Mark Sullivan (AnonymeInc@webtv.net)
Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:29:36 -0500 (EST)
Jason, You've brought up The Big Echilada a couple of times
as the only recent example of hardboiled. I read it when it
first came out in paperback, in the early '80s (as well as
Morse's Old Dick). I remember liking it, but I didn't really
stick with me. So please remind me what made it so
distinctive that it is the only one of its kind.
I'm assuming that your definition of hardboiled requires a
private eye, which leaves out such contemporary hardboiled
writers as Kent Harrington, Terrill Lankford, Fred Willard
(anyone know if he's close to finishing his second book, the
one he left the list to concentrate on?), Boston Teran, Vicki
Henderson (at least Miami Purity), David Eversz (at least the
great Shooting Elvis), most Ellroy, Vachss (Stella and his
short stories, I can't take Burke), etc. Then there are the
numerous new and recent Brit writers like Derek Raymond, Ian
Rankin, Russell James, etc. I'm guessing you'd call those
noir, not hardboiled (no, I'm not trying to start that battle
again).
Now, I don't like Parker or Grafton, but there are many
"sensitive" PI writers I do like, such as Rob Kantner,
Richard Barre, Linda Barnes, SJ Rozan, John Shannon, GM Ford,
Don Winslow, to name but a few.
Still, there are several post-Vietnam hardboiled private eye
writers I can think of. First and foremost, there's James
Crumley. Although I've been a bit disappointed by his last
two, I think Last Good Kiss is the best private eye novel of
the past seeral decades and one fo the best, period. And
there are the mid-period Scudders by Lawrence Block. Just off
the top of my head, there's also Stephen Greenleaf, Jonathan
Valin, CJ Henderson and John Straley. Denis Lehane probably
falls (or swings back and forth) between the two
schools.
Now I could see someone arguing that all of the above (except
probably Henderson) are "sensitive," hell, they're
practically depressives. I'd argue this is part of what makes
them good contemporary hardboiled. They are tired, depressed
and often just one drink away from giving up, but they keep
going, can't help themselves, for their identity is so
invested in the ritual of turning over the next rock and
seeing what creatures crawl out.
And as far as senstivity goes, it's not just a recent thing,
it's built into the genre. Chandler's Marlowe certainly had a
sensitive side, as did Macdonald's Archer and no one doubts
their credentials. Even Mike Hammer had his incredibly
sentimental moments. The whole romantic notion of being a
man, and more recently woman, out of time, knowing s/he will
probably make no real difference, but carrying on anyway,
holding to a own personal code is built on sentimentality.
And I think that's what draws many of us to the genre, this
romantic center. Of course, we also require that it be
well-covered with blood, guts and shoot-outs so we can prove
how hard, cynical and worldly we all are.
Mark
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat 27 Nov 1999 - 11:29:47 EST