Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Username:
Password:
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

There aren't any users online.

[Ingrid]

We still don't have a separate place for thoughts on our reading.

I just finished BUST, a co-production of Ken Bruen and Jason Starr.  It's published by "Hard Case Crime" and certainly qualifies as "hardboiled."

A strange experience, and not a pleasant one.  I'm a Bruen fan.  I want to be a Bruen fan.  But darn it, this is not good.  I'd say that you lose artistic control in a co-production, but I think Bruen wanted to write this book.  There is that tongue-in-cheek feeling about it that he also has in his other books.  And by the way, my admiration for him is solidly based on the Jack Taylor novels.  I don't think all that much of the others, like the London police procedural.  Now, in this case, I think the genre (sub-genre) is responsible, though it is very capably handled and follows the formula very well.

Hardboiled just makes no demands on the normal criteria of novel writing.  You really don't want to bother with round characters (The ones in BUST are all incredibly flat), or verisimilitude, or any restrictions regarding language, violence or sex. Oh, no!  You want very nasty, evil characters doing very nasty, evil things to each other and the ordinary folks around them.  You want language laced heavily with f-words and any sort of colorful scatological expression.  Scatological incidents are also welcome. The bathroom is part of this world. And sex: the characters are driven by sex and greed. The greed they take seriously; the sex is coincidental.
And of course there is a Blonde with size 40 triple D cups, though she appears mostly cupless and clueless.

All of which goes to say that I have had my dose of hardboiled and it will suffice for the next 20 years.

Ingrid

[JIM DOHERTY]

Ingrid,

Re your comments below:

Hardboiled just makes no demands on the normal criteria of novel writing.  You really don't want to bother with round characters (The ones in BUST are all incredibly flat), or verisimilitude, or any restrictions regarding language, violence or sex. Oh, no!  You want very nasty, evil characters doing very nasty, evil things to each other and the ordinary folks around them.  You want language laced heavily with f-words and any sort of colorful scatological expression.  Scatological incidents are also welcome. The bathroom is part of this world. And sex: the characters are driven by sex and greed. The greed they take seriously; the sex is coincidental.
And of course there is a Blonde with size 40 triple D cups, though she appears mostly cupless and clueless.

I can't comment on the particular book, not having read it, but I take strong issue with the comments that your reaction to this book cause you to make about the hard-boiled field in general, and I feel compelled, as both a hard-boiled writer and a hard-boiled fan, to hold up the standard for this style of mystery writing.

The flat statement that a mystery that is hard-boiled, by definition, "makes no demands on the normal criteria of novel writing," or is a haven for writers who "don't really want to bother with rounded characters" is just plain wrong, historically and otherwise.

The novels of Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler are widely regarded as among the major works of literature of the last century.  And they're just the most obvious examples.  The work of Ross Macdonald, John D. MacDonald, Ed McBain, Donald Hamilton, Dorothy Uhnak, Dennis Lynds, and a host of others, literally teem  with solid, stylish writing, well-constructed plots, compelling story-telling, and well-rounded characters.

I don't know what you think "hard-boiled" means, but it doesn't mean foul, pornographic, or cliched.  It just means a tough attitude and a colloquial style.

As for flat characters, not wanting to to ruffle any feathers here, but my experience is that you're a lot more likely to find those in traditional mysteries than in hard-boiled.  How many Agatha Christie novels are populated by characters who exist for no reason except to act as chess pieces in the impossibly complicated plot she's constructed.  And how believable a crime-solver is some picayune Belgian nattering on about his "little gray cells," or some little old lady amateur sleuth, compared to a pro like the Continental Op, Steve Carella, or Matt Helm.

Do I maintain that the traditional mystery is the true bastion of bad writing and unbelievable characters?  Of course not!  Plenty of the writers from the so-called "cozy" fraternity write fine books with great style and full-bodied characters.  But, generally, the whole situation is one that requires of the reader a greater level of suspension of disbelief.  How credible is an amateur sleuth in this day and age?  How credible were they ever?  You don't have this problem when the MC is a realistically depicted cop, or PI, or spy.

I certainly don't claim that hard-boiled is a guarantee of quality.  But neither is it a guarantee of a lack of quality.  If you read a hard-boiled crime story that you don't like, then you've read a story that's bad on its own merits, not because it happens to have been written in the tradition of Hammett and Chandler.

Similarly, if you read a traditional mystery that has you tossing the book away in disgust, the problem is with the book, not the sub-genre.

Meretricious crap is not limited to any one style of crime writing.  Neither is high-quality fiction.

