Now reading...

[Dr. Rat]

BruceH Posted: May 17 2005, 02:04 PM

(BTW: "Miles Archer"--"Lew Archer" What's up with that?)

I'm absolutely sure that that was an intended tip of the fedora from Macdonald to Hammett.

BTW: if you haven't read the Macdonald Archer's yet, then what are you waiting for? Start with The Galton Case, The Chill, or The Zebra-Striped Hearse. Then read the rest in any order. They're all good, though of course some are better than others.

Thomas Berger, one of my favorite 20th Century America authors and not generally lavish with compliments, praised Macdonald sdpecifically for his voice, "for the purity of his American language, for his keeness of eye and precision of ear."

He was a master.

And unlike many authors confined to the Mystery ghetto, he's eminently re-readable. It's the characters and the writing that count.

To paraphrase Edmund Wilson: who cares whodunit?

Speaking of Berger I just read Who Is Teddy Villanova? which at one time was in every used book store in the country. Crazy, slightly surrealistic book, seemingly lightweight, but for some reason it sticks with you.

I'm a big Chandler fan, and have now read through all the Library of America volumes on both Chandler and Hammett, but can't seem to get around the cliches in MacDonald.

But I used to hate the tough-guy cliches in Hammett, as well.

And if you were to keep on with Wilson, all of these authors would be consigned to the rubbish heap, not just the plots!

--eric

[Dr. Rat]

As for reading, I just finished Ever Since Darwin, a collection of essays by Stephen Jay Gould that I highly recommend for non-science majors like myself.  Entertaining and educational.

These essays are really good, and you can keep on with them through I Have Landed. The one possible annoyance is that they were written for a periodical, and Gould, over the course of hundreds of essays sometimes returns to the same points and makes them using quite similar examples and arguments.

I'd also recommend the collection of Gould essays from the New York Review, Urchin in the Storm, which gives you more of his fiesty, argumentative side.

The beauty of these essays is that Gould was truly a well-educated man, unlike someone like Steven Pinker who's taken his spot at Harvard. Gould sometimes liked to show that education off too much, but I'd rather have Moses Mendelson in the original than have someone quoting Huck Finn who hasn't read it.

But at least Pinker's on the side of the angels on homosexuality.

--eric

Edited May 18, 2005 by Dr. Rat

[Chrome]

But at least Pinker's on the side of the angels on homosexuality.

--eric

Is the implication that Gould wasn't? (Not trying to argue, just curious.)

Also, as an FYI, David Quammen does the nature/science thing pretty well, too, especially in The Song of the Dodo.

[Dr. Rat]

But at least Pinker's on the side of the angels on homosexuality.

--eric

Is the implication that Gould wasn't? (Not trying to argue, just curious.)

Also, as an FYI, David Quammen does the nature/science thing pretty well, too, especially in The Song of the Dodo.

Oh, no. Just trying to say something nice about Pinker. He's just published a piece on the matter in the NYT:

May 17, 2005

Sniffing Out the Gay Gene

By STEVEN PINKER

Cambridge, Mass.

IT sounds like something out of the satirical journal Annals of Improbable Research: a team of Swedish neuroscientists scanned people's brains as they smelled a testosterone derivative found in men's sweat and an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine. In heterosexual men, a part of the hypothalamus (the seat of physical drives) responded to the female compound but not the male one; in heterosexual women and homosexual men, it was the other way around. But the discovery is more than just a shoo-in for that journal's annual Ig Nobel Prize - it raises provocative questions about the science and ethics of human sexuality.

Scientists and perfume marketers who believe that humans, like other mammals, respond sexually to chemical signals called pheromones were cheered by the news. But we are a long way from dogs in heat. The role of pheromones in our sexuality must be small at best. When people want to be titillated or to check out a prospective partner, most seek words or pictures, not dirty laundry.

