rara-avis@icomm.ca wrote:
> Also surely it's not an either/or to criticise
Spenser for being at
> heart a Marlowe clone and also to deplore the way
Parker self-
> consciously tries to get out of this trap by
simultaneously being
> talkier than Chandler - the ghastly Susan stuff -
and dumber than
> Chandler ever dreamt of being - the sub James Bond
stuff in
> Catskill Eagle et al.
So which is it? If he's at heart a Marlowe clone, why is he
so talky and dumb? And if he's really talky and dumb, how can
he be a Marlowe clone?
Look, you can criticize him for being talky and dumb all you
like. I don't agree with that assessment, but you're entitled
to your opinion. But you're trying to have your cake and eat
with your mouth open while talking out of both sides of your
mouth (I had to do something with the cliche, didn't I?). If
he's talky and dumb, then he's not really a Marlowe clone, is
he? How do you define being "at heart a Marlowe clone"? And
why is it so damning of Parker to try to make his character
not be a Marlowe clone by being talky and not-so-bright? It's
one thing to say that Parker does this unsuccessfully, but
why is the attempt itself so bad?
jess
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 14 Dec 2000 EST