When I reference my vast preference for early Ellroy over later Ellroy, I'm
utilizing a totally arbitrary, personal cutoff, one that, in fact, divides
the L.A. Quartet. Along with the Lloyd Hopkins trilogy and his most of his
other early works (BROWN'S REQUIEM and SILENT TERROR...didn't really care
for CLANDESTINE), I very much enjoyed THE BIG NOWHERE, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL and
THE BLACK DAHLIA, but parted ways with him w/ '92's WHITE JAZZ, the fourth
of the Quartet. Half-hearted attempts with his subsequent UNDERWORLD
trilogy (AMERICAN TABLOID, et al) affirmed my disinclination to continue
trying to read his work.
Ron C.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of James Michael Rogers
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:07 AM
> To: rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Still on early Ellroy
>
> I don't think the Hopkins books are all that different from the LA
Quartet. The main
> difference seems to me that Ellroy replaced the half-crazed Hopkins with
the
> wholly-crazed and even more compromised protagonists of the later books..
Other
> than that the books seem to share the same strengths (narrative drive, a
really
> natural style, a very disturbing sensibility) and the same weaknesses
(implausible
> plotting, ridiculous Grand Guignol violence, a sometimes cartoony and
self-
> conscious darkness). Obviously, I like the Ellroy books but I can see how
they
> could leave some folks cold.
>
> James
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Oct 2010 EDT