Keith wrote:
"Let me suggest Duane S's Severance Package."
When I suggested Dave's Fast Lane was disturbing, Keith
claimed it wasn't. My turn to return the favor. I didn't find
Duane's Severance Package at all disturbing. We both agree
these books are great, but disagree on their disturbing
quotient.
And this led me to realize that few of us (me included) have
explained how or why we find the books we're naming
disturbing. And no one except Sandra has really attempted to
define disturbing. I like her definition:
". . . what I find truly disturbing in a book is when I can
identify with characters in a way that makes me realize there
isn't much a line between me and them, and in the same
circumstances I might do those same things."
And it's exactly that kind of disturbance that explains a lot
of noir's appeal for me. (Saw a lot of that in Robbie's Wife;
was I the only one who found echoes of Gil Brewer's 13 French
Street?) Hardboiled, especially hardboiled PI, is often
fantasy projection for me, but noir can be more of a "there
but for the grace of God go I" kind of thing.
It also occurs to me that "disturbing" is a very personal
response. Some things are disturbing on a cultural level
(crimes against children, for instance), whereas others are
more individual. So some of the things in Fast Lane (cryptic
to avoid spoiling anything for those who have not yet, but
should, read it) disturbed me, but apparently not Keith, and
our positions reversed on Severance Package.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 30 Jun 2008 EDT