Patrick wrote:
> There are many interviews with Chandler around and
he
> didn't talk or act like Marlow.
Interviews? There are several biographies, and his letters,
but I haven't seen any interviews anywhere, except that BBC
one he did with Ian Fleming. Where are these "many"
interviews?
> I suspect the only
> things he and Marlow had obviously in common were
a
> passion for chess.
Chandler had a passion for chess? Where'd you hear that? I've
READ most of the Chadler bios over the years (including THE
LONG EMBRACE which I recently blogged about) and I know he
liked cats and collecting glass figurines, but I don't recall
anything about any particular passion for chess. And even
Marlowe's interest in chess seemed more like a lonely man,
killing time, than any great passion. To me, anyway.
*****************************************************
> 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?
******************************************************
> Well, that was at the end of his life when
his
> lifestyle had caught up with him.
Actually, Hammett was pretty much in and out of hospitals all
his life. He was simply a sickly guy most of his life, and
his health is why he quit the Pinkertons. And he fooled
around with other women than the ones he was living with or
married to from almost day one.
> As to "keeping it zipped," I've always
believed
> that persons who can restrain their passion are
only
> those with passion weak enough to be
restrained.
Oh brother. The Paris Hilton definition of maturity. I want
it; therefore it's mine.
> But much of what Fleming wrote was idealized from
his
> experience.
And how is that different from any other writer? They all
take what they've done and seen and felt and learned and
imagined, and craft fiction out of it. Sure, former
professional experience counts, but it's not the only thing
that makes a writer. Though it does look impressive in the
author bio or in PEOPLE.
As I've said before, "Write what you know" is a crock. And if
all you know is your job, that doesn't necessarily make you a
writer.
Only in the most simplistic, open-mouthed way could you
imagine that DR. NO or THE DAIN CURSE is any more "real" or
less "idealized" than
"FAREWELL MY LOVELY."
Certainly, Marlowe seems more credible and complex (and
dimensional) to me than Bond or the Op in those books.
> There's a current Fleming bio showing on
> the Biography Channel today, as a matter of
fact.
Oh, well, if AE/Biography says something, it must be true. Is
that on before or after America's Most Haunted Houses?
The thing is, you're trying to say there's a big discrepancy
between Chandler and his fiction, like it's some big deal or
a giant surprise to you. But it's neither unusual or rare.
All writers pillage their past and try to make something of
it. Including your supposedly more
"realistic" Fleming and Hammett. They all idealize and they
all use everything they have and everything they can think up
to spin their tales. It's why it's called "Fiction."
Kevin Burton Smith www.thrillingdetective.com http://thrillingdetectiveblog.blogspot.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 Mar 2008 EST