Tribe wrote:
"I'm certainly not gonna defend Ellroy's use of language and
the like. It bugs some readers and others like his stuff
notwithstanding (count me among the later). But Mark, I'm
sure you're not saying that because things weren't kosher
back then, they shouldn't be written about."
You're right, I'm not saying that. My problem with Ellroy is
not his use of epithets, but his uncritical use of them
(uncritical as in simplistic; I'm not saying he should
automatically criticize any use of harsh words; casual
dismissal is as uncritical as casual acceptance). By setting
his books in a time when those words and attitudes were more
acceptable, often endorsed, and insisting he is using the
words simply for temporal verisimilitude, Ellroy is
sidestepping the issues of writing and using those words in
the 1990s. Authors like Lansdale use the "N" word fairly
often, but are aware of its shadings when coming from
different mouths.
"If anything, the more things change, the more they remain
the same in terms of language, un-correct depictions of women
and minorities and the like. Hell, just look at the RICO suit
filed against the LAPD."
Agreed, much of the LAPD seems to hold many of the same
views, but the public perception of those attitudes is very
different. Which makes it a fascinating issue to explore.
There's a complexity of attitudes (and questions about being
open about or hiding those attitudes) that offers numerous
possibilites for characters and plot. As a matter of fact,
isn't this the issue Pelecanos means to explore in his next
book?
"Chandler didn't write about those attitudes in stronger
terms 'cause he just couldn't get away with it back then.
Even so, Marlowe could use the racial epithets with the best
of 'em."
I agree with this, too. Although some of Chandler/Marlowe's
comments bother me, I can understand them in context and set
them aside. Chandler was a man of his time. However, Ellroy
is also a man of his time and that time is now. He is not a
writer of the '50s using those words, but a man of the '90s,
choosing to write about the '50s, so he can glibly use those
words and dance away whenever he is criticized for it.
However, I am not saying '90s values should be imposed upon
the past if that is the setting. I think Mosley walks that
line very carefully (of course, his main theme revolves
around questions of changes in racial treatment so he engages
the questions I think Ellroy ducks). All I'm saying is that
I've come to question why Ellroy's books are always set in
the past; it makes me wonder if he might not think of it as a
golden age of sorts.
Now I thought the world of the LA Quartet, but this tendency
really started to annoy me in American Tabloid. I am even
willing to admit that I may be letting his obnoxious public
persona flavor some of my disillusionment. I know I won't go
to any more of his signings, but I wonder if I will actually
skip his next book. Wasn't it Garcia Marquez who said he
always swore he wouldn't read the next Borges because of the
author's right wing politics, but when the book actually came
out, he couldn't help himself, since Borges was such a good
writer?
Mark
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 02 Sep 2000 EDT