--- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Patrick King <abrasax93@...> wrote:
>
> I think I've read all of Mosley's books so I do enjoy his work, but
he's too sentimental for me most of the time. His lead characters
become too emotionally involved in The Cause of each story to make
these books believable.<
Mosley describes a different culture from Hillerman or Rendell. Well,
Hillerman and Rendell also describe different cultures. People's
reactions and emotional tendencies (or at least the way they express
and act on those emotions) are strongly tied to their culture.
<<The villains are bad with no explanation. Real evil people have more
depth to them.>>
Real evil? Do you really believe in good and evil as intrinsic
characteristics of a person, of the fetus, as it were? I think we
contain everything, love, cruelty, rationality, stupidity, greed,
generosity, etc. Notice that Mosley is careful not to characterize
anybody or call him evil. He just observes and describes. Himes did
the same thing -- not that I'm comparing styles, they're very
different writers.
<<You don't run into this kind of thing with Tony Hillerman or Ruth
Rendell, two authors who tell similar stories to those Mosley tells
but are technically better writers.>>
I don't think so, even if we could agree on what constitutes good
technique, which isn't a given. The technique is tied to what story
you're telling. Kafka had technique, Proust had technique, Faulkner
had technique, but are their techniques even comparable?
<<Hillerman's characters are self interested, Rendell's Inspector
Wexford is doing the job he's paid to do. Their villains are greedy or
mentally ill and both writers explore the reasons for these problems.
Mosley's protagonists seem to always have a philanthropic objective
that over-shadows all their other purposes. Mouse is easily Mosley's
most interesting character. He's a sadist and a bully, but he's loyal
and tenacious too. I love his line in DEVIL IN THE BLUE DRESS to the
effect:
> "If you didn't want him killed, Easy, why did you leave him with me?"
>>
I don't find Mouse all that interesting. Easy Rawlins, Mofass and
several other characters interest me far more, just within the Rawlins
series. The killer sidekick allows for shortcuts in solving certain
problems, but sometimes Mosley gives Mouse mythical proportions -- as
opposed to the rest of his cast, who tend to be regular folks.
Best
mrt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 29 Aug 2008 EDT