Is the PI novel dead?
William Ahearn posted this article on his website. It's entitled The Slow and Agonizing Death of the Private Investigator. Obviously, since I write PI novels, I have a stake in this. On Detectoday, I responded with:
The PI has grown and expanded to become both more realistic and at the same time more exciting...The PI no longer is a cypher in which to see the mystery unravel, if it ever was. The PI was always personally involved in their stories. Spade tried to solve the Falcon case because his partner was murdered--and despite him saying, that's just what you do, and his sleeping with his partner's wife--I have a feeling Spade cared somewhat. If Chandler hadn't died, it appeared that he was well on the way toward marrying Ms. Loring.
The character taken umbridge with the most seems to be Lew Archer, a character who had "feelings." It strike me that Archer is the character who changed the least. He killed a man in the first novel and it came up only once more. He seemed to meet a woman in The Blue Hammer, but we don't know if anything came of that. In fact it seemed that Archer was the character who we most saw only the case. Did he beat anyone up? Occasionally, but not if he didn't have to. But we always knew he could.
Characters these days, the article seems to say, are only wussy men or women who drink for no reason or see psychiatrists or do things that the old PIs never did. Guess what, times change. The series has always been about the character. Things have to happen to the PI for us to care. Seeing a psychiatrist is an interesting way to look at a characters depths, I think. (It worked in the Sopranos and Tony was still willing to get his hands dirty.) As far as the psycho sidekick works, yes, it has become a cliche (just like the bottle in the top drawer, the article seems to love so much.).
I don't think the PI is dead. I think it's going to thrive again. There are great PI writers out there... Crumley, Pelecanos, Lippman, Crais, Parker, Lehane. (Kenzie was a character, one who was conflicted by his job, commited a murder when he saw no other option, but had to let an even worse character go, when he couldn't get to him. He got scared, he fell in love, and he got beat up. There was much more to him than the "clutter" on the surface.)
The detective stories were always about the detective in the novels. Marlowe played chess by himself (clutter?).. . Spade was after the killer of his partner, as I said, and didn't care much about the bird, it seems to me. Nick and Nora drank way too much and were much more interesting than whatever the case they were solving was.. Sherlock Holmes did cocaine.. The only detective who was a vehicle for story was Archer, that I can remember... and he's the one disliked the most.
(I would bring Spillane and Hammer into this more, but... alas... I haven't read him... and I'm willing to admit that. Though I've seen one of the movies (the one with the nuclear stuff and the house that blows up because of it) and it struck me as just plain silly.)
PIs who have psycho sidekicks (or don't) still get their hands dirty... which was one of the things you said the old PIs that you enjoyed did, but new ones didn't.
Kenzie and Gennaro executed a gang member (but the article says the reader threw the book across the room, so I'm not sure he got that far).
Tess Monaghan killed a man and it still comes up in the series.
Spenser has set up men to be murdered by his hands.
Evils Cole has killed many men and been willing to shoot, punch, and do what it takes to get the job done.
In fact, it seems to me the point of the article is that the current PIs have a conscience. They kill but they feel it. It strikes me that if Hammer, Spade, and Marlowe didn't feel it when they killed someone (and Marlowe definitely felt it...James Bond felt it too in the novels)... they would be psychos themselves. They are not heroes, they are cold blooded killers as well.
I find the novels now, more exciting. There is more intense action and there are reprocussions to this action. I want to see how characters are affected by the violent worlds they live in... to me, that is more exciting.
The PI has grown and expanded to become both more realistic and at the same time more exciting...The PI no longer is a cypher in which to see the mystery unravel, if it ever was. The PI was always personally involved in their stories. Spade tried to solve the Falcon case because his partner was murdered--and despite him saying, that's just what you do, and his sleeping with his partner's wife--I have a feeling Spade cared somewhat. If Chandler hadn't died, it appeared that he was well on the way toward marrying Ms. Loring.
The character taken umbridge with the most seems to be Lew Archer, a character who had "feelings." It strike me that Archer is the character who changed the least. He killed a man in the first novel and it came up only once more. He seemed to meet a woman in The Blue Hammer, but we don't know if anything came of that. In fact it seemed that Archer was the character who we most saw only the case. Did he beat anyone up? Occasionally, but not if he didn't have to. But we always knew he could.
