At 05:44 PM 06/07/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--- "Kerry J. Schooley" <
gsp.schoo@murderoutthere.com>
>wrote:
>The creative juices are 'flowing', I think,
everytime
>somebody new publishes a book in the
genre.
Not if we're just going over the same turf.
> If enough
>new voices are published and heard, and if enough
of
>them are good, the genre's healthy.
Of course, the question hinges on the notion of "good."
>In short, to the extent I understand you I don't
agree
>with you: the genre doesn't need an "edge", it
only
>needs quality.
I didn't know one disqualified the other.
I don't see an "edge" as some sort of fashion statement. I
think of it as a creative edge, meaning the body of work
advances into new areas, even if incrementally. Frankly, I
think this is one of the many possible attributes of quality.
Try to imagine it: re-writing The Maltese Falcon say, only
somehow better, seems almost pointless. How would we define
"better" in this context except as an advance of some
sort?
>Again, I'm wary of these kind of generalizations
(how
>can "the genre" have moral certitude?). As for
us,
>well, these are all pretty well-read, intense fans
and
>writers, you know. You're going to get
strong
>opinions.
Sure, but did they respond to the criticisms with something
more than their own vague generalizations? Some did,
actually, and I thank them for that.
>You'd have to give me some idea of what you
think
>constitutes positive advance in this area.
I'm
>sympathetic to some extent to your point here,
but
>it's hard to engage without some sense of what
you
>think is worthy of note. Leave Ellroy out of
it.
Why?
>O'Connell?
Yes, others have suggested ways in which they think O'Connell
advances the language.
> Starr?
Tell me how you think he advances the language.
>As I've said, I don't think this is an
interesting
>virtue. Engaged literature dates badly, and is
beside
>the point of why I read anyway. That's not to say
an
>author with a definite political pov couldn't
be
>effective: you couldn't finish a Michael Collins
book
>without knowing where he stood on the spectrum of
his
>day. But the point is that, at the end of the
day,
>Collins's best books will last not because
they're
>critical of capitalism, but because they're
fine
>stories that reveal something of the human
heart.
But would they be published if they had little currency? Even
Shakespeare pandered to his Elizabethan audience. I'd suggest
quality work requires both, bringing universal themes and
concepts to bear on more immediate contexts, often revealing
fashionable issues to be quite durable. I thought I raised a
couple of current issues that, with my admittedly limited
knowledge, it seemed to me the genre (meaning those who write
in the style) has yet to address with revealing insight. Did
I miss the response?
>As I've gotten older I've gotten wary of
literary
>theories, especially these kind of ur-theories.
They
>tend to squeeze books into predetermined
storylines,
>and at their worst they con authors into writing
for
>the theory, instead of a reader.
I always thought it was a bit of a compromise: the author has
something to say, but must find a way to make others want to
read it, let alone accept any of it. Failure to do one or the
other being another elusive attribute of quality.
Best Kerry
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
-- # Plain ASCII text only, please. Anything else won't show up. # 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 : 07 Jul 2004 EDT