I agree with you. It's so good for a reader to be manipulated
by a good whriter!
"Shuter island" by Dennis Lehane, for me, is a
good example.
Fabienne
jacquesdebierue <
jacquesdebierue@yahoo.com> a 飲it :
---
In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, harry.lerner@...
wrote:
>
> My question is did either author intend for these
stories to turn out
> this way or were they merely the results of
different kinds of literary
> experimentation?
>
> Any insight on either author would be greatly
appreciated!
I wouldn't say it's an insight, but Woolrich does manipulate
the reader, and he does by sheer magic of language. He can be
ornate or he can be very blunt, depending on the story. His
technical mastery is total. I don't agree with those who
speak of "bad prose" in relation to Woolrich. He is a snake
charmer and uses whatever suits him -- obviously, with
varying degrees of success, but that is true of any
writer.
As to Whitfield, he uses a different, far less hardboiled
style in his Joe Gar stories, which are no less beautifully
written for that. He could be as ultrahardboiled as any
writer, but not always.
Best,
mrt
---------------------------------
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos
mails vers Yahoo! Mail
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09 Feb 2008 EST