> [A]s much as I'm a fan of [Ross] Macdonald, I'm also
ambivalent as hell
about his work. Anyone else out there have the same emotional
response to
Macdonald's work? Or am I just being a bigger weenie than
usual? <
I can't say that I am ambivalent about my feelings toward
Macdonald. As far
as I'm concerned, he wrote some of the finest, most
distinctive private eye
novels this nation has ever enjoyed reading, from "The
Doomsters" and "The
Chill" to "The Instant Enemy" and "The Underground Man." Even
the author's
tendency to explore certain familiar themes during the second
half of his
career didn't bother me terribly, for he rarely failed to
find new gold even
in old diggings. Macdonald's willingness to explore the inner
lives and
sometimes horrific heritage of his characters set him apart
from most of his
contemporaries and, as others have mentioned here, set the
pace for the
writings of people who have more recently followed him onto
best-seller
lists.
If I am left with any disappointment after reading (and
re-reading)
Macdonald's oeuvre, it is that he didn't allow Lew Archer to
have the same
number of dimensions as the other characters in his novels.
Guarded about
his own troubled personal history, the author seemed to
forbid Archer the
all-too-human luxury of being hurt or much humbled by life.
The detective
made a career of helping others, but it was only on the rare
occasion that
he sought any help himself or allowed his heart to be briefly
captured.
Perhaps this is the source of some readers' ambivalence, that
Archer seems
to accept emotion without giving it, to listen without
sharing, to adopt the
roles of cipher and a savior both.
Jeff Pierce
January Magazine
http://www.januarymagazine.com/
#
# 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/.