Patrick wrote:
> The thing about Chandler that makes him unusual as
a
> thriller writer is that Phillip Marlow (sic), his
idealized
> self, was so detached from his real self.
I'm not so sure about that. Chandler was supposedly witty,
cranky, athletic (tennis, anyone?) and a decorated war hero
(which he earned in combat, which presumably means he wasn't
quite the cream puff some of his later author photos might
suggest). Witty, cranky, tough and brave -- sounds like
Marlowe to me.
And is that really any more "detached" than Hammett
portraying himself as a quick-witted man of action and a bon
vivant, instead of a sickly drunk who was in and out of the
hospital and reputedly couldn't keep it zipped? And Fleming's
Bond far-fetched adventures were a far cry from his own
experiences as an intelligence officer. Why, I bet he never
found a naked girl painted gold in his hotel room hardly
ever...
Or are you simply talking about physical characteristics? In
which case, who really cares?
Lots of (most?) authors create characters who are idealized
versions of themselves. It's called writing.
And most of us wish we were smarter, braver, better looking,
etc. It's called being human.
Nope, what made Chandler so "unusual" a writer was how good
he was, and in the end it's what's on the page -- not in the
author bio -- that counts.
Everything else is just People Magazine stuff...
> Chandler was a smart
> enough businessman to see what the public
would
> respond to, and a good enough author to pull it
off.
Is the public really that shallow? Oh, wait... they think
Hemingway, Spillane and John Wayne were actually tough guys.
Or that it mattered if they really were.
Kevin Burton Smith www.thrillingdetective.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 05 Mar 2008 EST