Juri wrote
>As for Hammett's "Harvest", I can understand it is
dull to someone. >It's
>so tense and brief that readers who like deep
characterizations (bloated,
>if you ask me) that are so popular in crime and
thriller >genre nowadays.
>But they are wrong and they should read more
Hammett.
I can't tell if you're kidding or not; it never occurred to
me that somebody could enjoy the "wrong" thing (well, OK, if
you enjoy mutilating puppies for fun and profit, I'm willing
to stick my neck out and say that's wrong, but let's stick to
books). My thesis was that today's readers generally seem to
want more character driven stories than Hammett provides in
RH. That doesn't mean these readers are better or worse than
Red Harvest junkies, just that our expectations of genre
fiction are different. And do you really think there's no
middle ground between Hammett's thumbnail sketches and
"bloated" story telling? Are Connelly, Crumley, Lehane, and
Pelecanos all "bloated" because their characters generally
receive more than a couple sentences worth of
description/development before they start shooting each
other?
Carrie
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
-- # 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 : 29 Oct 2001 EST