>----------
>From: Frank
Denton[SMTP:bearlodge@classic.msn.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1998 1:47 AM
>To: Rara Avis Hardboiled
>Subject: RARA-AVIS: What Constitutes
Hard-Boiled?
>
>
>The comments in #164 were excellent and perhaps have
helped a bit with what
>I've been struggling with. I've been confused by some
of the writers who
>have
>been discussed and trying to sort out exactly what
constitutes hard-boiled.
>I've been assiduously going through the archives and
recall that there was an
>attempt back at the beginning, in January of '97, to
come up with a
>reasonable
>definition. I'm going to have to try to find those
discussions again and see
>what I can make of the definitions, in light of what
I've read over the past
>couple of months. (Aside to Bill: I don't know if it
can be done but it
>would
>be much easier if the archives were in the digest form
so one could retrieve
>a
>day at a time instead of just a message. Just a
comment, not a complaint.)
>
>Anyway, Etienne Borgers comments that he places Ross
Macdonald in the third
>echelon of writers he considers hard-boiled. Early
last year I read THE
>GALTON CASE and I didn't think of it as hard-boiled.
Nor others that I have
>read throughout the years. Then Mario comes along and
although he admits
>that
>there are weaknesses in Macdonald's writing, still he
is a writer whom Mario
>reads and rereads. What is one to think. I'm reminded
of the remark of an
>early science fiction writer (I forget who; someone
will undoubtedly
>remember)
>who said, "Science fiction is whatever I point at and
say, 'that's science
>fiction.'" Obviously we have here much the same thing.
What one person
>thinks
>of as hard-boiled another thinks is not. By the way,
I'd be very interested
>in hearing which writers Etienne places in the first
and second echelon, in
>his view.
>
>Rick Robinson checks in with some questions, the third
of which was the one
>that I've been struggling with. Recently a bookshop
owner friend handed me a
>novel and said, "If you want hard-boiled, try this."
It was John Sandford's
>SUDDEN PREY. It really is a tough book, with some of
the most amoral
>characters I've read in a while. But although it is
written with multiple
>viewpoints, essentially it's a police procedural. I'm
wondering if there is
>an consensus about whether a police procedural can be
hard-boiled. One
>person
>has checked in with a resounding yes. Others may think
that the story must
>be
>that of a private eye to be hard-boiled. That was the
impression I was left
>with from reading those long ago messages at the
beginning of this discussion
>group.
>
>Finally, I can't chime in with anything concerning THE
DROWNING POOL. I have
>no idea where my paperback copy is. I checked my
county library system with
>49 libraries and though there are many Macdonald
titles, THE DROWNING POOL is
>not one of them. I even tried the University Book
Store in Seattle, one of
>our largest book stores and there was only one title,
not POOL. But I'm
>certainly enjoying the discussion so far and look
forward to joining in on
>the
>next book.
>
>Thanks again for everyone's participation. I'm
enjoying this immensely.
>
>Cheers - Frank Denton
>
>
>#
># 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/.
>
#
# 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/.