Mario wrote:
>Good article. While I agree that many private-eye
novels and even entire
>series sound a bit tired (in some cases, were born
tired), there are
>always exceptions.
>
>As to how believable a quixotic P.I. is in our day, I
would argue that
>Chandler's Marlowe wasn't exactly believable in the
forties and fifties
>either. It's the quality of the writing and the
characters that draw the
>reader - I take it for granted that there is an
automatic suspension of
>disbelief when the author really delivers a good
story.
Boy, do I agree!
>
>It's also interesting to notice how certain gifted
authors have
>circumvented the limitations of the P.I. as hero.
Mosley, making Rawlins
>a regular guy who gets into messes; Burke, by having
Robicheaux be a
>very peculiar sort of cop; Ellroy, by pushing the
procedural in
>interesting (even crazy) directions; Sallis, by making
the crime and
>investigation subsidiary to an existentialist drama;
Gores, by adopting
>the techniques of the procedural while nominally
adhering to the P.I.
>formula, and so on. These guys succeed because of
unusual ingenuity and
>talent, but many others who still plow the traditional
P.I. territory
>often produce pale, tired, cliche-ridden works that
only contribute to
>sinking the formula further.
>
Although, even within the bounds of the "traditional"
territory, there are
some interesting variations. Some of the non-"pale male" eyes
(be it women,
Hispanics, blacks, gays, whatever) of the last few years have
opened up the
genre to whole groups of people who only a few years ago
would have never
read the stuff, and there's the politicized works of folks
like Paretsky,
Greenleaf and Michael Collins, the historical stuff by Max
Collins and
Philip Kerr, the unfolding lifestories of long-time series
characters like
Nameless and Scudder. While staying within the boundaries of
the
"traditional" P.I. novel, they've likewise upped the stakes.
Not everyone
I've mentioned appeals to everyone, but they all contribute
something to
the genre. Part of the problem is that there are so damn many
of them now
that merley average novels end up looking worse than they
are. Remember,
there's always been a lot of crap.
But I remain convinced that the best of today's P.I. stuff
can stand
proudly alongside any era's.
As long as writers are willing to play with the form (look
how well
Chandler did with it), the P.I. novel will continue. And
within the P.I.
form, there's certainly still a lot of room to play.
And Michael wrote:
>I think he *says*
>that Chandler said that the ideal p.i. isn't
necessarily "realistic," but
>it is at least possible/plausible. Rafferty was
arguing that Chandler's
>assertion, for a variety of reasons, no longer holds
true, and that all
>the current pi's (or many, anyways), seem like tired
relics, representing
>more nostalgia than actual connection to contemporary
concerns. The
>article is short and well-written and likely to
provoke response.
And realism is a red herring, anyway...it isn't what we're
here for,
really. Like Loren Estleman is fond of saying, he's not in
the realism
business, he's in the hero business.
Once again, that's the June issue of GQ, and an article by
Terence
Rafferty. Find it and read it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Smith
Web & Graphic Design
New e-mail address! mailto:colba.net
#
# 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/.