First, there is a sameness to his stories (original plots
were not his
forte), especially those after The Galton Case.
Second, he deals with a very narrow sector of society
(mainly, the
well-heeled in Southern California, a special breed which
deserves the
dislike that Macdonald showers on it); he rarely deals with
the more
earthy types that also abound in that strange land. Thus he
cannot be
said to be a realistic author or as portraying his time and
society at
large.
Third, his "psychological" concern in the extended creative
period that
started around 1960 and lasted until his last book, made him
drift very
far from the hardboiled. Books like "The Goodbye Look" or
"The
Underground Man", marvellous as they are, have nothing to do
with, say,
Chandler's world or point of view. These could well have been
labelled
"straight" novels.
These are my criticisms. But there are also equally clear
virtues; I
agree with those who have praised his solid narrative style,
his economy
and precision in the use of language, his depth of
characterization, and
his understanding and recreation of a particular human
fauna.
I find it hard to rank him in a pantheon that seems ever
expanding; is
he better than or even as good as Fredric Brown? Does he
match Gault at
his best? How does he stand in relation to Wade Miller? To
Thomas Dewey?
He had the good fortune of being noticed by the more
"literary" critics,
embraced by the public, and ended up enjoying universal fame
and
becoming a "classic" - not always a good thing.
Finally, I would simply ignore Joyce Carol Oates. I have very
little
respect for her writing (she is a bore) and none for her
criticism in
the mystery genre (she seems to understand nothing about
it).
Best regards,
Mario Taboada
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.