skzbrust: How I work Part IV (I think): Robert B. Parker and John D. MacDonald

skzbrust (

skzbrust) wrote,
@ 2007-05-04 17:20:00

How I work Part IV (I think): Robert B. Parker and John D. MacDonald
One of the most important and significant events that shaped who I am as a writer came in, I think, 1984, when Will Shetterly and Emma Bull loaned me a copy of Looking for Rachel Wallace by Robert B. Parker.

I still read Parker's novels now and then, as I come across them, because he still uses words in a way that pleases me. And yet, really, he's lost it. He's turned into self-parody. MacDonald, in my opinion, never did that--his later works are as engaging as, if not more-so than, his earlier ones.

I've been comparing them in my mind. I think it is this: In early Parker, one had the feeling that the author was exploring complex issues of maturity, love, responsibility, duty; exploring issues about which he had not made up his mind. In his more recent books, the reader cannot help but feel that Parker believes he knows all the answers. MacDonald, by contrast, even when Travis McGee is ranting to the reader about what is wrong with people, and why Florida is screwed up, &c. &c., always seems to be digging away, trying to find answers that are vital to him (the author), but that he doesn't yet have.

It is far more engaging to go for a ride with an author who is exploring than it is to sit back and have the answers handed to you, whether you agree with them or not.

From the standpoint of the writer, then, it is the reverse path to the same result. If I use my book to try to answer a question to which I don't know the answer, that will help keep me honest. I might know what I'm exploring before I start the book, or I might discover it partway through the first draft (which usually involves a significant rewrite). It doesn't matter.

I'm aware that few, if any, readers will actually be following my journy so closely that they could say, for example, "Brokedown Palace is about the relationship of creation to destruction, and under what circumstances one ought to be willing to destroy in order to create, in spite of the inevitable pain that accompanies destruction." It doesn't matter that the reader might never think about what I'm exploring, or, if he does, might come to a drastically different conclusion. What matters is that taking that approach keeps me honest, and I believe that this will help prevent in the reader the irritation I feel when reading Parker's later works.

I raise a glass of Plymouth gin on the rocks to the memory of John D. MacDonald.

(Post a new comment)

	minnehaha 2007-05-05 01:22 am UTC (link)
	I haven't read a MacDonald novel in a couple of decades, but I remember them all fondly. And I agree with you about Parker; his earlier stuff was much better. Have you read any of the Sue Grafton mysteries? Female protagonist, but very much in the same style. B (Reply to this)

rocza
2007-05-05 01:33 am UTC (link)

One of the most delightful surprises I found here at UAlbany (my new school/home) was the entire collection of Travis McGee books. I allow myself one after every major project or paper, just for sheer escapism.

I really like your description of using the book to answer a question - maybe because it's similar to how you (well, or at least I) write an academic paper. It's boring to write something I (everyone) already know the answer to - where's the fun? Where's the excitement? Sometimes, I know the question I'm asking before I sit down to write, while other times I don't find the question until the conclusion (and then I have to significantly rewrite the intro, and sometimes body, to fit).

...heh. I've been thinking about the writing process a lot the last couple of days. My sister is writing her medical school statement of purpose, and is frustrated by her inability to write a narrative (whilst that's about all I seem to do), so is having me help. On top of that, my adviser is trying to get me to reduce the narrative in my academic blogging, and another university has decided (based on my academic blogging) that they want to poach me.

Yay, overshare!

Anyhow, thanks for the insight in how you see writing. Interesting and illuminating.

(Reply to this)

	willshetterly 2007-05-05 02:03 am UTC (link)
	Hey, raise a glass to Parker, too! Someone could write a very odd parody of Pancho and Lefty about McDonald and Parker. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	skzbrust 2007-05-05 07:50 am UTC (link)
	Oh, my god. That is scarey. (Reply to this) (Parent)

chrismclaren
2007-05-05 02:28 am UTC (link)

I have no disagreement with anything you've said here. When you're right, you're right. (You may remember my vehemently pro-MacDonald stance.)

