Gerald So (gso@optonline.net)
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 00:58:35 -0500
Hello, all.
After Etienne's explanation of his
take on Robert Parker, I have to agree. In Spenser, Parker
had successfully creating a truly original P.I., a man who
was in turns both raw and sensitive without getting too hard
(Spillane) or soft (Ross Macdonald).
Parker's writing was smooth and
confident and never pretentious. It mirrored the way Spenser
was supposed to be. Then, in the mid-eighties, coincidentally
when "Spenser: For Hire" aired on ABC, the books became more
commercial. Only in retrospect do I see where Parker stopped
trying as hard. Perhaps he felt the series would fill in the
blanks for him. Maybe Parker isn't even aware of coasting.
There's always a blindspot when it comes to your own
writing.
I find Parker's Jesse Stone series
refreshing. Written in the third-person, you can see Parker
trying new ways to flesh out a character and show us his
story. Conversely, I found FAMILY HONOR to be another case of
coasting. The Helen Hunt movie tie-in is again a coincidence.
No P.I. worth his salt likes coincidence.
If Parker had never achieved
fame, the Spenser series as a whole would probably be better.
Then again, Parker achieved fame precisely because of how
well he wrote in the first place.
I agree with Kevin that, all
things considered, Parker has done an admirable job of
handing fame to continue to write his series; however, at
times, as Etienne mentioned, I feel I've been cheated out of
a great writer.
While I don't believe
Parker reached his full potential, I do believe he deserves a
spot among the greats, and I'll read him anytime. Hammett's
and Chandler's writing declined more steeply than Parker's
over a shorter period of time.
Gerald
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri 24 Dec 1999 - 00:58:52 EST