BROWN'S REQUIEM is his first novel. As career kick-offs go, it's a field goal. It's too close to his real life, all the golf course stuff. But I didn't know that when I read it. The discovery of the corpses in the Mexican hovel is a great creepy moment. That seemed real to me. Not implausible at all, except to the extent that any crime of that sort is surreal. I think perhaps surreal is a better term for Ellroy's over-the-top elements rather than implausible. Agatha Christi is implausible. Ellroy is surreal. I know the implausible when I see it too, and I run into it less in Ellroy than in most other modern crime writers.
--- On Tue, 10/12/10, Juri Nummelin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
From: Juri Nummelin <email@example.com>
Subject: RARA-AVIS: Still on early Ellroy
Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2010, 6:44 AM
I think BROWN'S REQUIEM is an okay book, but it's too deep in the clichés
and stereotypes of the typical private eye novel, even though there are some
moments in which Ellroy tries to go for something new. As for KILLER ON THE
ROAD, I'm sorry to say I haven't read it.
I was thinking mainly about the Lloyd Hopkins trilogy. Some of the books are
better, but - the titles escape me and I can't bother to look them up -
there's always the feeling Ellroy just wanted to go over the top. I don't
the same feeling from the LA Quartet, even though the books are full with
grizzly and grotesque stuff.
I can't go into the discussion over implausibility in crime fiction. Suffice
to say: I know it when I see one.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Oct 2010 EDT