Michael Sharp writes about Marlowe and Archer.
>point Macdonald went into denial about the fact that
he was writing
>crime fiction and entered completely into the
delusion that he was
>writing Greek tragedies. The result is an
inauthenticity and
I don't think this is fair. They're two different beasts,
both working from within the same tradition. You did qualify
by saying that this is your opinion, but Archer WAS (sort of)
writing Greek tragedies, and I love it. He was also aiming
for a greater degree of psychological complexity than
Chandler, or more accurately, aiming to reach it with a
different emphasis on other means (internal monologue vs.
Chandler's metaphorical structure and symbolism, et al)
I agree with your point about inauthenticity in some of his
dialogue, but only to a degree. Does there exist a man who
thinks in terms of the beautiful metaphors of Raymond
Chandler, comparing hoodlums to tarantulas on angelfood the
very first time he spots them? I doubt it. Most of our minds,
when encountering Moose Malloy, would register the cliche of
most bad crime fiction: "He was big. Real big." (An aside: I
just watched The Band Wagon last night, with Fred Astaire's
remarkable "hardboiled/noir" number, and loved the
cliche-mocking that went on there. "She was bad. Real
bad.")
>Archer becomes a smarmy, paternalistic, moralizing
Greek chorus.
I think Macdonald the writer may be moralizing, but I tend to
just accept that, and enjoy Archer the writer, as a flawed
human being, deeply concerned with his fellow men.
I see the same phenomenon going with the OTHER Macdonald:
John. Travis is a SOB in some ways, a lovable lunk in others,
and, similar to Archer, flawed but concerned in still others.
And in the McGee novels, some of my favorite moments come
when Macdonald steps into Travis and preaches about his
personal concerns. The environment, academics, et al.
Much of it seems to come down to the language, at least for
me. Each of the writers I've mentioned compels me to pay
attention with the way they write. As with Shakespeare and
the Greeks, I can stand a little preaching as long as they
continue to tell me a great story in interesting ways.
>opinion*. Feel free to take your own shots at
Chandler or Thompson >or
Holding or Himes, all of whom I worship in various ways
Great stories, great language. Or great ideas, or whatever is
the strength of each of those above, and a dozen others. I
love all of the above.
(Ironically, I am one of the few on this list who will defend
Robert Parker. I DON'T think he's a particularly good writer;
I think his characters are stereotypes (and bad ones at
that), his situations bogus. His particular command of the
language isn't anywhere near as spectacular as he seems to
think it is. But I enjoy the Spenser novels as a casual read
over a night or two. I think of Parker as a later-day Shell
Scott.)
Macdonald deserves more than a dismissal because of a
writerly characteristic (moralizing, preaching) he was
probably conscious of anyway.
Bah. I'm babbling, and preaching myself. That's what you get
for being the first e-mail I've answered this morning!
;-)
-dc
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 29 Aug 2001 EDT