--- Robert Elkin <
rictusaporia@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 2) tightness of plot would seem to have to
recede
> when "realism" truly comes to the fore (unless
the
> paranoids are correct!);
*************** A novel, by it's nature, has a point to be
made and it makes that point whether the author plans it or
not. This is as true for Charles Dickens as it was for Mickey
Spillane. If a novel fails to complete its analogy, it's
either the fault of the author or his editor. Sometimes I
suppose it can be the fault of the readers if they're willing
to accept just anything from a "star." This was an objection
often aimed at Ian Fleming, although I can't think of a
single one of his books that didn't end satisfactorily even
if realism was left by the wayside.
*******************************
> 3) The phrase "instant classic" is devoid of
any
> possible meaning by its very nature, irregardless
of
> anything else.
> RTE_,___
> <!--
******************************** I'm speaking here, for
example of books like DAY OF THE JACKLE; one of those few
"blockbusters" that live up to the hype. It's beautifully
constructed. A nail-biting narative. My only objection to it
is that the Jackle got off that first shot that missed. That
book was an "instant classic" and deserved to be. As good as
Forsythe is, he's never managed to create such an impact
again. Similarly we have Metelious's PEYTON PLACE, which was
arguably the first "blockbuster" and an "instant classic."
This doesn't happen often, and the publishing industry has
proven repeatedly it can't be manufactured. But when it does
happen it is the most satisfying reading experience.
Patrick King
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 27 Mar 2008 EDT