> Where does this idea of Henry being the good Kane
come from? I just
> can't figure it out. Henry Kane is overwritten,
sloppy and
> boring. Sometimes funny, sometimes parodical in the
Prather vein, but
> never good. Frank, on the other hand, is hardboiled,
saves the
> wisecracking and sometimes tells a good story. Well,
some of the later
> Franks are pretty tired, but the early ones are
quite readable.
I would have to agree with the above. Henry Kane is one you
read strictly with a sense of nostalgia and for the style. If
the dictionary is handy, you might enjoy Henry, as he has the
William Buckley method of using words no one else remembers
or spells correctly. Frank Kane, on the other hand, is pretty
typical in style and use of language, and fits quite nicely
into the hard-boiled school. I always enjoy a Frank over a
Henry, any day.
Best, GWN Gary Warren Niebuhr P. I. E. S. (Private
Investigator Entertainment Service) P. O. Box 341218
Milwaukee, WI 53234
piesbook@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~piesbook/piescatalog.html
-- # 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 2b29 : 11 Jul 2000 EDT