Marianne,
Re your comments below:
> Jim, I have read them. And I've been struck
before
> now by the
> unprocedural nature of Rebus' actions.
I'm
> unrepentant: as I read
> them, these books have a protagonist who is almost
a
> type of private
> eye, a man who fights more against procedures
than
> with them, and
> whose moral hang-ups are personal. He does not
hide
> behind his rank
> or status, and the depiction of law enforcement
is
> only marginally
> accurate. Indeed its detailed accuracy
would
> be almost
> irrelevant to the books.
> I have no sense that Ian is, or has ever
been,
> especially interested
> in this kind of thing.
Is it your contention that no real police officer ever acts
the way Rebus does? That there are none who do not "hide
behind their rank or status" who ignore procedure in order to
get the job done? I can assure you that there are many. As
for the "marginal accuracy" of his law enforcement depiction,
you're probably in a better position to judge that then I am,
but he's talked about researching police work at panels I've
attended, and he credits police technical advisors at the
beginnings of the books, so the APPEARANCE of technical
accuracy is apparently important to him. Plenty of writerS of
purported police prcedurals have been infamously inaccurate
in their depiction of law enforcement (Elizabeth Linnington
under her own name and many pseudonyms is perhaps the best
example of this). It doesn't make the books "not"
procedurals, any more than failing to play fair and give all
the clues to the reader makes a
"classic-style" traditional mystery any less
"classic-style." It just means that the writers are cheating
their readers out of what they have led their readers to
expect. Rankin writes cop stories that are deliberately
designed to give the impression of verisimilitude (and I'm
willing to take him at his word that they actually are
accurate). Therefore, whatever else they are, they're police
procedurals.
> There are real problems with PIs in a
British
> context, you see, and
> various ways of solving the problem have
been
> attempted by a number
> of writers. Some authors have solved
these
> problems by developing
> police protagonists whose actions are
ultimately
> maverick. By your
> own
nothing-more-nothing-less-main-interest
> definition, the books
> just don't really qualify.
Sure they do. Even if, as you suggest, the books aren't
really technically accurate, they are deliberately written,
and presented, to give the APPEARANCE of technical accuracy
and realism.
Now I'll grant you that purporting to be technically accurate
and then not delivering isn't really cricket, but a writer
who hums a few bars and then fakes it is clearly trying
coat-tail writers who actually study the music. Their books
may be "procedural" only in appearance and not in fact, but
they ARE procedurals.
I think the reluctance of at least some readers to regard a
particular book or writer as being in this sub-genre stems
from an antipathy to the sub-genre to begin with, which, in
turn, leads to faulty syllogistic reasoning:
1) I don't like the works of Jack Webb (Ed McBain, J.J.
Marric, or some other writer who's regarded as a
quintessential procedural writer).
2) Their books are considered "quintessential" examples of
the police procedural.
3) Therefore, I must not like police procedurals.
Which leads to further faulty syllogisms when they bump up
against a cop-writer they DO like:
1) I don't like police procedurals
2) I like Ian Rankin (Sjowall & Wahloo, William
McIlvanney, Tony Hillerman, or some other more inconoclastic
cop-writer).
3) Therefore, the books these writers write must not be
police procedurals.
I repeat, if the novel is about a police investigation, and
the police work is realistically depicted (or at least
appears realistic), then it's a police procedural. And that,
your objections notwithstanding, really IS all there is to
it.
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.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 : 13 Aug 2002 EDT