Re: RARA-AVIS: Making Spenser's Life Easier (Without Hawk)

From: George Upper (
Date: 15 Nov 2001

--- Gerald So <> wrote:
> We've mentioned how Hawk, Vinnie, Chollo et al
> shield Spenser from hard
> decisions. One instance of Spenser-shielding that
> bugged me more than
> any sidekick was *Parker's* killing off Candy Sloan
> (1981).

Yeah, this has always bothered me, too, but I'm not sure that I agree that Parker did it for the reason you're suggesting. In later novels, Spenser and Susan discuss his failure to protect Candy and how he needed Susan to "heal himself" psychologically afterwards. I'm no psychologist, but this sounds like babble to me--it's what they say, though.

ANYWAY, I think Parker wanted to have Spenser fail in protecting someone he loved WITHOUT killing of Susan, Paul, Hawk, etc. So he invented a new love interest for the express purpose of killing her off. So while I agree with you that it might have been interesting to see Spenser and Susan cope with the affair had Candy lived, I don't think that was ever in the cards.
 Rather, I think Parker took the coward's way out here in protecting his characters and inventing a new love interest. I think it would have been much more interesting to see Spenser lose Susan, for example--or at least to have her almost killed, on the brink of death the way Spenser himself has been a couple of times--when he was supposed to be protecting her from some threat.

Personally, I was glad when Susan left for CA and it looked like Spenser was going to go out with Rita Fiori from the DA's office or wherever she was from.

Geez, this is starting to sound like a soap opera.


===== George C. Upper III, Editor The Lightning Bell Poetry Journal

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals

# To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
#  This will not work for the digest version.
# The web pages for the list are at .

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Nov 2001 EST