Yeah, of course, everything’s open to everybody, right?
And yeah the ending to Swag. I like to think of them getting away with it, too. And maybe now Elmore Leonard does, too. It’s like the difference between the endings to Freaky Deaky and Mr. Paradise (do we have to say “spoiler” here?). It’s like Mr. Paradise is an update. Even the ending of Pagan Babies is different than earlier books.
As to if “anybody’d be interested in discussing how & why crime became the foremost form of entertainment of the 20th century…” I’d like to. At least, I’d be interested in what you and everyone else has to say about it.
Dang. I leave this place for 24 hours and a forum breaks out. It’s taking the better part of my lunch hour to read all the new posts. This is what I signed up for. You guys rock!
I like the ending to Swag. Frank you expect all along to get shot or caught for many reasons, all involving his recklessness, his tendency to gloss over warning signs in favor of moving on whatever score is at hand. His atttitude exemplifies why most criminals get caught. Stick you root for in part for his romantic side, how he’s moved by “tender feelings.” The ending’s great because the message becomes ‘‘tender feelings equal trouble when you do felonies for a living.’’ And, of course, Stick knew that all along, but got weak when his desire to be in love outweighed his better judgment.
Overall, both Frank and Stick have the same Achilles heel, a willingness to substitute what they want a situation to be for what the situation really is. Frank when it comes to most anything he wants, Stick when it comes to love.
The ending’s great because the message becomes ‘‘tender feelings equal trouble when you do felonies for a living.’’ And, of course, Stick knew that all along, but got weak when his desire to be in love outweighed his better judgment.
That’s true, but what about Arlene? It wasn’t just his desire to be in “love” that got Stick. Frank’s pretty clear about his feelings, about, “Of all the ones, all the broads that’d jump at the chance, I mean jump, you pick that turkey.” Was Stick playing out of his league with Arlene? Is Frank right? Or would anyone he had “tender feelings” have done what she did?
I think the female characters in these books are fantastic. I don’t mean they have great character, I mean they are great characters, very real.
The answer, IMO, is you never know who’ll be there and who’ll go south on you when the deal goes down. That’s why you never tell a broad your business, or whatever the rule was. What’s the upside? As Frank might say, “hey, you can get laid all day Stick, the girl thinks you’re a plumber, if you know how to talk to her, act sincere and play the game.”
OT: Someone should start a “Guys Who Misread Women” thread and list Stick at the top, with Cal Maguire a close second. Remember Cal?
Here’s another way to look at it. This is also from Margaret Atwood’s review of Tishomingo Bluess in the NYT.
“If, like Graham Greene, he were in the habit of dividing his books into “novels” and “entertainments”—with, for instance, Pagan Babies and Cuba Libre in the former list, and Glitz, Get Shorty, and Be Cool in the latter—this one might fall on the “entertainment” side; but, as with Greene, those that might be consigned to the “entertainment” section are not necessarily of poorer quality.”
Okay, forget the easy charge of literary snobbism (the “novels” have to be big social/political issues), the shorthand almost works.
So, is Up In Honey’s Room a “novel” or an “entertainment?”
If we’re talking genres, Honey’s Room, along with Hot Kid, Comfort to the Enemy & maybe Cuba Libre all belong to a genre Elmore’s invented for his own good pleasure, along with that of however many hundred thousands of readers he counts on who see things as he does. But the succès d’éstime of Touch already showed that Elmore’s in a category of his own.
Honey’s Room is just as much like Cuba Libre as it is like The Hot Kid: think Victims of War.
However, anyone who thinks this means you have to use the word literary (at least for the time being; history will do otherwise) needs a good punch in the mouth, get him thinking straight. Or her.
Here’s another way to look at it. This is also from Margaret Atwood’s review of Tishomingo Bluess in the NYT.
“If, like Graham Greene, he were in the habit of dividing his books into “novels” and “entertainments”—with, for instance, Pagan Babies and Cuba Libre in the former list, and Glitz, Get Shorty, and Be Cool in the latter…”
I think that’s quite enough of Ms Atwood on this Forum. I see that she has 16 honorary degrees & her website is called ‘a resource for scholars’. And she seems to think that Glitz is lacking in serious intent. God save us from the literati.
I think that’s quite enough of Ms Atwood on this Forum. I see that she has 16 honorary degrees & her website is called ‘a resource for scholars’. And she seems to think that Glitz is lacking in serious intent. God save us from the literati.
Okay, fair enough. And you’re right, God save us from the literati. I think the only reason this even comes up, though, is because the literati see themselves as some kind of exclusive club and many, many genre writers want in. Elmore Leonard let’s his work speak for itself and he’s not one of the ones crying to get in.
