WordRunner@aol.com wrote [about Poodle Springs]:
[SNIP]
> the shortcomings of the work lie in the distance
that
> the writing in this apple and it's (characters
and
> storyline) have fallen from the tree. You won't
walk
> away from a reading of this one saying:
>>
>> What a beautifully crafted masterpiece.
Truly
>> incredible. How he came up with line after
line,
>> I can't even begin to give examples, I'd
be
>> reproducing the whole book. The book reads as
if
>> Chandler just sat down and it poured out of
him.
[SNIP]
> Overall, It's pretty mediocre stuff for a Chandler
book.
While Mario Taboada <
matrxtech@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <<Since this is the first time since I've
joined the
> list that I've read more than a short story of
Chandler's,
> and given the recent discussion of Parker, I thought
I'd
> ask rara-avians their view of how good a job Parker
did
> with Poodle Springs. (Could you imagine if an
unfinished
> painting by Van Gogh was found and some
established,
> popular, contemporary artist--David
Hockney?--'completed'
> it?)>>
>
> Parker did a good job with what there was. He had
to
> write most of the novel,though. At times, it reads
like
> Parker, but he worked hard on the Chandlerian
wisecracking.
>
> By the way, Lawrence Block completed a Cornel
Woolrich
> novel (Into the Night) and did a really fine job of
it. You
> can't tell where the original manuscript ends and
Block's
> starts.
Apologies if all the quoted stuff above seems like a lot to
wade through, but I'm a bit of a rare bird here these days,
and contribute the only occasional snippet from my readings
of the digest. I noticed the comments on Poodle Springs and
Into The Night and thought that the painting analogy (cited
by Mario, but the attribution was lost: sorry about that) was
a very interesting one; also, Mario (Mr. T.) made a comment
about the seamlessness of Block's work on the Woolrich book
(I must state up front though that I haven't read this
onw).
However, now I've got all the preliminary out of the way,
what struck me was the way in which there seems to be a
desire for the 'filling in' or
'finishing off' to be seamless or invisible. I wonder though
if that is the only way in which one might approach these
kinds of 'collaborative texts'?
In looking at restored architecture, one notices that the
restoration work is *sympathetic* to the earlier building,
but is nonetheless noticable: it 'fits' but doesn't seek to
pass itself off. There is probably some theory or rationale
in architectural circles to explain this approach to
restoration/preservation, and it may well be that such a
theory/rationale may also be applicable to the
restoration/re=-construction of the literary work.
ED
-- # 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 : 21 May 2002 EDT