Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm in agreement with you on much of it, in disagreement with some of it (I dislike editing uncomfortable racial language, because I worry about how far that could go--slippery slope sort of thing). But I understand where you're coming from and appreciate the explanation.
Would you mind if I recycled it as a blog post? I think my readers would find it interesting, especially the stuff on Westlake. I consider a message board requiring a password to be private (silly in this day and age, I know), so won't without permission. Feel free to say no--I won't be offended in the least.
Here's some of what I wrote on Blood's a Rover after I finished it.
"...because Blood's a Rover isn't centered around huge historical events, it pales in scope in comparison to its predecessors. It feels more like a postscript to American Tabloid and The Cold Six Thousand rather than the culmination of events that began in the first book, which is what the conclusion of a properly structured trilogy should be. The following is not meant as a quality judgment but rather a comment on where it falls in the narrative and its relative importance: Blood's a Rover is to American Tabloid and The Cold Six Thousand what After MASH is to M*A*S*H."
I thought it was a fine novel on its own (although I'm not sure some of the character development, Tedrow in particular, made sense), but, yeah, it just wasn't big enough to end an epic trilogy.
I may well appreciate it more when I do a second reading some years from now. That certainly happened with The Cold Six Thousand.
The Violent World of Parker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 29 Nov 2009 EST