipy old lady’ cover when she’s looking for clues.
So the next time people call me stubborn, I’m going to remind them that I’m simply dogged. The next time people say I should ‘go by the book’ more, I’m going to respond that I’m a creative thinker …
*NOTE: The title of this post is a line from Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer’s Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive.













Dr. House, the TV character, is supposedly based on Sherlock Holmes. Your portrait certainly describes House as well as Holmes. I didn’t know that Sherlock Holmes’ method of detection calls for seeing through the lies that people tell. Dr. House is always saying “people lie.” I thought this trait was a TV way to build drama and suspense — after all, we all want to break through to people’s darkest secrets and learn why they’re keeping them. I didn’t realize House’s trait had its source in Holmes. Thanks.
Jean – I find the Dr. House character fascinating in that he really is detached in his way from his patients. He is absolutely committed to finding out why they are sick (or why they die), but as far as emotional attachment? You’re right that he is quite like Holmes and I have heard too that he was based on that character.
And it’s interesting about Holmes and his way of getting through people’s lies. He isn’t a ‘psychologist sleuth’ as later sleuths are. But he does use evidence to prove that people weren’t telling the truth. For him, making the right deductions are much more important than getting into details about why people hide secrets.
Margot, I definitely see you as the optimistic, see the good side of it, type. (That is good.) The Myrtle Clover series sounds interesting… since I just read another Miss Marple. Also, I have never, ever read any Sherlock Holmes. Unbelievable, isn’t it. I have to try some Sherlock Holmes.
Tracy – I actually do try to look at the good side of things. It’s not always successful, but I do try. Interesting you’d pick that up. And I think you’d like the Myrtle Clover novels. She’s an interesting and refreshing protagonist and the mysteries make sense. Excellent sense of setting too. And about Sherlock Holmes? I’m sure you’re not the only one who hasn’t read Conan Doyle…
And the Myrtle Clover series is set in a small town in the South, both a plus and a minus for me. Does it matter which one you read first in that series?
It’s really not that critical which Myrtle Clover novel you read first, Tracy. There’s enough backstory in each to include new readers without boring people who are already fans.
Thanks, Margot. I will try one soon (relatively speaking).
And Ann Cleeves’ Vera is another stubborn detective. She’s an odd character, because she can get quite emotionally attached to people she sees as victims, yet be oblivious to the needs and sensitivities of her colleagues. And she’s completely dogged in her hunt for the culpits, even bending the rules a little to get there.
Pauline – You’ve pegged Vera Stanhope quite well I think. It is interesting isn’t it how she is so much more aware of the people she’s trying to help than of her own colleagues. And you’re right; the doggedness and determination that can make her insensitive is the same doggedness that gives her the strength she needs to to solve mysteries.
I like the way in some traditional detective parnerships, traits are shared out between them – so Lord Peter can’t be anything but posh and (seemingly) a bit of a fool, while Bunter can question the downstairs staff, Harriet is more serious, and Miss Climpson isn’t as foolish as she looks. Stereotypes perhaps, but it works out well for detection.
Moira – It does indeed. I like the way that teamwork functions too And what adds to it is that each knows how valuable the others areto getting cases solved. You make a really well-taken point here.
One of the things TV shows and movies do not do well. Give their characters more than one glaring character trait. You almost know whenever the character comes on the scene, his one trait will be on display. Books do a much better job. At least the better ones.
Patti – That’s really a well-taken point. Most TV shows don’t allow enough time for real character development. So we don’t get to see how a character’s personality traits work together. Whereas in books with solid characters, we get to see their full personalities.
“The next time people say I should ‘go by the book’ more, I’m going to respond that I’m a creative thinker …” I love that line. I’m going to use it too. I think it’s important for detectives to be somewhat detached. I think the only one Sherlock formed an attachment to was the woman that fooled him Irene Adler (I think that’s her name). The more challenge he receives, the more he forms an attachment to the giver. It’s the same for many. The fun is in the chase.
Clarissa – Why, thank you – glad you liked that. You make an interesting point too about the need for a certain amount of detachment when a detective is investigating. When someone is murdered, there is so much devastation and misery that most detectives would probably be consumed by it if they weren’t detached. Besides that, anyone could be the murderer, so the sleuth can’t let her or his feelings get in the way of solving the case.
I’ve just read my first Karin Fossum and Inspector Sejer seems to have few character traits. He’s just so normal which is quite nice in a crime fiction world where things are often OTT.
Sarah – I really like that about Sejer, too. He’s not perfect, but he’s more or less stable and mature. It really is refreshing.