The difference in the brain responses of gay and straight men does not, by itself, prove that homosexuality is innate; after all, learned inclinations, like innate ones, must reside somewhere in the brain. But in this case nature probably does trump nurture. Gay men generally report that their homosexual attractions began as soon as they felt sexual stirrings before adolescence. And homosexuality is more concordant in identical than in fraternal twins, suggesting that their shared genes play a role. Homosexuality is a puzzle for biology, not because homosexuality itself is evolutionarily maladaptive (though no more so than any other sexual act that does not result in conception), but because any genetic tendency to avoid heterosexual opportunities should have been selected out long ago. Perhaps "gay genes" have some other compensating advantage, like enhancing fertility, when they are carried by women. Perhaps the environments that set off homosexuality today didn't exist while our genes were being selected. Or perhaps the main cause is biological yet not directly genetic, like differences in hormones or antibodies that affect the fetus while it is developing.

Just as puzzling is the existence of homophobia. Why didn't evolution shape straight men to react to their gay fellows by thinking: "Great! More women for me!" Probably the answer lies in a cross-wiring between our senses of morality and disgust. People often confuse their own revulsion with objective sinfulness, as when they dehumanize people living in squalor or, in the other direction, engage in religious rituals of cleanliness and purification. An impulse to avoid homosexual contact may blur into an impulse to condemn homosexuality.

Cultural conservatives like the talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlesinger ostensibly condemn homosexuality for another reason - that it is a "biological error." Actually, it is she who has made the biological error. What is evolutionarily adaptive and what is morally justifiable have little to do with each other. Many laudable activities - being faithful to one's spouse, turning the other cheek, treating every child as precious, loving thy neighbor as thyself - are "biological errors" and are rare or unknown in the natural world.

It's not just anti-gay commentators who see a moral coloring in the biology of homosexuality. Some gay groups condemn such research because it could stigmatize gay people as defective and lead to a day in which parents could selectively abort children with "gay genes." Others welcome the research because it shows that people don't "choose" to be gay and hence can't be criticized for it, nor could homosexuals convert the children in their classrooms or Scout troops even if they wanted to.

It may not be a coincidence that the new discovery came from researchers in Europe. In America, the biology of homosexuality is a politicized minefield that scares away scientists (and the universities and agencies that pay for their research). Which is a pity. Regardless of where homosexuality resides in the brain, the ethics of homosexuality is a no-brainer: what consenting adults do in private is nobody's business but their own. And the deterrents to research on homosexuality leave us in ignorance of one of the most fascinating sources of human diversity.

Steven Pinker, a professor of cognitive science at Harvard, is the author of "How the Mind Works" and "The Blank Slate."

[Kalo]

Dr. Rat Posted on May 18 2005, 08:39 AM

Speaking of Berger I just read Who Is Teddy Villanova? which at one time was in every used book store in the country. Crazy, slightly surrealistic book, seemingly lightweight, but for some reason it sticks with you.

For some reason, I just can't get enough of Berger. I've read most of his books several times. Something about his deeply ironic, seemingly cynical but actually quite principled world-view just speaks to me. He's also an amazing prose stylist, as well as deeply funny. He specializes in what I might call "serious parody," for lack of a better term.

Villanova is great fun, sort of a screwball hardboiled novel. And he goes all-out with the language on this one.

For the uninitiated, Little Big Man is the place to start.

I'm a big Chandler fan, and have now read through all the Library of America volumes on both Chandler and Hammett, but can't seem to get around the cliches in MacDonald.

But I used to hate the tough-guy cliches in Hammett, as well.

Funny, because, if anything, Lew Archer, especially in the novels of the 60s and 70s, has been criticized as being too sensitive and not tough enough, sort of the lefty-liberal's hardboiled dick, as compared to Mike Hammer and such. Actually, what I find most interesting about Archer is that, though you do learn stray facts about him throughout the series, for the most part he functions as almost a window for the reader, a consciousness through which you perceive the other characters in the story with clarity, while he remains mostly a blank.

It's an interesting effect, quite unlike most detective fiction, where the detective's relationships, tastes, and the trappings of his or her life often takes center stage.

[jazzbo]

But isn't that also McDonald modeling himself after Chandler's Marlowe who you really don't know that much about, and the Op of Hammett's who is an enigma entirely personal history wise?

