>I said that Willeford is sui generis - which mold of
crime writing does
>he fit, in your opinion? For example, you could
mention some other crime
>writer that he closely resembles.
Elmore Leonard and Carl Hiaasen, the comparison to either I
would not
call a compliment. But I did read 4 Willefords, which is
enough to last
me a lifetime, I suppose, though I may watch "Miami Blues"
again. Hey, I
did plow through 4 of them.
>As to magical realism, it is not vague and I was brief
but not vague in
>referring to it - I mentioned its two most notable
exponents (Rulfo and
>Garc=EDa M=E1rquez). Magical realism refers to stories
in which
>extraordinary, inexplicable, illogical, or even
supernatural events are
>presented in a nonchalant, matter-of-fact way, without
any hint of
>abnormality. Long before JR and GGM, Pirandello and
Kafka had done
>something similar. It is not my fault if you associate
the words
>"magical realism" with Oz.
OK, I'm on the page now, thanks. Willeford isn't a magical
realist; he's
an absurdist.
><<When I say "I don't give a shit about the
genre" it's only in the
>sense of those who might elevate it into something it
isn't: a kind of
>glam-lit along the lines of F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Willeford as the peer
>of Fitzgerald. Man, that's a hoot.>>
>
>It's a bizarre comparison...
Think of it as a magical realist comparison.
>Besides which, no two writers are "peers".
>It's always every man for himself.=20
Why would you compare Willeford to Rulfo, Garc=EDa M=E1rquez,
Pirandello =
and
Kafka? Obviously you think these authors have something in
common -- as
some kind of peers -- or you wouldn't have made the
comparison. My
comparison was grossly different, of course, because I don't
think of
hardboiled fiction as much more than an entertaining
diversion. That's
why I'm here. Others are here for other reasons. I simply
don't think of
Willeford as some kind of geometric-puzzle-literature that
needs to be
dissected by doctoral candidates to make sense of it. Is this
an OK
attitude to have in rara-avis or should I shag out of
here?
An aside: My 81-year-old Mom's all-time favorite movie is
"Goodfellas."
She thought Joe Pesci's character was deliciously evil and
hilarious. So
did I. I though the movie was the best gangster film ever
made. It makes
"The Godfather" look like sentimental slop. I particularly
enjoyed its
non-magical realism. Anyways, we celebrated her birthday this
past
weekend by, among other things, watching Jackie Chan's "First
Strike."
The old bag got a kick out it. To be honest, I thought it was
a bore
except for the acrobatics. And I'm a chip off the old
blockette. I enjoy
my water straight up -- right out of the tap. Water from a
bottle is
like gift wrapping a dog turd. Wrapping up Willeford in a
"magical
realist" tissue is just about like . . . uh, never
mind.
I don't even know what it would mean
>to "elevate the genre". In my eyes, the genre is
already important
>enough to read, write, enjoy, and discuss (as is much
other literature I
>value outside of crime fiction).
Cool beans, lad.
><<Willeford is dead and won't be remembered 50
years from now, except
>from decaying paperback books. That's the case for
most of those we read
>here. Tough shit.>>
>
>Who can know?
I'll bet you a million dollars.
--=20
Ned Fleming
#
# 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/.