[Elena]

Jim,

I had no idea that John D. MacDonald is considered hard boiled - how delightful.  I've enjoyed him, actually he amazes me, as well as Ed McBain, and will certainly put the rest of them on my to read list.

One thing I've always been curious about - are hard boiled and noir related at all?

Elena

[JIM DOHERTY]

Elena,

I plan to make my next "I Like 'Em Tough"  column in Mysterical-E on just that subject.

For me, hard-boiled is a question of attitude and style.  Noir is a question of tone and atmosphere.  They're not mutually exclusive but neither are they synonymous.

Briefly, if it's tough and colloquial, it's hard-boiled.

If it's dark and sinister, it's noir.

If it's tough and colloquial, and dark and sinister, it's hard-boiled and noir.

[Eric]

What Jim says! (Boy is that easier to say than if we hadn't Jim to say it!)

Off the subject a bit, I"ve put my new WIP aside to embark on my first co-authorship experience on what I think will be a hard-boiled mystery/suspense novel.  Which is why I'd be interested in hearing how other people define hard-boiled.

Eric

[Elena]

Thanks Jim,

A classy and elegant delineation.

Plus, a new URL to check out, Mysterical-E.  Saw a number of familiar names there.

And best wishes on co-authorship, Eric.

Elena

[Ingrid]

Ah, I knew that would upset a few people.  Well, read BUST.

Jim, I agree about Christie etc -- but I came to that realization late.

Of your list of hard-boiled authors, I don't like a single one (without making that a quality judgment), though I must confess that I haven't read Uhnak and Lynds. I also don't like Spillane. Actually, BUST reminded me more of Spillane than those others.

Writing about tough characters is not by definition a sign of quality, though tough characters exist in very good mysteries.  I am bothered by the formulaic aspects of the sub-genre -- and the one-sidedness of the world view.

Ingrid.

[Ingrid]

On consideration, while I stand by my views on BUST and, in a general way, on the genre, I should not have posted those views.
I'll make a point to avoid controversy about books in the future.

Ingrid

[Susan August]

Ingrid,
I hope that disagreement will not suppress discourse here.  I think there are many strong opinions amongst the MWFers and I hope that this is a place where we can disagree with impunity.  I don't always agree with you, but I very much respect your opinions.  Now, that I've said all this, I feel more comfortable expressing my opinion.  Frankly, as only a 'hack', I wasn't sure I should chime in on this discussion until I saw that you were regretting your comments.  Now, I feel obliged to speak up.

I think that I am genre agnostic, but I often find that authors wander too far in the extreme for their genre and thereby take their writing somewhere that no longer interests me.  OK...here I go with trepidation...even Ken Bruen, who so many here and elsewhere have lauded, leaves me cold and confused.  I don't want to read a book with characters I wouldn't want to know in life and dialogue and form that make me work hard to figure out what is going on.  Now, I can be won over by a clever plot with flat characters, but my standards are then very high for that plot...no forgiveness allowed. 

So, basically, either a book works for me or it doesn't.  And a series with character(s) and setting I like can get away with a lot more.  I'll keep coming back with hope for that relationship.  I can tolerate bad language, hard-boiled, noir, gore, violence and even bad jokes.  Just don't bore me or confuse me or make me work hard to figure out what you are talking about.

There, I've spoken my mind, and hope that others will feel free to disagree.

Susan, who respects anyone who speaks their mind, as long as they are polite and not destructive!

[JIM DOHERTY]

Ingrid,

Re your comments below:

Of your list of hard-boiled authors, I don't like a single one (without making that a quality judgment), though I must confess that I haven't read Uhnak and Lynds. I also don't like Spillane. Actually, BUST reminded me more of Spillane than those others.

Spillane's not to everyone's taste.  But neither are undeniably good traditional mystery writers like Sayers or Queen.  Saying they're not to your taste is different than saying they lack quality.

I don't particularly like Christie (at least in prose; oddly, I like her plays).  And a lot of my particular problems with Christie are novelistic.  I don't find her characters believable or her writing particularly engaging.

Nevertheless, to the degree that standing the test of time is any gauge of quality (and, like democracy, it may be a piss-poor way of gauging literary quality, but it's the best we have; what is a classic but a piece of work that has stood the test of time), Dame Agatha has certainly passed that test.  For me to suggest that she has nothing worthwhile to offer is ludicrous in the face of her long-lasting, still-continuing success.  For me to say that she doesn't float my particular boat is something else.

