Point Blank discussion
Episode 15 Part 1 - Flash of Green
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Geoff
(new)
Nov 11, 2018 12:12PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
What can I say? I'm a generous guy. ;)
Mod
Mod
I will enthusiastically take Justin and Kurt's recommendation on this book and not read it. I've read one Travis McGee novel, and my impression of John D MacDonald's writing is that, if you're looking for a good hard-boiled detective writer, you've chosen the wrong Macdonald.
Rob wrote: "I will enthusiastically take Justin and Kurt's recommendation on this book and not read it. I've read one Travis McGee novel, and my impression of John D MacDonald's writing is that, if you're look..."I can't full commit to this position yet, but I am close to saying I agree with you. I am, however, reading the Green Ripper right now and enjoying it.
Justin wrote: "Rob wrote: "I will enthusiastically take Justin and Kurt's recommendation on this book and not read it. I've read one Travis McGee novel, and my impression of John D MacDonald's writing is that, if..."I'll be interested to hear your final verdict. I may have just chosen one of the weaker books in the series (Bright Orange for the Shroud). The weak point for me was Travis McGee himself. MacDonald writes him almost as the Perfect Man; every female character loves him and every male reader wants to be him - he can do everything and he's not over-confident in knowing that he can. That's actually one of the reasons that I dislike Mike Hammer (not to draw too close a comparison; Mickey Spillane is no John D MacDonald). All the best hard-boiled detectives are flawed, they're cynical and/or depressed and they're losers in some sense. McGee is a winner (at least in the book I read) and, to me, that's boring.
Mod
I haven't read any McGee novels, but I totally agree about Mike Hammer.
Interesting observation. I'll continue to read for this Mary Sue-ish winner syndrome in McGee. I certainly hate his car -- a bright blue rolls royce station wagon. I guess MacDonald found this funny, but I see it as stupid and improbable and it says a lot (mostly not good things) about the character driving it. Not sure if there is a working class current in the char. of Travis McGee.
I have read a couple of Travis McGees, and didn't really like them, but I think the Mary Sue aspect is a feature, not a bug. I call the pbo "romantic novel for men" genre 'mantasy,' for want of a better term. Those who read John MacDonald easily put themselves in McGee's shoes (or sneakers)- he was not 'working class,' but he had definitely and decidedly dropped out of the 'rat race.' (lives on a boat, takes 'jobs' (i.e., adventures) as needed)- serial monogamy- somehow the 'flame' gets killed or brain damaged by the end of the book.
The thing about Travis McGee is, he's not hard-boiled, he's 'tough-tender.' He can be brutal, but he can't (really) be cynical, and the result is a smarmy hypocrisy. He can torture people as long as he feels bad afterwards.
Christopher wrote: "I have read a couple of Travis McGees, and didn't really like them, but I think the Mary Sue aspect is a feature, not a bug. I call the pbo "romantic novel for men" genre 'mantasy,' for want of a..."
Excellent description. I totally agree. In addition to his smarmy hypocrisy, McGee occasionally takes a break from the action to philosophize about the state of the changing world, reaching conclusions that the average 14-year-old would find shallow and vacuous.
Christopher wrote: "I have read a couple of Travis McGees, and didn't really like them, but I think the Mary Sue aspect is a feature, not a bug. I call the pbo "romantic novel for men" genre 'mantasy,' for want of a..."
Yes, this helps to clarify some aspects of McGee that I'm still trying to understand.
Ross Macdonald's Archer has similar "tough-tender" qualities, but I don't think the term "mantasy" accurately describes the Archer novels. Archer is a listener, and I think he has the desire to make right in the world in a way that mirrors Chandler. I am not so sure McGee cares enough to do this perhaps due to cynicism, which would put him more in the camp of Spade.
I like comparing the two -- Archer and McGee -- because they are emblematic of the second wave of detective fiction.
How might y'all compare / contrast the behavior of these two characters?
I’m finishing up the editing on part 2. The episode should be up at the end of the Thanksgiving (here in the US) holiday weekend.
Justin wrote: "I like comparing the two -- Archer and McGee -- because they are emblematic of the second wave of detective fiction. How might y'all compare / contrast the behavior of these two characters? ."
2 very different characters. Archer is a man of the mind; McGee is a man of action. Archer is a traditional PI: he's primarily in it to solve a crime and deliver the perp to justice - he's part of the justice system. Archer psychoanalyzes each of his suspects, often empathizing with the perp. McGee works for clients who have not been served fairly by the system - he gets them justice by other means - he's a hero.
