Very good points. Woolrich was fearless in taking the risks
you mention and the overall risk of failing badly and looking
a bit foolish. Now and then, the magic wasn't there enough to
rush the reader past the coincidences and plot holes. But he
certainly succeeded (at least for this reader) more often
than not. Woolrich to me has an emotional, improvised feel.
He's not reading notes from a score. He takes us deep into
personal fear and suspense when its working well for
him.
The other thing about Woolrich that I want to mention is that
he is merciless. He had no series character and readers could
not be certain that characters would come out well or survive
at all.
Richard Moore
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "jacquesdebierue"
<jacquesdebierue@...> wrote:
>
> Richard, thanks for these Chandler quotes. I can see
why Chandler
> would notice Woolrich's impressive technique. And
also, given how
> Chandler controlled his material (in the stories,
which are his main
> work, in my opinion), how he would find fault with
Woolrich's devil
> may care approach. With each story and novel,
Woolrich was taking a
> risk, the risk of credibility and the risk that his
mastery at
> creating fear would not work. In my experience, it
mostly did work.
>
> And Chandler is right that Woolrich is about "ideas"
rather than
> plots. He is one the great inventors in crime
fiction (with Fredric
> Brown, Charles Willeford, Jim Thompson and a few
others). The
gimmicks
> he invented tap into a vast well of fear that we all
carry inside.
> That is his genius. Plausibility doesn't matter. We
carry the fear
> from early childhood, an age at which plausibility
has nothing to do
> with it. You can tell the kid that the monster
couldn't possibly be
in
> the closet, since the closet is empty, but it
doesn't matter.
>
> Best,
>
> mrt
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Feb 2008 EST