Gee, Juri, I think I preferred it when you were dictating
dress codes for private eyes.
If you're going to pontificate publicly on the genre, could
you at least display some familiarity with it, beyond reading
some forty-year old paperbacks and thirty pages of one Robert
B. Parker novel?
>What I meant was simply that the writers like Robert
Parker, Stephen
>Greenleaf, Walter Mosley and others (should I also
name some paperback
>writers like Frank Kane and Richard Prather?) haven't
been able to renew
>the genre to the same extent that writers like
Goodis, Willeford, Harry
>Whittington, Charles Williams, Lionel White and
others have done.
Renew? Renew what genre? The hard-boiled genre? The crime
genre? The P.I. genre? And how exactly have writers like
Goodis, Willeford, Harry Whittington, Charles Williams and
Lionel White, all mostly obscure and forgotten except to
denizens of this list (and most long dead), renewed whatever
genre you're talking about?
And are you taking about commercial or artistic renewal? I'm
not denying the very real talents of any of your faves
(particularly, IMHO, Goodis and Willeford), but I'm not
convinced their contributions have "renewed" any genre. On
the other hand, Parker definitely, and arguably Mosley,
Hansen, Paretsky and Grafton, have all left their mark on not
just the P.I. genre, but the whole crime/mystery genre, both
in monetary and literary terms. Now, you may not like that
mark, but it exists.
And you're basically comparing two different eras -- Parker
et al are current authors, Goodis et al were contemporaries
of Chandler, for the most part.
>The
>private eye genre lacks intensity and personal
intimity that fills the
>works of those other writers. The private eye genre
is too easy.
Sorry, but the personal intimacy of who? The author? The
reader? Since much private eye writing burrows deep into the
narrator's thoughts (eg. Greenleaf, Shannon, Macdonald), this
is an almost absurd statement. And the genre is too easy?
What? To write? To imitate?
>a) the private eye genre slips too easily into the
girl chase and guns;
>Chandler already notified this and wasn't too
happy
Well, yes, that can happen. But you're talking about the
worst examples, and in most cases, that sorta stuff,
enjoyable as some of it was, passed away long ago. Could you
give us a few contemporary examples of these "girls and guns"
masterpieces?
>b) the private eye genre slips too easily into the
praise of the private
>eye himself - look at Parker's Spenser. I tried, but
I just couldn't get
>anything out of "Looking for Rachel Wallace": the
first thirty pages are
>passed in what seems to be only the appraisal of
Spenser. He has a
>beautiful and witty girlfriend whose only function in
the book seems to
>be there for him, always telling that although he has
his peculiarities,
>he's always the man! same goes for several other
writers, including
>almost any fifties and sixties paperback writers
(including and
>excluding Richard Prather at the same
time)
I'm not quite sure I follow here. You think P.I.s are
portrayed as heroes too much? That they're too perfect?
Parker's an easy target, because Spenser is a rather smug
SOB. But most contemporary P.I. heroes are far from perfect,
and they'd be the first to tell you that.
And those forty and fifty year old Shell Scott books are
parody. You knew that, right? That they're not supposed to be
taken completely seriously? I mean, in one book he disguises
himself as a rock. So I'm not sure he's a good example for
your case.
You've already told us you've only read one book by Parker.
Oh, and now, thirty pages of another (although you apparently
know what Susan's function is in the whole book). Or is that
the same book? Is it possible you've read some of the other
modern P.I. writers you're weighing in on almost as
extensively?
>d) the private eye genre is superficial and doesn't
necessarily have any
>involvement from the author, whereas such writers as
Goodis and Williams
>seem to be very deep in their work
This is just silly. No involvement from the author? Read
Greenleaf, read Macdonald, read MacDonald, read Pelecanos,
read Pronzini, read Mosely, read Joseph Hansen, read Harold
Adams, read Collins (Max or Mike), read Mosley, read Haywood,
read Crumley, read Gary Phillips, read John Shannon. Hell,
read Grafton and Paretsky. If you can't figure out where
these writers are coming from, you're a very poor reader
indeed. The almost confessional, deeply-personalized tone of
much of their work burrows pretty deep into the minds of
their heroes and, by suggestion, their authors.
Having been fortunate enough to meet or communicate with some
of these writers, and having read some of interviews with the
others, I can assure you that most of them take their work
very seriously indeed, and invest a lot of their own passions
and concerns into their work. It isn't the genre that's
superficial. And hackdom, as anyone who goes into a bookstore
can tell you, is not limited to any one genre.
>The line of authors that leads up here from James M.
Cain (and maybe
>others, Edward Anderson perhaps, but I haven't read
him, and W.R.
>Burnett) just is more interesting than the
egotistical private eye
>genre. Chandler's books aren't egotistical (or if
they are, he does so
>well I don't mind), but his successors are. (Ross
Macdonald excluded and
>Howard Browne. Others, too, but you know how I feel
about Parker and
>other guys.)
All writing, and indeed, all art, is ultimately about ego.
But how is the P.I. genre specifically egotistical? Because
they're often narrated in the first-person? Please
explain...and how can it be egotistical, while simultaneously
lacking personal involvement from the author?
And could you give us a few more names on that line? James
Cain > Edward Anderson (who you haven't read) > W.R.
Burnett > ???
Hey, you don't like P.I. books, fine. You have an opinion on
'em, fine. I respect that. But don't make pronouncements on
the genre when it seems obvious you haven't done the
homework. Howard Browne? Ross Macdonald? Frank #$%%@#@ Kane,
for god's sake? Maybe you should read something a little
more, um, current, occasionally.
(Remember the guy who dissed all over an author here, and
then he actually read some of the author's work? Now he seems
to be one of the author's biggest fans, keeping us posted on
his comings and goings.)
I'd love to debate it further, but you have to give us
something to go on, besides blanket dismissals. You're a
smart guy, Juri, so please, put some meat on those bones, so
we might all have a good chew.
-- Kevin -- # 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 : 28 Feb 2001 EST