From Jim Blue:
> I believe that one of the first, and few,
obligations of the fiction
writer,
> and especially the hard-boiled crime writer, is to
tell a fast, lean tale.
Jim,
Sure, these would be the rules to follow if you wanted to
write just like Hammett.
I'm a real fan of pulp adventure fiction, whether it's Jesse
James, John Carter of Mars, Jim Hatfield - Texas Ranger, The
Shadow or just about anything Ray Cummings ever wrote. This
stuff is all largely romance (in the traditional sense).
Admittedly, I'm kindof like the pulp fans of the day who
wanted more of Carroll John Daly's romantic adventure than
Hammett's terse reporting of events. However, Hammett
exploded all over the pulp world with his neo-realistic
prose. That's an impressive achievement and in line with what
was happening in the larger world of literature. It needed to
happen in the pulps as well. I don't blame you for admiring
it, enjoying it and wanting more. At the same time Hammett
was telling his stories in neo-realistic style, he stayed
deeply entrenched (referring only to Red Harvest, because I
haven't read more) in the 19th century mystery-as-puzzle
approach to plotting. At that level, Hammett is pretty close
to what one finds in the "cozies." My wife, who thinks Agatha
Christie is the best mystery writer ever and currently has
her nose buried in a novel starring a Miss Marple clone,
adores Hammett -- because he writes great mysteries. She's
read everything he ever wrote, but admits a preference for
the Thin Man books.
My own current reading interest is stories about the
individual and his/her plight within an uncaring (probably
more noir) or even corrupt (probably more hardboiled)
society. That's in line with a lot of writing we've been
labeling as hardboiled, so most of what I've read here is
on-target with what I enjoy.
But, let's say I did overreach by claiming Pellecanos is in
touch with postmodernism. Here's another explanation: I find
an emphasis on complex puzzle plots more distracting than
enjoyable, as my skills for remembering details are taxed
beyond their weak limits. Maybe if my skills at remembering
details were better, I'd complain about Pellecanos providing
his details more than once. Maybe if I was interested in how
the details related to the final solution of the mystery, I'd
characterize Pellecanos' details as both unnecessary and
mannered.
In the end, I like my postmodern explanation better because
it claims that Pellecanos and hardboiled should be allowed to
encompass current literary and philosophical trends. Still,
either claim will suite me just fine.
Thanks for an interesting exchange. I learned some
stuff.
Greg Swan
-- # 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 2b29 : 07 Feb 2000 EST