--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Burton Smith
<kvnsmith@...> wrote: ead.
>
> But it's not what YOU'D read that counts so much as
what other people
> would read -- and are reading.
>
Well, yes and no. If I'm compiling statistics of what people
read, then everything counts. But if I'm giving my opinion,
it' what I read that counts -- and what I consider
good.
> Yep, your disdain for the work of "that lot",
particularly Grafton and
> Paretsky, has been duly and regularly
noted.
>
Huh? I never expressed disdain for Grafton or Paretsky. I
have praised
Grafton's plots and Paretsky's hardboiledness. My
comment referred to the fact that for me, the books have not
held up when I have tried to reread them.
>
> Well, it's been twenty-five years now, and the books
by Grafton and
> Paretsky's series are still going strong (as are
those of people like
> Crais and Mosley and Pelecanos),
I'm a fan Mosley and Pelecanos. Crais, I can easily do
without.
>You may not like the new breed, but there's
no
> denying their popularity. And we are, after all,
dealing with pop/pulp
> fiction. It's what people actually read -- not what
you or I think
> they SHOULD read -- that counts.
Again, see above. Counts for what? For assessing the sales of
the genre, you would look at what sells. But I don't really
care how many copies of a book are sold. I care whether it's
good.
>
> The changes brought to the genre in the seventies
and eighties have
> endured, and what's popular in the hard-boiled P.I.
genre has already
> changed.
>
But what were the changes of the seventies and eighties, as a
whole? That would be an interesting topic of discussion, I
think.
> Without, I think, changing the essential nature of
the P.I. sub-genre.
> Ultimately it still rests on an individual, a "man"
of his times,
> trying to go down those so-and-so mean streets,
trying to do right in
> a world where it probably won't do a lick of good.
It doesn't mean
> more traditional P.I. fare has disappeared, or that
it doesn't still
> sell, but the pale male lone wolf eye -- a frequent
object of derision
> even in Chandler's day -- is no longer the only game
in ShamusTown.
I am a little confused here. I spoke of an explosion (lots of
material being published) but you are now implying that there
was a revolution in the PI genre, i.e., great innovations. We
should discuss what those innovations are. Just to be
concrete, what were the innovations brought by Sue Grafton
and Sara Paretsky to the PI genre?
>
> In many ways I think Parker not only revived but
refreshed the P.I.
> genre, tailoring it for a reading public that had
lost interest, but
> without sacrificing one drop of the obvious appeal
and respect he has
> for the genre. (And it's interesting to note that,
while the once-
> massive popularity of the P.I. in film and
television has withered
> away to almost nothing, private eye novels still
regularly make the
> best seller lists).
But what did he do that was new? To me, he is a Chandler
imitator, mainly.
>I don't mind retro, but
> god save us from a slavish devotion to a past that
shriveled up and
> died ages ago.
>
I don't much like retro or nostalgia, either.
Best,
Mario
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 16 Apr 2008 EDT