Since we are talking about Chandler anyway, it occurred to me
that Chandler's work was too personal, too dependent on his
enormous writing ability, to allow for successful imitation.
Yes, Howard Browne succeeded in producing good
pseudo-Chandler, and Ross Macdonald wrote a few of those in
his early career, before starting a totally different
gimmick, but overall the Chandler-Marlowe model is not really
a model but a one-of-a-kind seedless flower.
These thoughts were prompted, in part, by trying to reread a
Spenser novel by Robert B. Parker, an attempt that did not
last because I was overcome with deja vu and a sense of
rejection. They were also prompted in part by rereading a
very fine style book by Jacques Barzun
(who turned 100 the other day) called _Simple and
Direct_.
On the other hand, the Hammett model has inspired countless
writers. It is still usable and, I suspect, will never be
exhausted. His methods for handling character, timing,
dialogue and situations are usable by anybody. If you use the
Hammett model you are not a Hammett imitator but simply a
hardboiled writer. And the influence goes well beyond the
hardboiled genre...
If somebody today wants to write like Chandler, that writer
can be sure that I won't read him (or her).
Best,
mrt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 08 Dec 2007 EST