--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "James R. Winter"
<winter_writes@e...> wrote:
>
> Oh, Ross's fingerprints are most definitely all over
the PI novel.
> If you look at the early Spensers, that might be
Marlowe's sense of
> humor spewing forth from Spenser's mouth, but the
depth of
> characterization and the humanization of the PI
protagonist is
mostly
> MacDonald.
I agree that Ross MacDonald's influence is quite apparent in
many of the popular detective series of the past quarter
century. Parker certainly was a careful student.
> Of the three - Hammett, Chandler, and MacDonald - I
would say
> Chandler may be my favorite, but MacDonald was
clearly the better
> writer. Even his early stories, which owe more to
Chandler than
> anything else, MacDonald was much better at plot
and
> characterization. I also get a better sense of place
from him
(which
> is hard to do, considering that I'm comparing him to
Chandler,
whose
> stories are all about place.) Moreover, I think
MacDonald handled
> the long form better.
>
> Chandler, though, was the original hardboiled
stylist. But his
> strength was more in the short form, and his best
novels (save, I
> think, THE LONG GOODBYE*) came from combining short
stories,
> something he did much better than Hammett in many
cases (THE
MALTESE
> FALCON and THE THIN MAN notwithstanding.)
I don't believe that THE MALTESE FALCON or THE THIN MAN were
(to use the term A.E. van Vogt coined) "fix-up" novels formed
by cobbling together short stories. FALCON was a five-part
serial that ran in Black Mask from September 1929 to January
1930 and THIN MAN appeared, slightly condensed in Redbook's
December 1933 issue. If you had said that Chandler was better
at cobbling together novels from short stories and compared
Chandler's best "fix-ups" to Hammett's RED HARVEST and THE
DAIN CURSE, you might have a point.
But Chandler's
> characterizations, aside from Marlowe, were often
flat or rather
two
> dimensional, whereas MacDonald clearly understood
something too
many
> writers don't: Everyone's the star of their own
drama. Where
> MacDonald has the most impact is in how he handles
antagonists,
> protagonists, and minor characters. That's something
that's often
> lacking in even the better PI series (or the
post-CATSKILL EAGLE
> Spensers).
>
> Having just read one of each writer's more mediocre
efforts back to
> back, I'd have to say that MacDonald wins both in
influence and
skill
> hands down for simply doing more with an average
story. The
> difference is in the characters, imho.
>
> Jim Winter
I'm not certain that I would chose to rank MacDonald and
Chandler on the basis of their more mediocre efforts. I'm
more of a best vs. best ranker myself.
You favor MacDonald on the basis of his better skill handling
"antagonists, protagonists, and minor Characters" and say
that Chandler's characterizations "aside from Marlowe" were
flat and two-dimensional.
For the sake of argument, granting every point in the above
paragraph about MacDonald's better antagonists, protagonists,
etc., I am intrigued that your praise does not include the
character Lew Archer. For myself, I've always found Lew
Archer a bit, well, two- dimensional, certainly hazy in
comparison to the various fully-drawn protagonists and
antagonists.
Richard Moore
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads.
Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for
free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/kqIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 29 Nov 2004 EST