>
>I understand. Someone has suggested that Willeford's
"very special modus
>operandi doesn't fit any established mold of crime
writing," which may
>put him above any criticism from rara-avis. How does
one criticize
>anything that doesn't fit any mold except that of some
vague, undefined
>"magical realism"? Hell, the "Wizard of Oz" is magical
realism!
>
>I might, on the other hand, suggest Willeford is truly
hardboiled, his
>writing is apropros rara-avis, his writing is absurd
though
>entertaining, and he isn't by any stretch a major
writer. Some have
>other ideas, which is OK, too.
>
>When I say "I don't give a shit about the genre" it's
only in the sense
>of those who might elevate it into something it isn't:
a kind of
>glam-lit along the lines of F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Willeford as the peer
>of Fitzgerald. Man, that's a hoot.
And he responded to a quote by Mario Taoboda as
follows:
>
>>"Pulp" is a general term that covers a lot of
authors, styles, and
>>themes. The term by no means excludes "major"
authors. From what I hear,
>>Willeford did not think of himself as a lousy
writer...
>
>Willeford is dead and won't be remembered 50 years
from now, except from
>decaying paperback books. That's the case for most of
those we read
>here. Tough shit.
well, I didn't see anything too objectionable about your
posts, but I think
I'm a-gonna stick up for poor old Willeford here (Mario can
take care of
hisself).
I haven't read any Hoke Moseley books, but I did read _High
Priest Of
California_, among others, and I thought that it was an
exceptional
book...sort of beat Jim Thompson at his own game, as a matter
of fact.
Really better written than Thompson, dialouge-wise and in
terms of construction.
Although I don't get much call to discuss him these days, I
am one of
the few people I know who has literally read every word that
old F.Scott
Fitzgerald wrote, including letters, screenplays, Christmas
cards and
laundry lists. Guess what? A lot of his stories are *sheer*
pulp (including
two very poor murder mysteries). He was sometimes
contemptious of them,
sometimes quite proud of them. This arbitrary distinction
between "literary"
and non-literary writers is very recent and very artificial,
owing more to
the New York Review Of Books than to any real
distinguishing
characteristics. Not to say that Fitzgerald isn't a better
writer than
Willeford, but....so what? Fitzgerald, when he was good, was
better than
almost anyone. Wasn't afraid of dropping a few gangsters into
his stories,
either.
The best of our crowd are hanging on very well. Hammett,
Chandler, and
Cain seem in little danger of slipping off the (L)iterary map
(Hell,
Hammett's almost lasted a hunnert years already). Why should
Willeford? He
has already hung on about 40 years longer than he expected
to.
James
James Michael Rogers
jetan@ionet.net
#
# 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/.