Maybe it's some kind of latent academic streak in me, but I
have no
problem with this. Oates is a pretty good writer from the
highbrow
mainstream and I think it is obvious that she has, over the
years, taken
Chandler seriously enough to talk about him. I have disagreed
with some of
her pronouncements, but that isn't too unusual. Since "we"
are the ones
saying that Chandler has some elements of high literature in
him, I think
the burden falls on us to demonstrate it. My dog-eared copies
of Chandler's
books are testimony to the affection and respect that I feel
for the guy,
but many of his stories are flawed and not just in terms of
the Byzantine
plots. To my mind, Oates is guilty of not much more than a
lack of
reverence. Suits me.
I suspect that Oates really does appreciate the ways in
which
Chandler *was* an original.....the occassional flights into
his particular
flavor of poetry, the weird nostalgia for a mythical LA past
that may have
never existed except in the imagination of the author and his
hero (another
aspect which Ellroy borrowed), and the dialogue (rarely
equaled, never
surpassed).
Anyway, when Joyce Carol Oates does an retrospective on you
I think
that you have pretty much arrived.
James
James Michael Rogers
jetan@ionet.net
Mundus Vult Decipi
#
# 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/.