That being said, I think there's also something about observation of people there. I feel like MacDonald's writing was informed during his entire run by a very keen observation of humanity. Parker on the other hand, I feel, has given up on observing and understanding people in the broad sense, and instead settled into writing about a very narrow range of people; the people who behave in the way he thinks people should. There was a time--probably peaking around Rachel Wallace--when this wasn't true (at all) of Parker. Over time, though, he's become more and more locked into writing in "his" world , which makes the writing seem more and more cartoonish to us as it deviates from the world we all walk around in. (N.B. I, as a big ole F/SF geek, am obviously not saying that novels are valuable in correspondence to how closely they mirror the world outside my door. I'm saying that if a novel, in any genre, is going to say something about the world outside my door, then the characters in the novel need to be drawn by someone who understands the people in the world outside my door.)

Or, to put it another way, there are only so many questions you can explore with a cast made up of Manly Men Who All Understand Each Other's Unspoken Codes And The Women Who Love Them. Even in his series MacDonald never got trapped like that, and of course it was much less of an issue in his myriad other works.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	skzbrust 2007-05-05 07:51 am UTC (link)
	Well taken. Good observation. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	litch 2007-05-05 04:27 am UTC (link)
	"Brokedown Palace is about the relationship of creation to destruction, and... The title really expressed that beautifully, I spent a lot of time saying it as I read the book. (Reply to this)

rfrancis
2007-05-05 04:33 am UTC (link)

You make an interesting point about Parker. I faithfully buy his novels still, because, as you say, he puts words in an order I enjoy from time to time. In a sense, I think this is why his newer characters, Sunny Randall and Jesse Stone, may be getting more interest, both from him and readers -- asking new questions. (If he thinks he has all the answers about, say, being a divorced woman, then we must, perforce, give up all hope.)

You know, I was just writing to my little social group a few days ago about how I could see a bit of Parker in you, or perhaps a bit of Chandler (whereas Parker ladels Chandler by the bucket, and doesn't care who knows it, I suppose.)

Anyway, very thought-provoking. One gets told Write What You Know enough times, and it becomes scary to consider writing about the unanswered questions.

(Reply to this)

	the_sadist 2007-05-05 05:23 am UTC (link)
	I will always have a place in my heart for Spencer, Hawk and the rest; but McGee had me at "knight in slightly tarnished armor" and always will. Hell, you know it's alright when that description is applied to you. (Reply to this)

	MacDonald romsfuulynn 2007-05-05 05:50 am UTC (link)
	I wrestle with MacDonald. My daughter (26) recently read some MacDonald and found some of it wonderful, but found Travis's women a little tiresome. I can only reread some MacDonald. (Reply to this)

	metalstylus 2007-05-05 06:14 am UTC (link)
	Interesting. A few months back I came up with what I thought was a clever little formula: Good authors ask a question. Better authors answer the question. The best authors don't answer the question. Kind of a gross generalization but not a half-bad guideline to keep one's writing on the right track, no? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	skzbrust 2007-05-05 07:53 am UTC (link)
	Exactly. I think it is totally wrong as a statement of what happens, and potentially an excellent guideline for helping one Do Good Stuff. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	metalstylus 2007-05-05 01:14 pm UTC (link)
	I blame it on having a mild obsession with Jeff VanderMeer at the time. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	vassilissa 2007-05-05 06:42 am UTC (link)
	Huh. You just crystalised for me why I don't like Spider Robinson's more recent novels. I thought it was just that he wasn't getting edited ruthlessly enough any more. (Reply to this)

illidanstr
2007-05-05 11:20 am UTC (link)

I think it's part of the reason why I love your books so much, despite the incredible divergence between our politics. I'd even say your different perspective makes them better, by adding more flavor; many scifi/fantasy writers are libertarian (a political view I only sort've hold because the Republicans no longer exist to me >>)

And why I absolutely despise writers like Goodkind, who directly attempt to shove politics into their writing in an abominable way. YES, I KNOW THAT GUN CONTROL IS BAD. STOP MAKING TERRIBLE ANALOGIES. I BELIEVE YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU. CAN YOU JUST FREAKIN' STOP TRYING TO SHOVE IT DOWN MY THROAT!? PLEASE!?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	willshetterly 2007-05-05 03:31 pm UTC (link)
	It's worth remembering that "libertarian" runs from the right to the left. The Libertarian Party is merely a right-libertarian group. So you and Steve can both be libertarian and still have very different politics. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	illidanstr 2007-05-05 05:43 pm UTC (link)
	Huh? "Libertarian" generally stands for both economic and social freedom. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

willshetterly
2007-05-05 06:07 pm UTC (link)

