Bill Hagen wrote:
>The book is Priscilla L. Walton and Manina Jones'
_Detective Agency: Women
>Rewriting the Hard-Boiled Tradition_ (U. Calif.
Press, 1999).
>
>"The authors of the present volume explore how women
writers, positioning
>professional female detectives in the world of
contemporary crime, have
>reimagined the hard-boiled novel, challenging not
only the patriarchal
>culture that defines these fictional worlds but the
linguistic,
>intellectual, and narrative paradigms that
traditionally have shaped the
>genre. ...focuses on leading writers such as
Paretsky, Grafton, and Muller
>while considering an ample range of titles by other
practitioners. ...[it]
>provides a deft analysis of the political and
economic role of the genre's
>readership. ...the engaging prose will draw in
undergraduate and general
>readers as well as scholars. Highly
recommended."
>
>There you have it, including a reference to
"readership" (Who, us?).
>Anyone looked at this book?
Man, what's worse? Blurb writers or academics?
The answer, it seems, might be blurb writers for a book
written by academics.
As for this book in particular, I seem to remember a couple
of reviews in Canadian papers (Walton and Jones are
Canadian). I think the mystery columnist in The Globe and
Mail gave it a positive mention, but certainly nothing like a
rave. And Lisa Appignanesi, a mystery writer herself,
reviewed it in The National Post. However, she basically used
the book review as a springboard for her own quickie
interpretation (or was it a summary?) of the topic, and ended
up revealing some of her own misunderstandings (or maybe the
authors?) of non-female P.I.s. In the end, she concludes that
the book "fails to explore...why so many of these spirited
dicks have run out of steam." Now, that's a really good
question.
Certainly, at this point, some sort of overview of the rise
(and possible fall) of the lady dick would seem in order, but
this book may not be it. Like most scholarly stabs at the
genre (think Woody Haut, for example), the book sounds like
it might be interesting and offer up some food for thought.
But, then again, judging from some of Appignanesi's comments
and the blurb itself, it might also be just another misguided
scholarly tome with a nice cover, full of evidence willfully
ignored or spin-doctored to fit a particular thesis, fobbed
off on us yobs in the general public.
Kevin Burton Smith The Thrilling Detective Web Site http://www.colba.net/~kvnsmith/thrillingdetective/
An A&E Mystery.com Site of the Week, but don't let that
discourage you.
-- # 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 : 26 May 2000 EDT