On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Kevin Burton Smith wrote:
> 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?
I read the whole book ("Looking for Rachel Wallace"). It was
the second Parker I've read. I don't think I ever will read
another. I'm sorry to dismiss all the other authors of the
genre based on my opinion about one author only. This seems
to be my sin.
> 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?
I meant the whole hardboiled genre. Well, now that you
mention it, Whittington couldn't actually be said to have
renewed any genre. But take Lionel White, for instance. He
brought into the caper genre some of the most furious
critique towards the capitalist society of his time. In the
fifties, this was revolutionary. And the revolution he made
was more meaningful to me than that was brought in the end of
seventies by writers like Marcia Muller and Parker.
> 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.
Like I said (or at least tried to say and will say many many
times in this posting), I was talking about the whole
continuum from Chandler
(and other thirties and fourties writers) up to this time. If
I was dismissal towards some authors, it was because I saw
them as a part of this continuum that I don't find as
interesting as that that leads up from James Cain.
> And the genre is too easy? What? To write?
To
> imitate?
To imitate. Greenleaf, for example (several books read,
although it was a long time ago), seems to me to be a Ross
Macdonald copy or at least something very close.
> 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?
Sorry about this. This was a bold exaggeration. But I was
still talking about the Chandler tradition in which Frank
#Q#ยค&" Kane and others were dominant in their own time.
With this I didn't mean the current P.I. writers. I do know
that Parker's books aren't about girls and guns - well, they
are, but not in the manner that I was talking about.
> 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.
You're probably right about this. But I was still talking
about the Chandler heritage in general and not the current
authors. The infallibility of guys like Johnny Liddell (why
am I thinking about him all the time?) gets to me. Like it
must get to everybody else. That's why Parker, Grafton and
others changed the thing. But they are still too much about
the private eye him/herself - at least for me to really be
interested in their work.
> 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.
Hence the including and excluding at the same time. I like
Prather's books a lot and acknowledge the parody, but I
realize at the same time that Prather really can't shatter
the P.I. genre's foundations.
> Is
> it possible you've read some of the other modern
P.I. writers you're
> weighing in on almost as extensively?
You've got me. I write too much about Parker, but that's just
because I don't care about his books and I don't see anything
special about them. I promised some months ago that I would
read more Parker (I honestly tried - I was mildly entertained
by "Looking for Rachel Wallace", but the simplicity of the
plot and the snobbery turned me away, but I did finish the
book, it was quite a fast read), Grafton and others. It's
just that I've been reading some other books and haven't had
time to dwell in the hardboiled genre for some time now.
Kevin, I promise again that I try the authors you seem to
regard pretty highly.
> >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.
You've got me, pt. 2. Apart from liking Ross Macdonald and
Greenleaf
(even though it's some ten years I read him) and Pelecanos
and having been bored by some of Crumley's books ("The Last
Good Kiss" is a good one, although) and having had some
difficult time about Mosley (can't tell you why - I like him
and realize what's he coming from, but there's something
about his books that just doesn't grab me), I haven't read
the authors you mention. Must get back to them.
Let me still add that I said "necessarily".
But my criticism - let me add one more time - was meant to
regard the whole genre, from the early thirties up to this
day. The current trends in the P.I. genre are still more
shallow than the other, older ones. If the renewing of the
genre continues, that's fine. Maybe I'm wrong and too
pessimistic, but I just hope they get over the Parker
influence.
> 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?
Egotistical in the narrative sense, in the sense of the lead
characters. Egotistical may be the wrong word, maybe
narcissistic would be more accurate. I know too little about
the authors themselves to be able to say if it's because of
them, but I should say that I find it very hard to get
interested in the private eye him/herself. Maybe I'm
old-fashioned in my preferences, but I like Chandler more
than Parker, because Chandler doesn't try at every turn to
tell me what a wonderful guy Marlowe really is.
> 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.
You are not getting the point. I was talking about the whole
genre - like I think I already said here -, not just the
current writers in the genre. I know there are interesting
authors out there, but I have too many involvements right now
to be really able to dig them out. Sorry if I have offended
anyone. This wasn't my meaning.
My meaning was try to point out that the Chandler side of the
genre has been dwelling too much and too often in girls and
guns and the P.I's ego. If that's not the case anymore, fine.
But let me still add that it seems to me that the narrative
usages in, well (here we go again), Parker's and Grafton's
(whom I've read) books are not interesting to make the lead
character interesting enough. I mean, the writers simply put
some superficial qualities into the characters (meaning, he
can cook and has trouble finding the right one). It should be
done in a more interesting manner. It's not done that way in
the mainstream or art literature, or whatever it should be
called. Or if it is, I'm bored.
(This is why I liked Pelecanos's "The Sweet Forever" and
"King Suckerman" more than his "Nick's Trip" and other
Stefanos books - because the qualities of the characters
seemed to have more to do with the plot.)
If I was talking about some obscure authors and referring to
them as more interesting ones, like Williams and White, it's
just because I know their work and respect it.
> (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 don't get you. If you read a book and don't like it, do you
go rushing into the book store and grab everything else the
author has written and read that? Why waste your time?
By the way, do you remember the time I read Dennis Lehane's
"Gone Baby Gone" and told that I liked it, you criticized me
for liking it?
> 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.
Hope this has been keeping you interested. I didn't answer
all of your criticism, but that's because this took pretty
much of my time already.
By the way, am I still on the Thrilling Detective writers
list or have you dismissed me already? There are some
contributions (about some deeply obscure authors) that I've
been thinking about.
Juri
PS. Glad this is an easy day at the job.
-- # 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 : 01 Mar 2001 EST