This week, Washington Post crime fiction reviewer Patrick
Anderson writes about Block's new Scudder book, All the
Flowers Are Dying:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32603-2005Mar13.html
It's a lukewarm, at best, review. He sets up Block as one of
the last of the 1950s generation of crime writers, deciding
he may have passed his prime. However, he finishes by
implying that Block's fading is representative of the passing
of his whole generation. But he's not just talking about the
writers dying, but their books, that they have been eclipsed
by the next generation:
"American crime fiction was born in the 1920s, its roots deep
in the pulp magazines of the era, with their emphasis on
masculinity, sadism and violence. Mickey Spillane's huge
success in the 1950s embodied that hard-boiled tradition, and
a writer like Block, starting out with paperback originals in
the 1960s, also drew upon it. Today, Block does what he does
as well as he's ever done it, but I think that time is
passing him by. (As it must do to us all.) Another generation
has come along. Crime writers now are publishing novels that
are simply more interesting, imaginative and sophisticated
than those of decades past. I've often listed my favorites
among them -- Lehane, Pelecanos and Connelly are prominent on
the list -- and, with all respect to Block and his body of
work, they're where the action is now."
Now I'm not sure I'd place those particular writers at the
top of the
"new generation" -- most of them aren't even that new; I've
heard it argued a couple of them aren't what they used to be
-- placing Sallis, Jack O'Connell, Bruen and Rankin, among
others, beside or above them. However, I've got an even
bigger problem with this idea that the books of even the top
of the new gen are "simply more interesting, imaginative and
sophisticated than those of decades past." Say what?
Different in many ways, sure. As society changes, so does its
culture. And some are certainly as good as. But better across
the board? Not a chance.
First, it's a terribly unfair comparison, the late books from
one author, or generation of authors, against the prime of
another age. I haven't read the new Block, and I haven't been
thrilled about the last few, but they certainly don't dim my
opinion of his earlier books.
Anderson seems to be presenting the new gen of crime writers
as the equivalent of punk rock, wiping away the old (and it's
an easy analogy, considering how many of these writers are
fans of punk), but he is wilfully ignoring how steeped in
tradition many of these writer are, just as many of the punks
were (musically, it was really a back to 1-2 or 3 chords
roots movement, not a step into the future -- No Future, as
Johnny Rotten sneered).
Frankly, I don't want to choose. And due to recent trends,
it's easier to get the best of both worlds. That's one of the
things that's so great about imprints like Hard Case Crime.
They place old and new books side by side and we see very
clearly how equal the talent is, as well as how they
complement each other.
Mark
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> Has someone you know been
affected by illness or disease? Network for Good is THE place
to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rkgkPB/UOnJAA/Zx0JAA/kqIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 14 Mar 2005 EST