Not liking hard-boiled is the same as not liking chocolate, or pastrami, or Granny Smith apples, a question of personal taste.  Taking one's personal taste, and from that extrapolating that there's no reason for anyone to enjoy chocolate, or pastrami, or Granny Smith apples, or suggesting that those who like those foods are somehow lacking in critical judgment is clearly fallacious.

And that's what you seemed to do with the hard-boiled field.

Writing about tough characters is not by definition a sign of quality, though tough characters exist in very good mysteries.  I am bothered by the formulaic aspects of the sub-genre -- and the one-sidedness of the world view.

I hope it didn't sound like I was saying that just being hard-boiled is a guarantee of quality.  On the contrary, there're plenty of bad hard-boiled mysteries. 

However, I'm not sure what you mean by the one-sidedness of the world view.  Hard-boiled has room for the right-wing rants of a Spillane and the Marxist screeds of a Gordon deMarco, the Evangelical protestant Christianity of a Brandt Dodson and the agnosticism of an Ernest Tidyman, the gloomy nihilism of a Richard Stark and the sprightly, good-humored optimism of a Richard S. Prather, the get-the-job done-anyway-you can ruthlessness of a Donald Hamilton with the angst and constant kvetching about doing the right thing of a Raymond Chandler.  Sounds to me like, in the hard-boiled house, there are many mansions.

[JIM DOHERTY]

Ingrid,

Re your message below:

On consideration, while I stand by my views on BUST and, in a general way, on the genre, I should not have posted those views.

You weren't discourteous.  You just stated an opinion you had every right to express. I hope you don't refrain from expressing a strongly held opinion just from the fear that someone else might disagree with it and say so. 

As for me, I love controversy and nothing gets my motor running like a good argument.  Confrontation is meat and drink to me.  Point and counterpoint are the air I breathe and the blood that flows through my veins. 

So don't refrain from the honest expression of an honestly held opinion just for fear that I'll disagree.  I disagreed with your opinion on this topic, but I was never offended.

And I'd hate myself if I thought I'd inadvertently bullied you into never expressing a thought that might possibly be controversial.

[Elena]

Thanks Jim for the clarification.  I too, reading your original response, didn't realize you were in jousting mode, I thought you were in the 'off with their heads' mode.

Your comments have certainly expanded my knowledge of the world of hardboiled.  Over time I've been playing around with a caper noir with a hardboiled female protagonist WWII vintage.  I think it will be easier to go forward with the background you've shared. 

Elena

[Ingrid]

The genre as a whole means a lot to me. It has been maligned so much that I become upset by the success of writers who write to a formula because it is currently fashionable.  In fact, I'm getting to the point where I distrust all fads.

Right after BUST, I started on Olen Steinhauer's LIBERATION MOVEMENTS, the fourth in a series set in post-war Eastern Europe. I've read the first three and been enormously impressed  Olen is young but an outstanding writer.  His books are nominated for awards and get stellar reviews, but his sales are slow. Perhaps it is the eastern European names, or the settings in foreign countries. I have no idea what turns readers off.  All I know is that there is enormous promise in the way he handles plot and characters, point of view and atmosphere. I really want him to have the sort of success people like Eisler or Child or Deville have, because he writes better and because he loves the craft.

For that reason I'm impatient with best-selling authors who take the easy route.

Ingrid

[clayiseditor]

For the record, I love Granny Smith apples.

To me, hardboiled in particular is a lot like sword & sorcery in the fantasy realm. Once you've read one, you've read most. It is a rare gem that breaks the mold and does something different.  It's just not often you run across a hardboiled novel that offers something that hasn't been done over and over.

Of course, there's a market for them, so....

Every genre has something like hardboiled or s&s. And when you stumble across something truly original, WOW! It is amazing.

And, I'll take the heat off Ingrid.

I hate the "cat" mystery novels. Hate them. I have two cats. Love 'em. But I doubt they'll ever help solve any crime out there.

[Chase]

Ingrid wrote, "We still don't have a separate place for thoughts on our reading."

Yes!  We need such a forum.  Sure!  Bob rescued MWF last month and made the best even better, but what's he done for us this month?  Just lying back on his laurels, I'll bet.  Come on, Bob!  We're spoiled now and for several days have wanted more, more, more.  Where is it?

(Sorry, I just acquired six teenaged step-grands and am infected by expectations of immediate and unlimited entitlement -- now! -- so what if it ruins the resources of the entire family for the remainder of this millennium?)

Ingrid also wrote, "I'll make a point to avoid controversy about books in the future."

Nah, this is everone's playground, not just the bully's.  Some of us can jump rope and some can just shoot hoops; we all don't have to play murder ball.

Chase