Bill wrote:
> When I discovered Ross Macdonald in the early '60s,
I couldn't read
> his
> books fast enough. I stayed up into the wee hours
finishing some of
> them,
> including THE CHILL, probably my favorite among his
books. I vaguely
> remember someone (Boucher?) saying that Macdonald's
plots were "like a
> fishhook in the mind." That's the way they worked
for me. Obviously
> not
> for others.
I think some of it at least has to do with when you read
them, and where you sit politically. Not totally, of course,
but in a sorta general way.
When I was doing an essay on Macdonald several years ago, I
heard from a lot of fans, and it turned out many of them had
read him in their early twenties or late teens. There's
something sorta paternal about Archer, the detective as
father figure, I think, that appeals to the adolescent or
young adult mindset. All those troubled kids in those
stories, and it was always Archer, come a-calling, who dug
down deep and understood.
And of course, Macdonald's heyday was the sixties and
seventies, an era chockful of young adult angst and father
issues. To question the status quo is, in a way, to rebel
against your father.
You like to talk and question, to understand, read
Macdonald.
Whereas Spillane's kill-'em-all mindset probably finds more
of a home with those who favor physical force as a solution
to almost any problem. Daddy knows best.
You prefer to push around someone to prove the right of your
cause, you'd probably love Spillane. It plays right into the
might-is-right mythology.
Of course, it's not all cut-and-dried -- it's just a theory,
and I haven't even had my coffee yet. Lots of people love
both authors, but rarely, I'm sure, for the same
reasons.
Kevin Burton Smith The Thrilling Detective Web Site
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 30 Oct 2007 EDT