Mario wrote:
> You really think he's that influential?
Yes.
> I know he sells a lot of
> books, and there was a successful television series,
but I rarely find
> anybody who confesses to being a fan.
Well, here ya go. I confess. I'm a fan. I still am.
Long-running series may zig and zag, quality-wise, but I'll
continue reading 'em until the end. As long as the occasional
zigs are balanced by the zags. And I believe Parker has
managed to do that. After a certain point, these series
become one long, long novel, each novel simply another
chapter in an on-going saga.
Pronzini's Nameless is another series which has had its own
zigs and zags, but I'll keep reading him too. The 87th
Precinct was another, and the Archer series by Macdonald.
After a while, it's the overall series that matters, not the
individual books. Familiarity may breed contempt,
particularly among those who view any sort of popularity with
disdain and intellectual suspicion, but it also breeds
familiarity. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
A visit with Spenser or Nameless or Carella or Archer is like
a visit with an old friend -- one we may not always like or
agree with, but truly care about.
> Maybe I am not talking to the
> right people. I do see lots of copies of his books,
so somebody's
> reading him.
I run a mystery reading group at the local Barn O' Novels and
EVERYONE reads Spenser. Or have said they would, after we did
one of his books. It was the best received book we've done in
over three years, and the only author we've done twice (not
at my urging or suggestion, either). Maybe "hard-boiled" fans
sneer at him, but the average joe in the streets "gets"
him.
> What is the attraction in the Spenser series, in
your opinion? I mean,
> sociologically, who does it a appeal to?
I'm no sociologist, but I'm willing to bet it's people who
aren't obsessed with reading the "right" books.
I mean, Parker writes enjoyable yarns whose breezy style
should never be taken as a sign that the books are simple.
They offer food for thought on several levels, frequently
posing moral and ethical dilemmas that other, much more
acclaimed (ie: "hipper") crime writers take twice as many
pages to cover.
Although the general consensus is that the books are no
longer as strong as they once were, Parker still beats almost
everyone in the game as far as sheer readability goes, which
is certainly one reason his books regularly hit the
bestseller lists. Like Mark said once,
"the man got flow." His clean, spare prose style and breezy,
almost tagless dialogue gallops right along, making them
"easy reads." In my unceasing efforts to get the readers of
my reading group to read more P.I. and hard-boiled stuff, I
use Chandler and Parker as gateway drugs.
And Dave wrote:
> I think Kevin's probably refering more to the impact
the Spenser
> series might've had on other PI works--more tough
PIs showing their
> sensitive side, for example, or having Hawk-type
sidekicks.
> Personally I'd have to think Lawrence Block's Matt
Scudder has had
> the most influence on the genre--causing a small
flood of PIs who are
> recovering alcoholics/drug abusers. Of course, this
might be hitting
> Kevin and myself more because of the submissions
we've both probably
> have gotten over the years for our respective
web-zines.
Yeah, there's a whole sub-species that misses the point (much
as they did with Chandler's wisecracks or Ellroy's racism and
homophobia). Like Dave, I've probably seen far too many
ham-handed tales of (and probably by) maladjusted,
sociopathic nihilistic twerps tossed over the transom. The
authors seem to believe mere unpleasantness makes a story
worth reading. Any relationship between these piles of
disjointed scenes and an actual narrative is purely
coincidental. Or just plain dumb luck. There's no point, no
reason -- just plain ugliness for its own sake.
These aren't two-fisted tales; they're definitely
one-fisted.
Which is why I'm glad we don't accept hard copy manuscripts.
I wouldn't want to touch those pages.
Scudder's alcoholism isn't -- and never was -- what made him
hard- boiled, but we've had a steady stream of winos,
junkies, dipsomaniacs, manic depressives, nitwits, etc. ever
since. Of course, Bill Crane and Curt Cannon were well-known
alkies who preceded Scudder, but Block definitely took it up
another notch, and Crumley turned it up to eleven or twelve,
before he turned it into a cartoon (though I hear his latest
is a return to form).
And while I'm as big a Block fan as I am a Parker fan, I
don't think that Block's had as big an influence on the genre
or the world at large as Parker. Block certainly does get
more respect and acclaim, though. Parker's the guy it's okay
to trash.
And Mark Sullivan wrote:
> And although I got tired of and stopped reading him,
the first few
> Spenser books are good reads. And he pioneered the
psycho sidekick
> used
> by Schutz, Mosley, Lehane, and so many
others.
He also popularized the use of strong female and black
characters who were given much stronger roles in the series.
Say what you will about what he may be saying about women and
blacks, but before Spenser few women and non-whites played
such dominant roles in white P.I. novels.
Again there were precedents (Brock Callahan's girlfriend
comes to mind, for example, and I think the Hardman series
predated Spenser by a few years) but Parker's inclusiveness
was pretty heady stuff for the early seventies; particularly
in the almost totally white-on-white lone wolf macho world of
P.I. fiction. And the success of that series may -- just may
have helped pave the way for the acceptance of the work of
everyone from Mosley to Grafton and beyond that followed a
few years later.
Of course, other writers in the genre were also pushing the
envelope by then, notably Block and Pronzini, and certainly
Huggins and Cannell , whose Rockford, like Spenser, had a
huge supporting cast of characters that were there for far
more than mere comic relief.
Also worthy of note is that Susan isn't just a woman or a
supporting character, but that, as Spenser's girlfriend,
she's there as his equal; not a sketched-in ditz or a mere
pawn to be kidnapped every few books (Hello, Mannix's Peggy).
Susan is his emotional and intellectual equal; by turns
headstrong, opinionated, perplexing, humourous, annoying and
smug and as tough -- in her own way -- as Spenser. And it's
worth noting that although plenty of people seem to hate
Susan, few call her unbelievable.
It seems like a natural progression to me: from a strong,
fully developed female character holding her own in a male
P.I. series to a strong, fully developed female character
holding her own as a P.I. in her own series.
It's worth noting that the 70s/early 80s female private eye
boom
(Muller, Grafton, Paretsky, Cody, Lippman, Dunant, etc.)
occurred after Susan had become a regular. So you could blame
Parker for that too....
Then there's location, location, location. There have always
been novels set in locations beyond the LA/New York axis, but
Spenser's living, breathing Boston arguably paved the way for
the acceptance of such vividly rendered settings as
Pelecanos' D.C., Lippman's Baltimore, Burke's Louisiana,
Bruen's Galaway, Estleman and Kantner's Detroit or Roberts'
Cleveland.
And of course, popularity itself is a big factor in what's
deemed influential (if a tree falls in a forest and nobody
hears it, etc.), although popularity alone isn't enough.
There has to be something original, something new or fresh,
that inspires subsequent creators, for someone to be deemed
"influential." And the number of people who have cited Parker
as an influence or inspiration -- or simply the reason there
was a market for their own work -- is very long indeed.
Nope, I can't think of any other writer of the last thirty or
so years to have come close to having as pervasive an effect
on crime fiction.
But of course I'm willing to hear other suggestions.
Maybe Leonard?
Evanovich?
Harriet Klausner?
Nah...
Kevin Burton Smith www.thrillingdetective.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 13 Apr 2008 EDT