The right-libertarians claim that libertarianism is inherently pro-capitalist, but if you read a little about the word, you'll discover that it's about personal liberty. Far right-libertarians say libertarianism includes the right to buy and sell other people, far left-libertarians say libertarianism includes the right to own all things in common, but they both agree there shouldn't be a nanny-state dictating what you may do with your body. (Well, except the far rights would say an individual should be able to sell him or herself into slavery, but that's because of the capitalist focus of right-libertarianism.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	illidanstr 2007-05-05 08:53 pm UTC (link)
	.. I didn't / don't want to argue, but to say that taking my stuff is freedom is not something I understand. To say that it's for the good of society, I can, though I disagree. That's like saying you have a freedom to murder me. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

willshetterly
2007-05-05 11:00 pm UTC (link)

Oh, I don't want to argue, either. I have friends across the political range. Respect the right to disagree, and we're cool.

But since you toss in a but, I'll toss in one, too: Saying one person can live in luxury while others die homeless is very much a freedom to murder. In this world, societies define the nature of possession. If you're a citien of the USA, you live in a society where integers can be claimed through copyright. Since right-libertarians think everything has a price tag, that's fine with them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

illidanstr
2007-05-06 01:37 am UTC (link)

Then I'm not a right-libertarian. I believe that copyright is a monopoly given by government to artist for the greater good of society - a socialist decision which is designed for society's benefit, but (in its current state) is actually detrimental due to its overarching implications. I believe there is a natural right to property, but intellectual property to be a result of "the greater good". Due to this, I believe we have every right to limit copyright - not only by revoking the DMCA, but by restricting private entities from trading copyrights like stocks - what's the point of further extending the necessary evil >>

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

willshetterly
2007-05-06 02:09 am UTC (link)

I haven't figured out all the schools of libertarian. It's a lot like "democratic"--it can take many forms, but while most folks have one they prefer, they all agree the principle's right.

I'm very much with you on limiting copyright, but I have to note that while you can have copyright in socialist systems, the concept is not socialist. It's designed for the profit of individuals and corporations. It began as anti-socialist: it was created by capitalists to benefit the creator or the copyright owner, not society.

It's the limit on copyright that is for the good of society--the public domain is the socialist element in modern copyright, and copyright holders are doing their best to get all the socialism out of copyright by extending it as long as Mickey Mouse can sell a T-shirt.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

illidanstr
2007-05-06 03:19 am UTC (link)

Copyright was created to strip rights from the public in order to give money to the creator to reward them for their creations and to benefit society by inducing them to create more and giving them the means to work with further creations as they wished. It's only through the "selling copyrights like stocks" thing that economically benefits unrelated individuals >>

I disagree with your last statement. Since I view copyright as a government-granted monopoly, I believe limits on it *extend* freedom. That said, I don't care what you call it, I'll support it. As even a brief reading of the works of Macaulay will show, the modern life +++++ copyright is simply insane. A society based on trying to find ways to sue other people for violating rights the government created out of thin air for you is retarded.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

willshetterly
2007-05-06 05:27 am UTC (link)

Oh I agree entirely that copyright is a government monopoly and that limits on it extend freedom. I'm simply quibbling with your claim that copyright is "a socialist decision which is designed for society's benefit." It's not. It's a capitalist decision designed for an individual's benefit. Society doesn't get to benefit until copyright ends.

Apologies if I've misunderstood you. The important thing here is we agree modern copyright laws are insane.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

skzbrust
2007-05-06 05:47 am UTC (link)

Stop it, you two. It's a desert topping anda floor polish. Copyright is for the benefit of the individual, on the theory that this will, in turn, be of benefit to society. That whole theory practically defines what we mean by capitalist; encourage individual initiative use the power of the State to encourage entrepreneurs. What's more, it is true--insofar as capitalism itself is progressive. Once we reach the point where private ownership of production is itself regressive, those things that encourage and support it become regressive; often, as in the case of extending copyright, to the point of the ridiculous.

