> do the books in a series generally get better later
in the
> series, or worse? i'm betting worse. beating a dead
horse
> is not inspirational. i've heard parker's stuff gets
worse,
> but i've heard that block's best scudder is towards
the end.
Block's most recent stuff is not as good as the earlier
Scudder. At least to me. Burke's stuff, while it gets better
reviews, seems to not be as interesting as the earlier
work.
Some series get better or at least maintain their quality.
The Walter Mosley Easy Rawlins series feels that way for me,
as does Robert Skinner's Wesley Farrell series. Jim Sallis's
Lew Griffin books. Oh, and my favorite example--John Harvey's
Charlie Resnick series, which has been described as a
ten-volume novel, pretty much. He dropped the ball on a
couple, and those were early. I was always surprised at how
those books carried a different tone every time but still
portrayed the characters consistently.
Neil Smith www.plotswithguns.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 Feb 2002 EST