One thing Keith said struck me,
"Which brings me to my Second Point: It may be a better
critical paradigm to look at each work, rather than classify
each author."
I know this is said in relation to subgenre classification
("hardboiled")--and most would agree with the point--, but it
raises an interesting question of valuation that I don't
recall being addressed on this list.
Some authors are valued for certain individual titles, but
there seem to be others whose whole corpus (not corpse) makes
them significant--no single big works, but what they're doing
with a series character who develops or with variations on a
plot or theme. I get that idea, occasionally, when folks
insist that the best thing to do is start with the first work
written to see whether you'll like an author. And perhaps
some would argue that the whole of some author's work makes
him or her just as "big" as someone who has written a handful
of big titles.
For instance: Don't we tend to prize a James Cain for just a
few titles, whereas we prize a Ross Thomas for a general
quality of output throughout much of his career?
I'm really less interested in rating particular authors than
the somewhat anti- academic proposition that FOR GENRE FANS
(which we are), a career of many not- quite-masterpieces may
elevate an author as high (or higher) as a career of 2-3
masterpieces. Less interested in our standards for
masterpieces and choices, than how we apply them in choosing
the authors we like. What about it?
Be interested in responses if I haven't fogged the question
too much.
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 27 Apr 2000 EDT