Some time ago, I did an interview and essay on Stephen Greenleaf's P.I. books:
IIRC, Greenleaf uses a literary style and tone in all of his P.I. books. I don't remember him varying his style for the sake of plot or setting, but it's been a while since I read them. I know he consciously used Ross Macdonald as a model. My favorite of the series is #2, DEATH BED.
It's too bad he ended the series.
-- On Sun, 8/10/08, email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I came
> across Stephen Greenleaf's BOOK CASE. I only recently
> started reading
> it and the first thing that struck me right away is his
> frequent use of
> what could be described as fairly esoteric terminology in
> narration. I also noticed that this 'affectation'
> is largely
> restricted to the narration and mostly absent from the
> dialog itself.
> BOOK CASE is my first foray into Greenleaf's work, so
> is the use of
> fancy words a stylistic choice specific to BOOK CASE, given
> literary setting, or is this fairly typical of
> Greenleaf's work? If
> the former is true, then does Greenleaf make a habit of
> specifc stylistic traits as a function of setting or plot?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10 Aug 2008 EDT