Characters these days, the article seems to say, are only wussy men or women who drink for no reason or see psychiatrists or do things that the old PIs never did. Guess what, times change. The series has always been about the character. Things have to happen to the PI for us to care. Seeing a psychiatrist is an interesting way to look at a characters depths, I think. (It worked in the Sopranos and Tony was still willing to get his hands dirty.) As far as the psycho sidekick works, yes, it has become a cliche (just like the bottle in the top drawer, the article seems to love so much.).
I don't think the PI is dead. I think it's going to thrive again. There are great PI writers out there... Crumley, Pelecanos, Lippman, Crais, Parker, Lehane. (Kenzie was a character, one who was conflicted by his job, commited a murder when he saw no other option, but had to let an even worse character go, when he couldn't get to him. He got scared, he fell in love, and he got beat up. There was much more to him than the "clutter" on the surface.)
The detective stories were always about the detective in the novels. Marlowe played chess by himself (clutter?).. . Spade was after the killer of his partner, as I said, and didn't care much about the bird, it seems to me. Nick and Nora drank way too much and were much more interesting than whatever the case they were solving was.. Sherlock Holmes did cocaine.. The only detective who was a vehicle for story was Archer, that I can remember... and he's the one disliked the most.
(I would bring Spillane and Hammer into this more, but... alas... I haven't read him... and I'm willing to admit that. Though I've seen one of the movies (the one with the nuclear stuff and the house that blows up because of it) and it struck me as just plain silly.)
PIs who have psycho sidekicks (or don't) still get their hands dirty... which was one of the things you said the old PIs that you enjoyed did, but new ones didn't.
Kenzie and Gennaro executed a gang member (but the article says the reader threw the book across the room, so I'm not sure he got that far).
Tess Monaghan killed a man and it still comes up in the series.
Spenser has set up men to be murdered by his hands.
Evils Cole has killed many men and been willing to shoot, punch, and do what it takes to get the job done.
In fact, it seems to me the point of the article is that the current PIs have a conscience. They kill but they feel it. It strikes me that if Hammer, Spade, and Marlowe didn't feel it when they killed someone (and Marlowe definitely felt it...James Bond felt it too in the novels)... they would be psychos themselves. They are not heroes, they are cold blooded killers as well.
I find the novels now, more exciting. There is more intense action and there are reprocussions to this action. I want to see how characters are affected by the violent worlds they live in... to me, that is more exciting.
Labels: Novels, Private Investigators, Writing
posted by Dave White at 10:26 AM
8 Comments:
David,
What an interesting critique of my essay. It would be far more interesting for you if you actually read it. Nowhere is there stated any problem or umbrage with Lew Archer and I explained on that the email list where you posted the same inaccurate material. The point that seemed to elude you has more to do with Anthony Boucher finding "feelings" valuable and influencing a number of writes as a result.
The essay clearly states that it was the writers who followed Macdonald. I'm sure there's debateable points in my essay. But let's try and minimize them to things I actually wrote.
Thanks,
William
While we're being picky...
"Sam Spade, Doghouse Reilly and all the unnamed ops and dicks were witnesses. Our witnesses. We saw the degradation, greed and foibles of humanity through their eyes."
We don't see anything through Spade's eyes. Or anybody's eyes. If anything, Hammett was unusual for his almost documentary prose. THE MALTESE FALCON is entirely objective.
Also, for someone who's willing to be wowed by the next generation of PI writers, it seems awfully constipated to have a pop at a man who hasn't written a PI novel in at least seven years, as well as another who's very much of a generation far removed from the current crop.
Perhaps next time, Mr Ahearn can force himself to read a little wider before displaying his colossal ignorance.
And to answer Dave's question... as I have answered it many times before, of course the PI's dead. I'm just contrary by nature.
I'm not sure the PI's dead. He's become unlicensed, a bounty hunter, working with a group of other PIs, but I don't think he's dead yet.
