Mike:
>
tieresias@att.net wrote:
> Kerry, as for your earlier contention that Ellroy
explores the themes of
> the "chaotic" 20th century world, I disagree
whole-heartedly with that.
> IMO, the only landscape Ellroy is exploring
(mytho-poetic or otherwise) is
>the interior landscape of his own dark, twisted
psyche (which is part of what
> makes his non-fiction work, "My Dark Places" such
riveting stuff). If he's
> working out his issues and getting paid for it,
great for him. But I find
nothing epic about his obsession with corruption, and
*over*-emphasis on the profane.
>
> **********
> I see what you mean! The dirty, mean, corrupted
streets of Los
> Angeles that Ellroy portrays are just some twisted
personal fantasy
> of his, with no foundation in reality. In the real
world cops
> are honest, racism doesn't exist, there's no
poverty, and Ward,
> June, Wally, and Beaver wake up every morning to a
wonderful
> new day of promise and prosperity. Yeah,
right.
Actually, I wrote this in direct response to Kerry's
statement that Ellroy explored the great themes of the 20th
century, so your sarcasm (although very funny) is misplaced.
Corruption is as old as mankind, and as long as there have
been taxes to be collected, there have been tax collectors
skimming off the top of them. Kerry claimed that Ellroy's
ruminations over what lurks in his own dark heart were
discussions of what has gone on in the *20th century*, and I
found that amusing, especially in light of man's long
associaition with payoffs, kick-backs, and bribes.
> It's entirely possible that Ellroy has a "dark,
twisted psyche,"
> but that doesn't make the world he paints in the
dark shades of
> noir any less significant.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, Mike, I
did, after all, highly recommend "My Dark Places" (both in
the post to which you responded and elsewhere) and "The Black
Dahlia" to Maryanne. That said, let me ask you this: what is
darkness? The absense of light? Possibly. The largest problem
I have with Ellroy's archetypes is that they have lately
gotten to the point of parody because in most all human
beings, there is some sort of balance of good and bad. Adolf
Hitler loved dogs and kids. Evil, rotten, murderous son of a
bitch? You bet, but just like a stopped clock being right
twice a day, he even had his good side (miniscule though it
might be), which made him monstrous, but not a
caricature.
Some of Ellroy's characters are so swimming in corruption
that they seem scarcely half-drawn, and speaking as someone
who struggles with characterization in my own work, I'm
telling you, in my opinion, well-rounded characters are more
fully-drawn than you'll find in Ellroy's work. Compare the
female protagonist (forget her name) in James M. Cain's "The
Postman Always Rings Twice" with any female character in
Ellroy's body of work. There was a discussion on this list
not too long ago of her more "admirable" features. I just
don't find that in the women set to play off of Ellroy's
dark, crawling, sewer-dwelling men.
Now does that mean that I think there ought to be "admirable"
(there's that loaded word, again) characters in noir books?
Not necessarily. I ought to be able to find something I
either like or admire in a character though, in order to be
able to find that character sympathetic. Take Stark's Parker,
for example. Amoral? Sure. Capable? Yep. Good at what he
does? You know it. Resilient? Absolutely. Admirable? Only in
a "survival of the fittest" way. Also, Parker is a law
breaker, but he's true to himself. Ellroy's characters tend
to be so compromised, it's a wonder that they don't collapse
under the weight of all of the ennui they're lugging
around.
> And I'm clueless about your last statement. Epic
simply means the
> darn book is over 500 pages, and corruption and an
"*over*-emphasis
> on the profane" are standard characteristics of
noir. If you don't
> like that sort of writing, I suggest you stay away
from the works
> of William Lindsay Gresham, Cornell Woolrich, Jim
Thompson, Horace
> McCoy, James Cain, and David Goodis.
Perhaps I mis-spoke. I intended to address the implicit
contention that Ellroy's work is so transcendent that it is,
in fact, literary, and not, in the strictest sense, "genre"
fiction. In my opinion, it's not. If you don't enjoy
hard-boiled or noir writing, you probably won't enjoy
Ellroy's work as something "symbolic of the travails of the
20th century" (paraphrase mine). When I think of something to
fit that bill, I think of Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath",
or William Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury", or Ernest
Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls". These are all tough,
realistic novels, with LOTS of dark, gloomy, compromised
people in them, and yet there is a balance there which I find
lacking in Ellroy's work (again, the opinion is mine alone),
something which says that we as humans are all parts (to
varrying degrees) diabolic and divine. To me, that is great,
"epic" fiction.
Of course it could all come down to the fact that I think
that Ellroy lacks a sense of humor, and I'd rather read
Parker's stuff and laugh in between ruminations about the
sorry state of the human condition. Who can say?;)
Thanks for your input. I enjoyed what you had to say, and the
opportunity to respond.
Relatively,
Brian
-- # 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 : 22 Nov 2002 EST