Responding selectively to my post on Spillane, Jim Doherty
told me:
"You may not like him,"
Oh, I don't. I'd pay money to read George Pelecanos AND James
Ellroy again before I'd pay money to read Spillane.
"and you're more than entitled to your own opinions and
tastes."
Thanks.
"But you're not entitled to your own facts."
.....aaaaand here's where Jim hijacked the discussion and
took it into an exploration of the dollar signs that Spillane
has racked up over the decades since he first published "I,
The Jury" back in the 1940s. Note that I did not claim that
Spillane did not sell well.
And yet that's the metaphorical club which Jim uses to bash
my statement to bits. *tsk tsk* Jim. Perhaps if you'd paid a
bit more attention during your rhetoric classes at whatever
Bay Area liberal enclove against which you apparently still
bear a bit of a grudge, you might realize that this is
nothing more than constructing a straw man argument, and then
demolishing it.
I never said it was about money. For you to set that as the
parameter of our discussion of "standing the test of time,"
and then wave Spillane's sales success as proof that I am
"wrong" is just intellectually (OOPS, there's THAT word
again) dishonest.
"The one thing Spillane HAS done is stand the test of time. I
THE JURY is still one of the top-selling mysteries ever
printed. Virtually everything he's ever written is still in
print. He's still written about, studied, and argued
over."
And here we are, talking about sales (again). I used the
vague standard of "standing the test of time" as a way of
saying, "it is (or in Spillane's case, isn't) still readable,
enjoyable, good, solid writing." I realize that this includes
allowing discussions of one's tastes in things literary, to a
point, so let me engage Mr. Doherty on one aspect of "sales,"
by setting his argument on its head:
F. Scott Fitzgerald, a wildly popular writer during his
heyday in the 1920s, made his reputation off of a third-rate
coming-of-age story set at the Princeton of his youth: "The
Side of Paradise." What's that? You say that you, the casual
reader, have never even heard of "This Side of Paradise," let
alone read it? (Given the opportunity to do so, I recommend
you PASS. It's bad.) That's astonishing! Because "This Side
of Paradise" was a runaway best-seller! In fact, it still
sells well, eighty-six years after its publication.
That said, "This Side of Paradise" has not stood the test of
time. It seems (and is) dated. The writing is sophomoric,
self-referential (particularly with regard to all of the
inside references to what it was like to be an Ivy-Leaguer in
the 1920s, something we can all, of course, remember for
ourselves), and in places, out-right amateurish.
Now, Fitzgerald's second book, "The Great Gatsby," did NOT
sell well upon its publication. In fact, it was an utter
flop.
And yet "Gatsby" has stood the test of time. By both my
standards, and the sales records which Mr. Doherty so highly
prizes, "Gatsby" is a success for the ages.
So that begs the question: if a book does not do well upon
its first printing, or even its second, yet attracts the
attention of a generation that comes along some twenty years
later, after fighting another "war to end all wars," and
feeling itself alienated from the old, comfortable, pre-war
world, has it stood the test of time, or has time merely
proven its author right?
I will admit that in framing the above discussion, I have
engaged in a bit of straw man destruction myself (if only to
prove a point). Nowhere does Mr. Doherty claim that being a
best-seller for a few years (as "This Side of Paradise" was)
qualifies a book as having stood "the test of time." Jim,
that's what you did by automatically equating my statement
that he had not stood the test of time (a position to which I
still hold) with sales figures.
"No other PI writer from that era, not even Ross Macdonald,
has stood the test of time as well."
Sooooo according to the paradigm you yourself set up, Ross
MacDonald is, if not a greater writer, certainly a more
"timeless" one than, say, Hammett or Chandler, correct?
"Is he as good a writer as any of the others you
noted?"
Not only is he not even as a good a writer as any of the
others I've noted, he's not even as a good a writer as
Carroll John Daly.
"I would say he's not as good as Hammett or Chandler."
On that, I emphatically agree with you.
"But in some respects, in terms of narrative drive or setting
atmosphere, or manipulating emotions, he's better than
Macdonald."
Poppycock. There is not one thing that Mickey Spillane has
written that stands up to "The Chill," "The Galton Case," or
"The Wycherly Woman."
"He's occasionally the equal of Woolrich at setting
atmosphere,"
When? There's nothing Spillane has written which is the equal
of "The Bride Wore Black," for example.
"and, as melodramatic and "cartoony" as his plots are (and I
cheerfuly admit that you're right about that, but that's kind
of like condemning sugar for being too sweet or pastrami for
having too much fat; sweetness is the point of sugar, fat is
the point of pastrami, and cartonnish meldrama is the point
of Spillane), they're generally more believable, and more
logically worked out, than Woolrich's (though that, I admit,
is damning with faint praise)."
So let's see if I have you straight: Spillane's writing is a
"guilty pleasure" for you, right? Why not leave it at that?
"Cartoony" is "cartoony." And while I'll occasionally get out
on a dance floor and shake it when they're playing retro
disco tunes like "Disco Inferno," I'm not going to turn
around and claim that the Trammps were a great band, at times
equaling such fabulous soul acts as Earth, Wind, and Fire, or
Sly and the Family Stone (or even the Ohio Players).
I mean, I occasionally read an Agatha Christie because I
enjoy it. Doesn't mean I think she's a great writer.
Successful, yes, and a fabulous plotter (inventive is an
understatement), but her characters are stick-figures, her
dialogue stilted and dated, etc., etc.
Why can't you leave it at that with Spillane? Good, he is
not. Great, definitely not. Successful? I'll give you
that.
But so was N'Sync. And Wham.
"You don't like him?"
Not even a little bit. His writing turns me off
completely.
"I won't try to convince you."
No, instead you'll twist what I wrote into a straw man you
can then conveniently demolish. Really, Jim, having seen you
speak at that panel you did at the Toronto Bouchercon, where
you spoke so eloquently, I honestly expected better from you
here.
"You're the best judge of what's to your taste and what's
not."
Why, thank you.
"But nobody stays on top as long as Spillane has without
having something worthwhile to offer."
On the cotrary, Mickey Spillane's success is proof positive
of H.L. Mencken's old adage: "No one ever went broke
underestimating the taste of the American public."
Lastly, let me address the tangential thread of
liberal/intellectual bashing that's also gone on in this very
thread (something that would no doubt make Ol' Red-bating
Mickey proud). I don't consider myself an intellectual,
because the true intellectuals I've met (as opposed to the
army of poseurs I've encountered who proudly bear that
monicker) were all a LOT smarter than I consider myself to
be.
But it doesn't take an "intellectual" to equate the nonsense
spouted recently on the list with regard to "liberal
intellectual elites" being the same thing as being a bunch of
smart Communists, with what it is. It's a calumny of the
first order. Just because National Socialists were (and are)
extreme, hyper conservatives politically, does not
automatically mean that every conservative is a Nazi. Thus,
not every liberal is a red.
So why don't we lay off the politics, and get back to talking
about hard-boiled and crime fiction?
All the Best-
Brian
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over.
See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/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 : 10 Jul 2006 EDT