Re: RARA-AVIS: Changing standards for masculinity (behavioral, not just muscle)

From: Patrick King (
Date: 27 Mar 2008

--- Robert Elkin <> 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.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 27 Mar 2008 EDT