Because really, there’s nothing about Elmore Leonard’s work that is at all genre. He accepted some kind of Grand Master award from the Mystery Writers of America but there’s no mysteries in his books, none of the conventions of genre writing at all.
It’s too bad the literati are usually so close-minded and so often miss the point of things, but who cares, it’s their loss (sometimes they catch up, years later). Lots of “serious” writers do themselves no favours writing “genre” novels using different names.
Opens up a nice can of worms, doesn’t it? I had to smoke up some of my best weed, get my head straightened well enough to think properly about this.
Although it’s laid out like an innocent little story, Elmore is doing in this text exactly what Raymond Chandler did in The Simple Art of Murder, Chandler’s pretentious crack at literary respectability. He’s even using the same theme, that ‘quality of Redemption’ (Chandler’s capitalisation, not Elmore’s, if it makes any difference. Or Différance) What the fuck is a 21st century observer of human behavior doing bandying about words like redemption? Do you all realise that Elmore Leonard is conniving with the class of Eng. Lit. of 2050? I just want to say to that generation, who’ll no doubt be studying this forum:You’re being had. Crime isn’t about redemption. It’s about not getting caught.
I think I owe my apologies to Mr McFetridge. I can’t express how disillusioned I feel. I think I might stop hanging around this forum. You’re all a bunch of pseuds, Gregg & Elmore included (except I’ve been banned from most other writers’ forums - bad language, they say. Note I didn’t use the word asshole in this post).
In the late 70’s I played bass in a punk band called The Psueds in Montreal. When punk passed we changed the name to Three O’Clock Train and the music to country but left the lyrics. I was sad that it was so easy.
Anyway, yes, it’s a big sloppy can of worms, all right, but let’s not give up on it so quickly.
Crime isn’t about redemption, that’s for sure. Storytelling may be, though.
EL uses the description “serious novelist” and that’s a pretty good place to start. He could have as easily used “serious reader.” How seriously do we take anything? That’s where the dissillusionment starts. Each one of us brings our own level of seriousness to the work. I get bummed a lot when I think I’m bringing more to it than the writers, when I take it more sriously than they do. I don’t feel that way with Elmore Leonard books. He’s the only writer I’ve read who takes all his characters - and such diverse characters - as seriously as I do (maybe Richard Price as well).
Now, you might as well connive with the Eng Lit class of 2050 because today’s class will never figure it out. Academia (at least in the arts, I don’t know anything about the sciences) is always backwards looking, studying everything that’s gone before. But as to looking ahead - or even looking around - that’s just not what they do. So forget them. Fuck ‘em, who gives a shit. I put up with that crap for years (taking evening classes part-time it took me, oh I can’t even say how long, I only stuck it out because I’m the first member of family to get past high school and we were suckered into thinking that was important) and it’s meaningless (except for keeping SOME writers published - but how those few are picked it still a mystery to me).
And, writing and publishing is, of course, a shotgun marriage between art and commerce. As readers, we have really no idea of what goes on in the commerce side of things, so again, fuck it. All we have are the books. I don’t care about the writer’s personal life, or how many copies they sold, or what critics think of them, or any of that.
But I do like this forum.
And, you know, the real question is: Is there anything in Elmore Leonard’s novels that make them genre? ‘Cause I can’t find it.
You’re all a bunch of pseuds, Gregg & Elmore included (except I’ve been banned from most other writers’ forums - bad language, they say. Note I didn’t use the word asshole in this post).
Djones: You have become part of The Dutch Forum and I welcome your contributions.
I am grateful to you and everybody else that have made this board, at least to me, lively and worthwhile.
But if you or anyone else wants to drag the discussion down and fling personal insults at Elmore, you are not welcome. I’m not talking about criticism. I don’t censor the board for party line; it is what it is.
On a personal note, calling Elmore Leonard a pseudo-intellectual is ridiculous. You obviously never met him as some of the members of the Forum have. Ask them. Elmore is a natural. He doesn’t pretend to be anything but a happy man who loves to read and write.
On a personal note, calling Elmore Leonard a pseudo-intellectual is ridiculous. You obviously never met him as some of the members of the Forum have. Ask them. Elmore is a natural. He doesn’t pretend to be anything but a happy man who loves to read and write.
Sorry to have caused any offence. My ear for language tells me that ‘pseud’ & ‘pseudo-intellectual’ are not synonymus. It is possible to be a natural pseud. Anyway, I’ve started a new thread about this.
But what if I’d genuinely detected a note of pretentiousness in the Everyman skit?
