Thanks for your comments, Brian. It seems to me, however, in
the very best of these stories the
"villians" are so complex as to make the reader actually
identify with them...and they're almost always the
protagonists. Note: The Postman Always Rings Twice, Double
Indemnity, The Killer Inside Me, The Grifters, Recoil. Also
Mitchum's character Jeff in the movie, Out of the Past. I
could go on. These protagonists, while some are absolutely
evil, and all do the "wrong" thing, leave the reader
considering the factors that drove them to these poor
choices. Shutter Island takes the reader in a similar
direction. Here, though, the psychotic break is so complete
that the protagonist really does not know the difference
between reality and wishful fantasy. The Killer Inside Me's
protagonist is a psychotic, but his psychosis tells him that
the rules in the real world are there just for show; that
people like him do not have to follow them, in fact are
suckers if they do follow them. Murderer Dennis Rader is this
type of psychotic. Such psychosis is much more comprehensible
than the total break described in Shutter Island.
Unfortunately, this total break is becoming more common in
crime and psychology. Example, murderer Andrea Yates. I think
it was well worth Lehane's effort to explore this kind of
problem, and I, personally, thought he did it very
successfully.
Patrick King
--- Brian Thornton <
tieresias@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Patrick-
>
> With all due respect, the POV character is still
the
> antagonist of the piece: the reason for the
story.
> By definition, the "villain" is the straw that
stirs
> the drink in these sorts of stories. And
unreliable
> narrators are considered a no-no by many
because
> it's possible for a lazier writer than a Lehane
to
> cheat by using this mechanism.
>
> As for Lehane being compared to Dan Brown on
this
> list, I don't see that. I can't understand
how
> pointing out (in response to complaints that he
is
> "underappreciated") that he is one of the
most
> widely read, most lauded, best remunerated
authors
> in the business today, and that many authors
would
> love to be so "underappreciated" is calling him
a
> "hyped mediocrity."
>
> And he's certainly no Dan Brown.
>
> Lehane is good, and he's to be commended for
not
> playing it either safely or comfortably, and for
his
> willingness to take chances. BUT when you
take
> chances, and essay something "new" or
"experimental"
> it doesn't always work, and when it doesn't
work,
> people are both entitled and obligated to point
that
> out when discussing one's books, rather
than
> treating it as a literary case of the Emperor's
New
> Clothes.
>
> Rara Avis is usually a pretty fair place.
If
> anything, the folks here tend to cut many authors
of
> lesser ability and focus than Lehane (like
Mickey
> Spillane, who I consider unreadable) too
*generous*
> of a break.
>
> All the Best-
>
> Brian
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have
been
> removed]
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the
free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 29 Mar 2007 EDT