Dick Lochte wrote:
> Regarding the death of the hardboiled private eye,
discussing these kinds of
> pronouncements may be fun but, to quote a TV series
that features the
> private eye formula in contemporary garb - the truth
is out there. Basic
> ideas and concepts don't die. I'm not a wild fan of
Greg Rucka or Dennis
> Lehane, but they seem to have figured out a way to
keep the tough 'tec flame
> burning. [---] Odds are the private eye will be
alive and well long after
> we've all been put to bed.
Dick, I read your article in Playboy (even wrote a short
article based on it in Body Culture, The Finnish Whodunit
Society's magazine). You have lots of evidence considering
the private eyes' lives nowadays. But I just feel that
there's not much in them being private eyes. Like I said
earlier, Lehane's Kenzie and (what was her name?) are pretty
empty characters. They seem to be private eyes because of
some generic necessities, if you know what I mean. This seems
to me to be the fatal mistake of all the post-Macdonald
private eye writers. They write about PI's, because that's
what's expected of them. I understand the fantasy of a lone
hero in this global world in which the economy or politics
cannot any more be handled, but is the fantasy enough?
Juri
jurnum@utu.fi
-- # 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 : 20 May 2000 EDT