> No, no. These are genuine questions. The reason
I
> asked is that the
> word "depth" does not convey a clear meaning to
me
> (in literary, or
> more generally, in artistic questions).
What I meant by depth is that something is going on besides
the obviousness of the plot. In the particular case I was
suggesting that Greene has a more expansive and nuanced view
of the world than say Spillane. Greene's Journeys Without
Maps or In Search Of A Character shows that Greene works at
his craft and his world view and the dimensions of the people
in his books. Now, if you want to say that you like Spillane
better, that's your beeswax and there is no response to
that.
>And my
> question about
> intention was serious, too.
This is meant at face value. Spillane, Fleming, Clancy and
Cussler intend to entertain, sell books and maybe make a
movie deal. Greene has those same desires but I think -- and
I'm positive that this can be supported
-- that The Quiet American, The Heart of the Matter, The
Power and The Glory have an added dimension that Greene
intended in his work. He had something that he believed to be
real and sigificant to say (and you can disagree based on his
political views or his self-deprecating statements) but Tom
Clancy isn't writing anything such as The Comedians any time
soon. To me, the intentional difference between I, The Jury
and The Third Man is pretty obvious. Yes, he wrote
entertainments and comedies but so did Shakespeare.
This isn't any kind of denigration of hard-boiled or noir or
whatever. One of the reasons that I like Hammett is that he
had the same delusions as Greene and it shows in his work.
And I like a fun shoot'em up read as much as the next guy.
But I can't be sustained by that alone . . .
William
Essays and Ramblings
<http://www.williamahearn.com>
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Nov 2007 EST