An economic system has its own logic. When the system becomes absurd, the logic that supports it necessarily follows.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

willshetterly
2007-05-06 06:47 am UTC (link)

Hah! Theory or rationalization? I don't doubt many people believe it, but the idea that creation is best encouraged by capitalism at any stage of progress is funny. People forget that with fewer resources, the USSR beat us into space. They never give credit for the developments in eye surgery that led to LASIK. Judging by life expectancy, Cuba's health care system is better than ours, and by any objective standard, Canada's slightly socialist system of universal care gives better results than ours at half the cost. Creation is tied to creativity and resources, not economic systems.

Except in movies. You could never make The Phantom Menace under a socialist system.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

skzbrust
2007-05-06 07:48 am UTC (link)

Of all the things that could have happened when I began discussing Parker and MacDonald, the last thing I expected was that I'd find myself defending capitalism against you. Nevertheless, Will, while everything you say is true, it is also ahistoric and thus unscientific.

Before Cuba (not to mention Canada) could reach a stage where creativity could flourish without the need for individual profit, productive forces had to be built up to the point where the resources were availible. I never said Capitalism was the only way to encourage this, nor even the best. Other successful systems came before it, and others will come after. Nevertheless, at a certain stage of economic development, private enterprise is a tremendous spur to creativity--before then becoming a terrible handicap to it, as we're seeing today.

Unless you're going to adopt the Stuff Just Happens Theory (TM: Jim MacDonald), then you need to explain why capitalism arose in the first place. I believe it was because the old property relations were, at a certain point, strangling the development of productive forces, and so had to be overturned (no one has yet succeeded in using slave-labor or serf-labor to run a factory). Are you saying that capitalism is just someone's bad idea?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

willshetterly
2007-05-06 03:08 pm UTC (link)

Steve Brust, champion of capital!

I just had to write that, 'cause it's funny.

You're confusing greed and creativity. Of course capitalism is a logical step from monarchism. We don't know if it's the only alternative, but it's clearly the common one.

Humans create. It's something we do, sometimes preferring it to sex and food. The only limits on our creativity are our resources. The problem with comparing creativity under capitalism and communism is we don't have any countries of equal resources to set by side.

Uh, this is assuming we don't use the Scandinavian countries or Canada, where socialism is so mild that you have to love the idea of homeless people dying in the streets in order to think they're doing something wrong, of course.

I think you have two ways to look at creativity under capitalism. Either Sturgeon's Law applies, and because capitalism loves to create crap, the sheer amount of production results in more things, both good and bad. Or you think capitalism simply creates more crap. I offer again The Phantom Menace.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

siorc2
2007-05-06 04:22 pm UTC (link)

I'm way out of my league in this discussion, so I've probably missed either the point, or the answer or both, but I have to ask:
How is it decided what is crap and what is creativity, and when does keeping it away from other creatives limit the expansion of same? (is this germane at all?)

(I love coming to this LJ, because: I may hear info on the next book, and if not, you just never know what someone will talk about, even if Captain Commerce himself didn't start it!)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

willshetterly
2007-05-06 06:02 pm UTC (link)

Oh, man, don't introduce sense into this discussion!

Okay, definitions matter. In the purest sense, creativity just means making stuff, so capitalism wins the raw creativity contest.

But what's won? Unless you believe the world's scientists are idiots, capitalism is destroying our planet.

And what does capitalism encourage? Communism says you do what's good for everyone. Capitalism says you do what's most profitable. So $400 in socialist hands buys shoes for a village, but in capitalist hands, buys a pair of Manolo Blahniks. And I'll be the first to admit that there's creativity in a pair of Manolo Blahniks, just as there's creativity in The Phantom Menace.

The difference between communist art and capitalist art is that communist art is created for its own sake or for the enjoyment of others. Capitalist art is made to sell. Great things can be made either way, of course, and I've already granted that the raw number of things made under capitalism will be greater.

