I can't argue with a word Richard said about Ken Bruen's
(although Irvine Welsh's Filth, -- which I may finish one day, sure I will -- seems far more guilty of inventing a nasty cop just to do it). However, I like the series for pretty much those very same reasons. The other two books in the series are a bit less referential, but if you didn't like the first, you certainly wouldn't like those, either.
I wouldn't even try to compare them to a Pelecanos novel,
though. To me they have very little in common. As you noted,
Pelecanos's work is rooted in (heightened) realism. Bruen's
White Trilogy (though not his other crime novels) are
absurdist comedy; they have little or nothing to do with
realism. It's the difference between a Peckinpah film and one
by Richard Lester or starring Peter Sellers, a nasty Peter
(actually, I could see Mr Madonna, Guy Ritchie directing it). They are so different there's really no means of comparison.
I couldn't help comparing the series to Ellroy, if Ellroy
were British, a lot funnier and cut his books by three
quarters. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if
Bruen started out with the idea of doing a Brit parody of
Ellroy. I found myself laughing out loud at both what was
going on and at the way it was written.
I'm curious what you would think of Bruen's earlier crime
novels, though. They are a lot more traditional, especially
Rilke on Black which essentially relocates a Thompson novel
in the UK, with the attendant adjustments that would
My favorite of his books is The Hackman Blues about a
manic-depressive heavy who regulates his self-medication by
how nasty he thinks he may need to be at any given
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # email@example.com. 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 : 04 Sep 2001 EDT