In an effort (perhaps a feeble one) to tie this thread into
another recent one, it seems fair to say that Woolrich was
hardly formulaic. But, did his work tend to have a specific
kind of form? Was his penchant for risk-taking his way of
staying true to his own form?
Best, Harry
P.S. I haven't read much of Woolrich, so this post comes from
very much a neophyte when it comes to all things
Woolrich.
Quoting Richard Moore <
moorich@aol.com>:
> Very good points. Woolrich was fearless in taking
the risks you
> mention and the overall risk of failing badly and
looking a bit
> foolish. Now and then, the magic wasn't there enough
to rush the
> reader past the coincidences and plot holes. But he
certainly
> succeeded (at least for this reader) more often than
not. Woolrich
> to me has an emotional, improvised feel. He's not
reading notes from
> a score. He takes us deep into personal fear and
suspense when its
> working well for him.
>
> The other thing about Woolrich that I want to
mention is that he is
> merciless. He had no series character and readers
could not be
> certain that characters would come out well or
survive at all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Feb 2008 EST