<<Postman and Double Indemnity
created a structural template which is still being mined
today.
I can't even agree with Mario that KTG would make a good
movie, which was
the
angle on which I was reading the book. the plot is an
unfocused mess,
without a clear, central concept. >>
May I suggest that today's writers would do a lot better
concentrating on
coming up with something original to say than on finding
templates, patterns
or icons/idols to copy?
Seems to me there are enough scribblers around today whose
work reads like
the Cliff Notes for [name a title] were never far from the
keyboard. (I am
NOT making a reference to Mr. Lau here. I have not read his
work, and
certainly would not be so gauche as to insult him obliquely,
even if I had.)
What I'm trying to do is make a point.
Literature comes from innovation. Not imitation.
As far as KTG not having a clearly defined plot, may I
further suggest that
there is ample evidence just in this century that plot is not
necessarily
essential to literary merit.
Consider
ON THE ROAD
THE GINGER MAN
DESOLATION ANGELS
NAKED LUNCH
ULYSSES
FINNIGAN'S WAKE
MALONE DIES
TOYLAND
and so many more
On stage, how 'bout
WAITING FOR GODOT
Now, THERE'S a plot-driven, gripping, edge-of-the-seat crowd
pleaser that
just happens to be the most important dramatic work (except
maybe Death of a
Salesman) of this century.
The idea that crime fiction must of necessity be plot-driven
rather than
character-driven is an artificial construct that plays right
into the hands
of the least-imaginative and most risk-scared publishers
today. For
confirmation that there is another way that has both literary
and commercial
validity, one need look no further than the work of Bill
Pronzini (the
non-Nameless books) and Peter Bowen (the Gabriel DuPre
novels).
And, a few years earlier, Horace McCoy.
PB
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.