Re: RARA-AVIS: Who changed the noir writing ?

From: Kerry J. Schooley (
Date: 13 Mar 2007

At 06:03 PM 13/03/2007, Mark wrote:

>I'm with you Mario. I read Mystic River after having greatly enjoyed
>his series books. Not to say it can't be done well, but I'm immediately
>skeptical of any book that starts with a prologue set decades earlier.
>So I was quickly on my guard. Still, I was surprised how quickly it
>read. I enjoyed it well enough while I was reading it, but as it
>settled in, things started nagging at me. The whodunnit was not that
>surprising, with some of the red herrings depending upon highly
>contrived coincidences. As many specific details as the characters were
>given, they remained far more "types" than individuals. And some of the
>gimmicks (like the runaway wife's hang-up calls) were gratutitous and
>annoying. I haven't read another by Lehane since. Still, it was a lot
>better than the movie, which stripped it to its contrivances and cliches
>and (unlike most Eastwood-directed movies) allowed its stars to chew the
>scenery, especially Award winner Sean Penn -- Bill Murray got robbed
>that year.

Yeah, but the question wasn't did you like it, but did it successfully innovate on the noir form. Not that the two are entirely unrelated, but still...

Best, Kerry

------------------------------------------------------ Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) The evil men do lives after them

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 13 Mar 2007 EDT