From a publishing standpoint, PI novels are pretty much DOA.
From a creative standpoint, a whole different story, but those novels, by the likes of messrs. White and Banks, are crime novels that happen to feature protagonists who happen to have once been (or still are) private investigators.
I love many aspects of the PI form and think there's a lot of territory still unexplored. But the Hammett/Chandler/canon tropes, they don't excite me. And the last thing the genre needs is another meh PI novel.
I love PI novels, but I think they're going the way of the Western. Private eyes have very little popularity outside of their fans in the mystery community - witness the many failed television series over the past few years.
I personally believe that this will become a niche market, but they will never go away completely.
And am I the only one who doesn't mind if the PI hero doesn't change from book to book?
Ray said:
"We don't see anything through Spade's eyes. Or anybody's eyes. If anything, Hammett was unusual for his almost documentary prose. THE MALTESE FALCON is entirely objective."
Technically, Ray, you're right. But so what? It's hair-splitting and doesn't change the conclusion one iota.
"Also, for someone who's willing to be wowed by the next generation of PI writers, it seems awfully constipated to have a pop at a man who hasn't written a PI novel in at least seven years, as well as another who's very much of a generation far removed from the current crop."
Who's being wowed but the "next generation" of PIs? Not me. I never said that. I picked the writers to pick on because they're well-known. If I hadn't you would claim I was making a case on obscure hacks. Again, it doesn't change the conclusion and I bet Ex-Lax would work for you.
"Perhaps next time, Mr Ahearn can force himself to read a little wider before displaying his colossal ignorance."
That's just petty and you know it. I've gotten a lot of grief for posting that essay and I will admit that some elements could have been stated better or more clearly. But splitting hairs on the wrong end of the dog doesn't change anything. You would nit-pick the most elegantly stated essay. The PI novel and it's cosy off-spring the sleuth are roadkill. Over. It has gone from genre to cult. You can pick on my essay all you want and find typos in the death certificate to deny the finality and that's just jake with me.
Love & Kissed
William
Mr Ahearn,
First off, thanks for replying. I do apologise if I sounded a touch snarky.
Anyway, onward:
"Who's being wowed but the 'next generation' of PIs? Not me. I never said that."
Neither did I. I said you were someone who was WILLING to be wowed:
"...while I wait for some new or new-to-me writer who will break the tedium and [sic] delivery a damn fine book that will make all this sorting through worthwhile."
Obviously, this isn't the case. As I pointed out, neither of the authors used as popular examples could possibly be defined as either new writers or new to anyone who had more than a passing interest in the sub-genre.
If you were interested in how the PI novel looks in the 21st Century, I would suggest you look at Shamus nominees for Best First from, say, the last seven years (The full list can be found at http://www.thrillingdetective.com/trivia/triv72.html). There you'll find a better idea of where the PI stands (and lives, and breathes) now, rather than ten years ago.
When people cry that the PI is dead, they're normally just keening for an anachronism, refusing to believe that archetypes can and do evolve (just as the PI evolved out of the Western hero and, before that, the literal errant knight). Yes, there are a lot of bad PI books out there, riddled with pastiche and formula, but there are also new voices (older ones, too) demonstrating excellence in the genre.
The PI isn't dead, he's just a man (or woman) of his times. And those times keep changing.
Ray,
Thanks for finding that typo, try as I might they still slip through. We're really talking at cross-purposes. What few people who read the essay understood is how tongue in cheek it was meant to be. Not that I don't believe what I wrote but that it was never intended to be a didactic thesis that would prove beyond all academic doubt that the PI is dead. I'm not a critic. I'm a reader. And I read the genre -- unlike Edmund Wilson who I am not comparing myself with. Did you read Megan Abbott's "Die A Little"? It -- and Vicki Hendricks' work will be the subject of a new essay -- is an anti-sleuth, anti-PI novel although that was not her intention. For me, a PI in this day and age can't change with the times. Their time is gone. It's like noir. It was of a time and then that time evaporated. It's time to move on and get creative with the form. Sticking to the tried and true formula of genre is lazy and uncreative. That's my real problem with PI fiction.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Post a Comment
<< Home