>I've met plenty of other authors who I
didn't
>care for personally, some on this list in fact, but
it had no bearing on how
>I reacted to the power of their words on the printed
page. conversely, I've
>met some very charming (and well known) authors who
did absolutely nothing
>for me as a reader.
Well, that's the way it should be. But I find much of the
pathetic dick-waving ego Ellroy indulges in in his publicity
is starting to seep into his work, which is a shame. Because
at the top of his game, Ellroy can be very good indeed. But
it's been a while...
And Kerry wrote:
>Sorry Kevin, but I think there's more to Ellroy's
criminal boasting than
>what you allow. It may serve promotional purposes (he
is certainly an
>entertaining and amusing reader of his own works),
but we also need to ask
>why flaunting a rap sheet would promote the sale of
books. Some of it goes
>to credibility, veracity.
Ellroy was, he admits, a minor league punk, a B&E wanker
at best, miles removed from the corrupt cops he so lovingly
portrays. Most of his knowledge of the crime he writes about
(and he's also admitted this, even in that puffpiece
"documentary" I saw) is from books and newspapers and
"third-hand, fourth-hand" gossip. Hell, a lot of the stuff he
writes about, Ellroy was still sniffing his own diapers when
it took place.
>In the same way that Hammett's experience as
a
>Pink contributed to the credibility of his stories
(yes, they're fiction,
>but do they have the ring of truth?), Ellroy's
experience as a lowlife
>contributes to the veracity of his stories. This
implies that genre themes
>have shifted in the decades between these two
writers.
Uh, I'm not sure about the veracity of Ellroy's stories -- a
lot of his stuff rings hollow to me. He writes a good story,
but too often they're so overbearingly overwrought that they
seem, to me anyway, closer to high opera than true crime. As
for veracity, while it makes a good PR note, even Hammett's
P.I. experience, even back then, never made his stories that
much more believable than, say, the work of Raoul Whitfield
or Chandler. Experience is always good, but imagination and
empathy (and good writing) can easily match it.
>You mentioned in an earlier e-mail that Chandler's
Marlow tried to maintain
>a code, despite its corruptions. The difference
between Chandlers' era and
>Ellroy's is the acknowledgement of institutionalized
corruption.
Uh, no. Chandler often goes on about the institutionalized
corruption of his day, just as surely as Ellroy does. Only
Chandler takes a lot fewer pages to tell it, and Marlowe
tries to keep his head above water. Ellroy dives right
in.
>Does
>anyone on this list seriously debate that there are
different laws for
>different races, that the rich are not punished with
the same severity as
>the poor, and that the powerful are seldom even
prosecuted? The genre now
>accepts as a fundamental truth that the official code
(the law) is itself
>corrupt, as much as its administration.
But that's not new. The only thing new Ellroy brings to it
(besides his own style, which is sometimes formidable, and
sometimes just silly) is a willingness to wallow and revel in
it. It doesn't make him a more realistic writer -- just one
with a different point of view.
>There isn't much room for Marlow's
>"bruised romanticism." This applies at all levels of
society.
I dunno. I think there are still some people left with some
decency in them. I think I saw one just last week. Portraying
everything as corrupt isn't reality, it's cynicism. And a
lazy, shuttered cynicism at that. Most of us are both good
AND bad.
>In Ellroy's works corruption is the natural
state
>of human existence. It is the aspiration to
redemption, rather than its
>achievement, that is remarkable. In a corrupt world,
the man who admits his
>corruption achieves not only credibility, but a
perverse honesty.
Sort of like Marlowe bitching he was "part of the nastiness
now" at the end of THE BIG SLEEP way back in 1939?
And now its birdlives' turn:
>I wonder why you have such a hard-on for
Ellroy.
I don't. In either sense. Though I wonder why you
wonder.
>I have own
>my opinions about his novels -- I'm very partial to
his old
>work, which, in my opinion, peaked with "The Black
Dahlia."
>I've reread "Clandestine," (my favorite) many
times.
>However, I literally cannot wade through any of his
fiction
>since, finding it suffers from his ambitions to try
to
>further his reach, and expand (and implode) the
genre.
>
>Sure, Ellroy's marketed himself in a particular way.
God
>bless him for finding success with extreme material
in a
>difficult business.
Sounds like a blessing for a kiddie pornographer...
>But anyone who's read "My Dark Places"
>knows that much of it is a persona -- that he
exploited the
>memory of his mother, his personal demons, and
inverted his
>own self-loathing in pursuit of fame and
recognition.
Isn't that what I was suggesting, that a lot of it is a mere
persona, put on for show?
>Like his work (and him) or not, you can't deny his
talent or originality.
Or his literary inconsistencies.
Look, I like some of Ellroy's stuff. But I don't think he's
the great writer some of you do. I think at his best, he can
be (arguably) brilliant. But at his worst, he's really,
really bad.
His waxing nostalgic to People Magazine, star-struck European
filmmakers and fanboys about the pantie-sniffing glories of
his youth doesn't make him a better or a worse writer, or a
more credible one. It just makes him a little sad, in my
eyes.
That's all.
--
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 : 12 Dec 2002 EST