>At 05:56 PM 9/25/98 -0700, Jay A. Gertzman
wrote:
>>In an interview with Amazon.Com, the excellent
virtual bookstore, James
>>Ellroy states "I don't think Chandler knew much
about people. . . . I
>>think that we wrote the man he wanted to be . . .
. [his] noble loner
>>character was bull----. Solipsistic and
self-pitying." It seems to be
>>that Marlowe is slipsistic, all right, and he does
seem very ready to
>>defend himself against charges that he is a
mercenary in any way, but
>>Marlowe also seems to be able to face clearly his
limitations and he
>>does seem to take a lot of physical and
psychological grief to make a
>>statement about corruption. I wonder if anyone who
knows more about
>>Ellroy than I do can explain what Ellroy might
have meant--or why in
>>grneral he does not respect Chandler's work. It
seems to me that
>>Marowe's conservative morality, especially when it
comes to vices such
>>as pornography, gambling or prostitution, are much
closer to what might
>>be called bedrock American values than those of
many "noire" or "hard
>>boiled" characters.
>>>
> I don't know what Ellroy means by calling Marlowe
"solipsistic"
>and I doubt that Ellroy does either. Perhaps you can
clarify what you
>believe was meant.
> Ellroy has borrowed a *lot* from Chandler, whether he
wants to
>acknowledge it or not. I agree that Chandler's books
have a distinct
>flavor of self-pity but so do Ellroy's. Hemingway,
Hammett, even Cain are
>all open to more or less the same charge. I have read
similar comments by
>Ellroy in the past, and I have come to believe that
they have at least as
>much to do with his invented persona in it's
iconoclastic mode as it does
>in legitimate criticism....an old Sex Pistols fan like
myself can
>recognize this posturing a mile away.
> I think that Ellroy is a very good writer, but his
books are a lot
>better than his interviews which latter strike me as a
bit "solipsistic".
> James
I'll take a stab at this. My impression is that Ellroy is
making the same
criticism that some make of Quentin Tarrentino i.e. his
films/books are
more references to popular entertainment's view of life than
being from
life experience (ergo Ellroy's admiration of Dashiell Hammet,
who in
writing HB was also writing from his life experience.)
While this doesn't fit the traditional definition of of
silopsism, I think
the implication is that writing from received cliches is
silopsistic in
that it simply refers to cherished notions that are held in
one's head and
not challenged by interaction with reality. Hammet, for
instance, was
challenged by a lot of reality in the area in which he
wrote.
I don't agree with this point, by the way. I happen to like
Chandler quite
a lot -- Tarrentino too. This is simply the construction I
put on Ellroy's
statement.
I see the comparison to the sex pistols as perhaps being apt,
even if I
disagree with your interpretation. Sure, the sex pistols did
plenty of
posturing on stage, but in the case of Johnny Rotten and Sid
Vicious
(particularly Sid) their posturing on stage was never as
extreme as their
personal life off stage. As such, I don't see it as being
crazoid junky
posturing as much as two versions of the same reality.
I have the same take on Ellroy. Every writer uses a personna
that is to
some degree fiction in structuring their narrative voice. If
Ellroy's
autobiographical book and statements about himself are true,
and I believe
them to be true, he certainly didn't cover a lot of space in
moving from
his real life to his made up personna.
Fred
-- ----------------------------------------------------------- Down on Ponce by Fred Willard fwillard@mindspring.com http://fwillard.home.mindspring.com/ -----------------------------------------------------------
# # 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/.