Does anybody think it's possible that we may be reading too
much into the significance of homicidal sidekicks? The
sidekick --benign or malignant -- has always been an author's
gimmick -- a tool to make the hero look smarter or to get the
hero into or out of trouble or just to give him somebody to
talk to. Maybe Parker created Hawk with the intention of his
representing Spencer's darker side. More likely, the
character, initially introduced as a challenge to the
detective, simply took over. That is, Parker liked him and
thought it would be fun to keep him around and see what would
develop. What did develop is, of course, dependent to a large
degree on the author's psychological bent. But he will
probably tell you it depends even more on serving the demands
of each particular novel. For example, I once asked him why
he made Spencer a foodie and his reply was that it gave the
detective something to do -- preparing food and eating --
during the expository scenes. Is it possible that, in the
grand tradition of sidekicks, Susan Silverman is there to
assist Spencer with the exposition and Hawk (or any of the
lesser badboy sidekicks) is there to help him with the
action? And everything else is incidental? Did Doyle create
Watson to show us Sherlock's dumber side? Did Spillane create
Velda to represent Mike Hammer's more feminine side?
Sometimes that cigar is just a plot device.
Dick Lochte
-- # 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 : 14 Nov 2001 EST