--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, harry.lerner@...
wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Your point about Archer not really being personally
involved in his own
> books raises an interesting point of comparison
between MacDonald's
> Archer and non-Archer books. I finished "The
Ferguson Affair" not too
> long ago and the main character, William Gunnarson,
was very much
> personally invested in the outcome of the story.
MacDonald actually
> delved quite a bit into Gunnarson's personal life,
including his
> marriage and impending fatherhood. Although I
mentioned in my previous
> e-mail that MacDonald's non-Archer books are in alot
of ways similar to
> his Archer stories, here is at least one point of
notable departure.
>
I think Archer is involved, but elliptically. He is not a
character who tells you what he is thinking. That is part of
his attraction and why he endures. You can't tire of him
because he is so enigmatic.
> Not having done a lot of reading on MacDonald
himself (his biography by
> Tom Nolan is sitting on my to read shelf at the
moment) I would be
> curious if anyone has any thoughts as to what may
have motivated
> MacDonald to make this particular change.
I don't remember the details, but The Ferguson Affair was an
attempt to change course. Then he veered back to Archer, with
a vengeance.
Best,
MrT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 13 Mar 2007 EDT