Hi Brian:
Yeah, you in particular I didn't think I'd convert. But hey,
at least you reminded me why I usually just lurk!
As for your repeatedly-asked question, "Why should a
detractor try this one?", I thought I suggested some answers.
In the paragraph of mine you quoted, I said there were some
new wrinkles. The "strong domestic element" adds more depth
to the characters you consider
"cardboard cutouts." The "uncommon ending" points to a plot
more complicated than those you consider "glaringly obvious."
I can say with certainty that the reader won't guess the
solution(s) (yes, an actual mystery with clues and
everything) to the children's deaths. I also went on to say
that I thought the last two books were different from the
others, and better. Further elaboration: The Night Gardener
main characters are police and ex-police, and this book might
even partly qualify as a police procedural. The previous
book, Drama City, qualifies as a "dog police" procedural
(surely an uncommon genre), and it's also a parole officer
procedural. Having characters within and around the legal
system provides more (infra)structure than the earlier
private eye lone wolf tough guy series. This may be due to
Pelecanos's work on The Wire (which I haven't seen - my
man-crush isn't strong enough to pay for cable), which I
suspect also helped with the Night Gardener's larger cast of
characters and shifting storylines. (No spoiler, but there
are 5 separate but interrelated murder stories.) Also, while
Night Gardener has a brief beginning and end in 1985, I
thought that the present day setting was a strength. (I also
liked his novels set in the 1950s, 1968, 1976, and 1986, but
if you're not into DC history, you won't get as much out of
them.)
All that said, I think that you, Brian "Test of Time"
Thornton, objective critic, shouldn't read it.
All best, and maybe more later,
Bob V., non-objective critic
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Thornton"
<tieresias@...> wrote:
>
> Bob V. wrote about Pelecanos' new book:
>
> >So how's the book? I read Night Gardener a
couple weeks ago as an
> >ARC, and it's damn good. There's much that's
standard Pelecanos:
> >D.C. urban anthropology, music and pop culture
references (a
> >Clapton album title is an actual plot point),
the bad in good
> >people and the good in bad people, a big
Western-style shootout.
> >There's also some new wrinkles, particularly a
strong domestic
> >element and an uncommon ending. (No spoilers,
but in a month or so,
> >I'll ask the list if anyone knows other stories
that use this type
> >of ending.) If you're a Pelecanos fan, this book
is a must read. If
> >you're a Pelecanos detractor (and I know there's
some on the list),
> >you might want to give this one a
shot.
>
> This begs the question, Bob: if there is "much
that's standard
Pelecanos" here, why should a "Pelecanos detractor" (a club
of which I am definitely a member) "want to give this one a
shot"?
>
> I think it's a valid question. For my money, you
can't rave about
someone about whom you are a self-described non-objective
fan, and then tell people who don't like his work, "Hey,
there's a lot of the stuff you didn't like in the first
place, but you really ought to try this book, because you
might like it. Even though I loved all of his other books,
and I unabashedly think this is awesome," if you'd like to be
taken seriously.
>
> So let me ask: what did Pelecanos do well in this
book that he
didn't do well (in your opinion) in others? This requires a
bit more objectivity on your part, and a concession that
Pelecanos has displayed some glaring weaknesses as a
writer.
>
> Are his characters less cardboard cutouts? Does he
stop referring
to the hero's jacket as "his leather"? (I always looked for
someone on a Harley when I read that) Are his plot points
less glaringly obvious
(a la "Right As Rain" wherein short hick drug mule with
Little Man Complex, who wears high-heeled cowboy boots, and
who has built his own bar, complete with the rail running
along the bottom of said bar, in which he will get his
high-heeled boot caught during the climatic gun battle with
Quinn at the end of the book. Oh! The heavy-handed, broadly
telegraphed irony! I *SO* didn't see *THAT* coming!)?
>
> Seriously, if we who are "Pelecanos detractors" are
to be asked to
reconsider his work, mightn't you, an unabashed Pelecanos
"stalker" address some of the things we found weak in his
earlier writing? It might call for you to be more objective
about the object of your literary man-crush, but then again,
it's the only way I would be convinced to spend another
nickel on anything by George P. ("The Wire" excepted. I think
his work on that series is exemplary. It's everything that
his writing is not. I'd be thrilled to watch anything
scripted by George P. Pelecanos. Can't explain the dichotomy,
but there you have it).
>
> Brian Thornton
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 11 Aug 2006 EDT