But will the number of great things made under capitalism be greater than what's made under communism? Seems to me that depends on the resources of the artist. Most artists that history remembers did great things under patronage systems; that hardly means that it's better to have nobles than merchants.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

siorc2
2007-05-06 10:52 pm UTC (link)

OH, sorry, it's not typical to for me to be accused of having a lot of sense.
My definition would be more along the lines of something constructive, or maybe just progressive. That would still leave it pretty open, I'd think, for such things as art to be just aesthetically pleasing, and not actually useful in any other way.
If the capitalist society wants to put a price tag on it, that would be its own limitation, maybe.
Why does there have to be a winner? To me, it seems like something with a bit of all of these would be best. Capitalism can serve as motivation for an artist to express his creativity where it may take more time the other way, but it may be rushed, so less influence on capital gains is necessary for it to be at its best.
In all respect, the shoe example seems a bit idealistic. What I mean is, 30 of them need to be wearing Nikes, 50 of them Red Wings, 75 of them Dexters, and 15 merely flipflops! :-}
As for Phantom Menace, I believe that there was creativity there, but it's more of an example of an artist having limitations placed on his work (this time by himself) and thus forcing a second-rate product (in order to make money, of course).

SO, anyway, in the end it all comes down to how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie-roll center of a tootsie-pop!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	mrissa 2007-05-05 11:50 am UTC (link)
	dd_b lent me both authors' work in bulk, but it was all the MacDonalds vs. "well, you can borrow more of the Parkers if you want to, but...." And yah, I think you're right on here. (Reply to this) (Thread)

willshetterly
2007-05-05 03:40 pm UTC (link)

There are only six Parkers that I recommend, starting with the second in the series and ending with the seventh. The list:

God Save the Child
Mortal Stakes
Promised Land
The Judas Goat
Looking for Rachel Wallace
Early Autumn

I dunno if it's a coincidence, but that's when the series was optioned for television, and the writing went to hell. It's hard to believe that the book following Early Autumn was written by the same guy. It and Early Autumn were released in the same year, so the following one might've been written in a couple of weekends.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	papersky 2007-05-05 12:08 pm UTC (link)
	Goodness me but that's an interesting thought. (Reply to this)

	cakmpls 2007-05-05 01:35 pm UTC (link)
	I lost interest in Parker fairly early on, when Susan started behaving like a total bitch. That wasn't what turned me away, nor was it Spencer's accepting it; it was Hawk's accepting it. I couldn't buy his letting any human being get away with the behavior he let her get away with. (Reply to this)

	howardbrazee 2007-05-05 01:43 pm UTC (link)
	At the end, I thought MacDonald passed what I could enjoy in creating a bad world. Or maybe it was me who changed. (Reply to this)

	little_carrot 2007-05-05 02:07 pm UTC (link)
	I tried to like the MacDonald I read, I really did. People who's opinions I respect said that his writing was good. But he just didn't grab me. I feel much the same way about Heinlein - like I ought to enjoy him, but I really don't. (Reply to this)

Agreed

miramonlluagor
2007-05-05 07:31 pm UTC (link)

In a way, MacDonald is even more formulaic than Parker; but I think you're absolutely right that the later Parker is much inferior to his earlier books, while Travis McGee went on and on without growing stale, or weary.

The basic and often-repeated Travis McGee high level plot is: McGee reluctantly takes on a job, often for an old acquaintance; McGee solves the basic problem for the client through diligent but not particularly brilliant investigation, but leaves something undone either for reasons of compunction or laziness; McGee is captured and tortured by a vengeful enemy (often a friend, client, or lover is killed); McGee escapes and kills the enemy.

But of course that capsule doesn't really convey anything of what made MacDonald a good writer, and the goodness of MacDonald's writing didn't grow old or tired over many books. For me, the real attraction of those books was McGee's philosophical musings combined with the McGee/Meyer relationship, and to a secondary extent McGee's constant search for satisfying female relationships, and his constant search for meaning for his life, and nothing there ever seemed to be repetitious, boring, or dull despite the repeated plot structures.

On the other hand, Parker's plots seem to vary much more widely, but just as you say, they've grown progressively more weary and weak over time, repetitious on a sort of strategic scale. Possibly the fault lies in permitting his character to enjoy too much success. Spenser is such a successful character that he has none of the social inferiority of a noir PI or of a perpetual outsider like McGee -- instead, he is generally happy, wealthy, and rather smugly self-satisfied. Even the police, the FBI, and organized crime leaders now treat him with exaggerated respect. He's got a long-term successful relationship with a beautiful and intelligent woman, friends with amazing powers of martial prowess, so he has become almost a caricature, a completely unreal person.

