William,
Clearly, you and I part on a lot of issues, but I don't
really disagree with your categorizations here. Yes, Rebus is
genre, one of the best if you're into that kind of thing.
You're not, I am, different strokes.
And I agree with your observation that, by definition, series
increasingly rely on formula. I once pointed out this
difference between Bruen/Starr's Bust, where I was very
surprised by who lived and died, and their sequel, Slide,
where certain characters seemed to have protected status.
Although I enjoy Bruen's various series, I totally see why
you do not. Even if his series' heroes, Brant and Taylor, at
first seemed unorthodox choices as series stars, just their
being put in that position ultimately rendered them orthodox
(and the things that once seemed unorthodox are reduced to
quaint little character traits).
That's why I said "some Bruen" is trying new things. These
would be some, but not all, of his standalones.
Jack O'Connell came up with an interesting way of keeping a
series more open. Only the city, Quinsigamond, carries over
between books (although often different parts of that city),
not the characters. Yes, Dennis Lynds did this as John Crowe
in his Buena Costa County Mysteries, but those were solidly
genre pieces, even if, as with most of his work, they were
filtered through Lynd's leftist politics. O'Connell's books
get progressively original.
Anyway, sometimes I want to read something new, interesting,
challenging, etc, hence my request for recommendations of
this sort. But other times I just want a genre piece, as a
sort of comfort food. I get that "comfortable" is probably a
literary insult in your mind. As I said, different
strokes.
Mark
ps Although I also cannot stand Vachss's Burke books, they
weren't written to impres his wife. He worked with endangered
kids long before they came together; in fact, as I understand
it, they met through their work, her as prosecutor, him as a
child advocate,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 28 Jan 2008 EST