I must admit I was really disappointed by this novel which
sounds more like
the draft for a film script than a crafted novel. The
"montage" of the book
is so "movie" orientated that it gives a feeling of
artificial construction.
As for the characters they are very roughly depicted and,
strangely, the
secondary characters seem more believable than any of the
protagonists.
Worse, the central character is loaded with an existential
problem leading
to nihilism, that Pelecanos cannot sustain to the end of his
book.
I suppose a film could have been a better illustration as the
images and
talented actors (and talented director!) could have filled
the blanks of
Pelecanos' writing.
Just before sending this posting, I found an interview of
Pelecanos saying
that in this book he wanted to write in a way old pulps were.
And he cites
Jim Thomson and David Goodis as models for it. Ambitious, but
totally out of
proportion when looking at what Pelecanos delivers in
Shoedog!
He was there also saying that he wrote a script based on
Shoedog and tries
to find somebody interested... Well, if this confirms my
feeling about the
intention behind the novel, I strongly believe that it was
*first* a movie
orientated enterprise that Pelecanos converted in a kind of
novel. NOT the
way round.
Was it an aftermath of the success of "Pulp Fiction" by
Tarentino, as
Shoedog was published in 1994, the same year Tarentino's film
hit the screens?
I hope that 'Shoedog' is just a false step in Pelecanos'
career and that his
Stefanos novels are of better value... and I would like to
know the feeling
of RARA followers about them.
E.Borger
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6384
#
# 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/.