Dick and Mark,
Good points. In my case, Spenser's sense of humor seemed to
match mine, and we had a similar commitment to "being good,"
though mine's not codified, nor as on-the-sleeve as
Spenser's. These factors helped me identify with Spenser
better than with Marlowe or Spade.
Perhaps Parker's "great contribution" was the hard-boiled
P.I. readers were allowed to know. I agree that after several
books (different readers have different thresholds) we know
too much. Spenser's ego now overshadows any plot. Any secrets
Parker may have at one time held, he's exploited. Yet some
fans still read the books happily, to visit with Spenser and
one day learn the Big Secret...his first name.
As I said earlier, I like some blunt assurance of a
character's leaning, but too much assurance tips the
character over. (Forgive the pun.) At the other end of the
spectrum is Lew Archer, whom I found had very little
personality. He was supposed to be a lens through which
readers could view the world and maybe role-play as Mark
said. It disturbed me, though, to feel after three books that
I didn't know the man.
Gerald
-- # 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 : 20 Nov 2001 EST