Lumpers and splitters
I've been reading the debate about "hard boiled" with great
interest. While I'm not sure whether it matters, I have a
different take on the debate. First, let me give you context.
I'm an academic physician
(internal medicine). In my world, we find researchers who are
lumpers, and those who are splitters. Being a lumper I offer
the following.
Like all readers of this list I love mysteries. As I have
recently increased my mystery reading, I've decided to try
various authors and styles.
One can lump styles into two general types - those in which
solving whodunit carries the day, and those in which
understanding whydunit has as much importance. I tend to
prefer the latter. Given a rather brief recent exposure, my
current favorites of this genre are Michael Connelly, Loren
Estleman, Dennis Lehane and Robert Crais.
To expand and offer a new definition, I'm attracted to
whydunit/whodunit with judgment. The most interesting
protagonists judge events, and selectively use the legal
system. Thus, we have a story with a protagonist who is
driven to understand why - and then decide how to resolve the
situation.
Could the fine readers of this list comment on this concept?
I've just finished listening to the unabridged tape of Loren
Estleman's "A Smile of the Face of the Tiger". This book
meets my criteria. I offer Amos Walker as a classic example
of the protagonist that I favor. Is this hard-boiled? Does
defining hard-boiled help us find authors to read? What
purpose does the definition of that genre serve?
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from
anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/
-- # 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 : 03 Sep 2000 EDT