hi everybody!
i just finished spillane's _i, the jury_. many years ago i
read one of his books. it was my dad's book and i
"borrowed" it from him. all i can remember of it is mike
hammer dripping condensation from his beer onto a girl's
breast and then licking it off. 13 year old boys don't forget
that sorta thing. the only other thing i remember is my 7th
grade literature teacher telling me it was trash.
about 20 pages into the book i was thinking i wasn't going to
be able to finish it. the dialogue wasn't so hot and it was
obvious the characters were never going to amount to much
more than unbelievable, shallow, two-dimensional props for
the plot.
i read recently somebody's comment that fiction should
actually be "truer" than nonfiction, and there was a big
spiel about why this should be. the rationale passed me by,
but the premise didn't. when i read fiction, i'm looking for
it to be "believable", and for it to have some sort of depth
to stir some emotion in me or make me think. it looked to me
like spillane was failing on both counts.
but then i thought about it for a while and changed my way of
looking at it... i decided the book has a sort of comic
strip/cartoon feeling similar to ellroy's american tabloid.
rather than portraying a slice of the real pie, its more of
an absurd fantasy adventure. with this in mind, the book was
much more readable and fun. after finishing the book, i read
an excellent interview with him where he stated that mike
hammer DID indeed start out as a comic, mike danger.
i wanna talk about mike hammer's character some. is that ok?
;-) i like hammer's character. he's not real pro- found and
he's not riddled with the proverbial devil demons of the
past. he's damned cocky and very sure of himself. its a
refreshing change from some of the more recent detective
characters. he's a bigtime hardcore badass. and its
interesting the way his character as seen by readers has
evolved. from the brave macho lady's man of the 50's to
something darker and more noir nowadays. somebody here
recently on the list suggested he was a violent psycho. add
racist and sexist pig to the list, and he becomes even
darker. is this in itself a reason to dislike spillane's
books? no. lou ford is not a real likable guy, and _killer
inside me_ is considered a classic.
ok... it would be dishonest to sidestep the issue. violent,
racist, sexist characters do not mean that a book advocates
violence, racism, or sexism. i think any reading of pelecanos
would confirm that. but as one of our noble rare bird's has
suggested, if the book appears to accept or, worse, glorify
these traits, then the writing becomes ques- tionable. i
think my stand on the issue will be that the spillane novels
are told thru the eyes of hammer, and do not necessarily
advocate or glorify his social views. i know that some might
see that as me sticking my head in the sand, but hell, thats
an improvement over where most people think i got my head
located.
and i'm not thru yet! i have a few non sequitur type
comments. i'm certain that this interview is very old news
here on the list, but here's the link anyway:
http://www.crimetime.co.uk/interviews/mickeyspillane.html
did you know that at one time spillane had 7 out of 10 books
on the new york times bestseller list? and that he's sold
over 200 million books? and that spillane turned religious
and mike hammer quit drinking and fornicating? is this last
bit true?
ok. i'm thru. thanks to everybody who took the time to read
this whole thing.
miker
-- # 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 : 24 May 2002 EDT