Just finished this one. There wasn't a lot there, but what
there was I liked. There were hints, beyond daydreams and
admitted gaps of cognizance, that the Eye was an unreliable
narrator, but in the end I couldn't tell you what actually
happened and what was fantasy in the Eye's mind.
The novel is referred to as surreal. Is this because the
events in the book are somewhat hard to believe? Is it
because of the fre- quent fantasies of the Eye? I would have
a hard time tagging the book surreal for either of these
reasons.
The sad sense of loss, a woman missing her father and a man
missing his daughter, is well done for such a hardboiled
work. It borders on but in the end avoids the melodramatic
excess of Woolrich. I found the slow disintegration of the
woman, her mixed-up recognition of the Eye's presence, and
the Eye's overpowering obsession with her to be intense and
moving.
miker
-- # 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 : 23 Jun 2003 EDT