I think John Gardner wrote about an "error of soul" occurring in literature when a writer doesn't respect the fictional reality of a character's life and just punishes the character without compunction -- perhaps the converse error occurs when the writer loves the character so much that the character is allowed overmuch success and happiness.

McGee was also admittedly living a wildly implausible life, but this implausibility somehow did not detract from his reality as a character, perhaps because he never really succeeded in solving his life problems.

Anyhow, for whatever reason, I'd much rather visit McGee on the Busted Flush than Spenser at some Back Bay bar or cafe.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Agreed

skzbrust
2007-05-05 08:45 pm UTC (link)

Well put. I think part of MacDonal's problem is a very common one: to be entertaining, a book must have tension; that can easily translate in a writer's head to, "we have to wonder if our hero will live," or, "we have to wonder if characters we care about will live." Which are easy ways of creating tension, but not the only way. But those problems never bothered me much, I was too busy enjoying McGee being McGee, especially with Meyer.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

100-point character before A Catskill Eagle-

createonenow
2007-05-06 01:25 am UTC (link)

Before 'A Catskill Eagle' Spenser was a GURPS 100-point character. Thrashing even one bodybuilder was tough, and for an Olympic-class 300-pounder he'd need Hawk to help.
Now he swats regiments; and as the man said he's got too many tough friends, none of whom have killed each other in too long. 400-point characters are a different story for Parker to write, not always a worse. But lately, only his westerns strike me as Really Good: the 'Gunman's Rhapsody' and
'Appaloosa'. (But the Manly Heroes and Womanly Women aren't a senile blunder. He's studied what Edmund Wilson said about 'The Virginian' as carefully as he's gone through Richard Slotkin.)

(Reply to this)

	corvida 2007-05-06 05:56 am UTC (link)
	Hello, I'm so excited to see you have an LJ. Hope you don't mind if I friend you. Thanks! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	skzbrust 2007-05-06 06:03 am UTC (link)
	Not at all; thanks for asking. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	irismoonlight 2007-05-07 03:46 pm UTC (link)
	raises a glass as well I cut my teeth on MacDonald. (I think his description of a freeway accident should be required reading before obtaining a drivers' license.) And Parker wowed me... briefly. I loved Susan, and then I lost interest. MacDonald's women ... well, he was writing how many years ago? Thank you for a thought-provoking boot in the butt. (Reply to this)

Macdonald's writing and Spencer's omniscience

speakertomgrs
2007-05-07 09:42 pm UTC (link)

There are other joys to be had in Macdonald's writing than plot and character. As several comments mentioned, he was an excellent observer; he also observed and described physical setting and atmosphere in ways that made them more vivid and interesting than more ordinary prose might have. One of my favorite ways of re-reading the Travis McGee books in particular is to focus on the description of the setting, trying to visualize as much as possible of the surroundings, and not worry too much about the plot.

The problem I've had with Parker recently (well, not so recently; I stopped reading him 20 years ago, I think), is that Spencer no longer needs to worry about success or failure, he's going to know what needs to be known, and do what needs to be done, and in the end he'll always get through. And his recipes never fail, which insults my credulity. McGee on the other hand is not always sure what just happened, even when it was good for him.

(Reply to this)

joelrosenberg
2007-05-08 08:35 pm UTC (link)

The central difficulty with Spenser, I think, was when the character decided that he was indestructible, and began to see that a good, consistent strategy for solving a problem was trying to get whoever was causing it to try to kill him. (There are, I think, legitimate ways to play with that, but my guess is that all those that those of us this side of Mike Ford or Donald Westlake can pull off end up with a dead protagonist, sooner than later.)

Parker had him banged up seriously a time or two to try to persuade him otherwise, but Spenser had figured it out, and he never quite got over it.

Not sure that he would if even the next book opened with some spear carrier more than mildly resembling Robert B. Parker were to walk into Spenser's office, whip out a guitar, do a threatening rendition of Railroad Bill, and then walk out.

Next lines, probably: "I sat back at the desk and noticed the girl in the window across the street. She was worth noticing."

I'm entirely not sure how Parker's almost certainly conscious decision that the almost explicitly promised irresistible/immovable confrontation between Spenser and Hawk had been called off permanently plays into that -- although I think most of it is obvious.

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs