I didn't care a whole lot for either of these stories, though
for different
reasons than Mr. Reasoner above.
DeRosss's hit man seemed ineffectual for a man who had been a
professional
killer. I never bought into his reason for not doing the job
himself--must
not be connected in any way. In the end, he killed both and
was very
connected and it didn't seem to matter a bit. The biggest
problem was his
continual yammering about the good life that he would lose.
Not believable
for a guy who just started a new life a few years ago. Why
not pull up and
start another. Worst of all was his fear of losing Loretta.
Next to the last
page: "It was better than ever now with Loretta. He bought
her a Thunderbird
and in return she became more affectionate and satisfying
than ever before."
Doesn't sound like he'd lose her as long as he had money! He
was too soft
and unsure of himself for a good hardboiled
protagonist.
Ditto for Kerr's protagonist. This story suffered from a lack
of viewpoint.
I couldn't tell who was narrating the story, then realized it
couldn't have
been any one person. I saw the ending coming a bit, and
didn't like it. What
was his purpose? The incorruptible cop turns vigilante. Not
so squeaky clean
after all after an entire life of religiously living by the
book. Such a man
would pour lye down someone's throat? There was also the
matter of trying to
show that only drug dealers were put at risk, but Huegens
wife was glossed
over and Dolan's wife and girlfriend was too big a stretch.
The suicide
ending was weakly done.
These weren't two of my favorites, obviously. To do the hat
trick, I didn't
care for Two Jakes, either. Consider it without benefit of
Chinatown, and it
doesn't stand up. Besides lacking atmosphere, it lacked the
anger-making
feeling of helplessness in the face of power (money).
One of the problems I think was that the change in times
affected the way
the characters were portrayed. The good old days on stark,
bolder than life,
characters is no more. They can'at be painted in bold strokes
because, IMO,
they become one-dimensional, a cardinal sin in today's
entertainment. Curly,
the Hillerman character, Jakes operatives, all bigger than
life, strong and
UNCOMPLICATED. Today all characters have to be
multi-dimensional,
well-rounded, yadi, yadi, ya. It makes interesting characters
but muddies
the issues. Hardboiled is hard. Strong, straight lines. No
blending of
colors. (So I say.)
I miss the old hardboiled stories. Stories, not character
sketches. Ideas.
Compare next week's stories, both from Mike Shayne's MM, with
anything you
find published today. Even Hardboiled Magazine publishes
stories that favor
character development over bleakness and harshness. Somehow
the definition
of hardboiled now means violent, or gory. Not the same as
hard, unyielding
even when it makes sense to yield. I continue to reread my
Mike Shayne mags
(I'm too young to have bought Manhunt on the stands) and some
of the old
Alfred Hitchcock MM stories are good too. Best way to check:
Look at the
table of contents. The longer the story, the greater the
emphasis on
character over story and the less satisfying the
ending.
Tom Sweeney
Portsmouth, NH
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.