[jazzbo]

Though I say that as a big McDonald fan, but I'm more a fan of Chandler. No one writes like that! When he was ON he was untouchable.

[Dr. Rat]

Funny, because, if anything, Lew Archer, especially in the novels of the 60s and 70s, has been criticized as being too sensitive and not tough enough, sort of the lefty-liberal's hardboiled dick, as compared to Mike Hammer and such. Actually, what I find most interesting about Archer is that, though you do learn stray facts about him throughout the series, for the most part he functions as almost a window for the reader, a consciousness through which you perceive the other characters in the story with clarity, while he remains mostly a blank.

I'll give him another try one of these days. I came back to Hammett becasue I ran out of Chandler and couldn't see what had put me off when I was younger. Issues with my male ratness, perhaps?

Mike Hammer is pretty much off the map, for me: the hard-boiled detective after all the interesting bits have boiled off.

--eric

[jazzbo]

Mike Hammer is way off my map too.

Now reading: Philip K. Dick with Gwen Lee, "What if Our world were Their Heaven?"

[ghost of miles]

Kalo,

Hoping the movie version of THE GLASS KEY eventually comes out on DVD. I think I still have a copy taped off AMC somewhere around the house... and all of the THIN MAN movies are coming out in one set this August.

Right now: James Atlas' biography of the writer Delmore Schwartz.

Up next: Michael Chabon's THE FINAL SOLUTION. And just heard about Marilynne Robinson's (HOUSEKEEPING) new novel! Can't wait to read that one...

[BruceH]

sort of the lefty-liberal's hardboiled dick, as compared to Mike Hammer and such.

That's my kind of dick. (So to speak.)

I've been meaning to read some McDonald novels for years. Gave one a try in 97 or 98 and got distracted. Maybe now's the time.

[Chrome]

Anyone have any love for Martin Cruz Smith's Arkady Renko books?

[Dr. Rat]

Anyone have any love for Martin Cruz Smith's Arkady Renko books?

←

Oh, yeah. I LOVE this series. There is a sort of formulaic quality to them (not as much as many others, though), but the attitude is just right for my taste: rueful.

Do you happen to remember the scene where Renko watches a building burn or collapse and makes uses it as a metaphor to expalin his fascination with murder?

I've been trying to relocate it for months.

--eric

[BruceH]

Kalo,

Hoping the movie version of THE GLASS KEY eventually comes out on DVD.  I think I still have a copy taped off AMC somewhere around the house...

←

Care to send that (or a copy of it) my way sometime?

[jlhoots]

Anyone have any love for Martin Cruz Smith's Arkady Renko books?

←

Coincidentally I just started Wolves Eat Dogs.

[Brandon Burke]

David Mitchell - number9dream

[Harold_Z]

re Martin Cruz Smith's Arkady Renko books - I read GORKY PARK years ago and throughly enjoyed it. Never got around to any others in the series, but this is a definite reminder to do so.

I just finished Phillip K Dick's A SCANNER DARKLY.

WOW !

Very accessible after reading VALIS, which I enjoyed but it took mucho concentration in parts (well worth the effort). I figured I'd get a head's up the upcoming flick. DARKLY is terrific. It can alternately funny and poignant. Tragicomic?

I was a little disappointed to find out that the upcoming flick is animated, but I'm trying to get used to the idea.

[jazzbo]

A Scanner Darkly is a wonderful book in its way!

I was a little disappointed to learn of the animation-overlay of the upcoming movie too. But I would kid myself to say I was not gong to go see it.

[JohnJ]

Though I say that as a big McDonald fan, but I'm more a fan of Chandler.  No one writes like that!  When he was ON he was untouchable.

←

Could not agree more. There is nobody quite like Chandler and I never tire of reading his prose. Time to dig out 'The Big Sleep' and start again from the beginning.

[Chrome]

I'm not sure, but I think it was in Havana Bay, the one set in Cuba ... Smith is one of the few current "mystery/thriller" writers I'm still geeked on, it seems like he concentrates on the writing as much as the plotting ... I used to read a lot of Ellroy, for example, but American Tabloid really turned me off ... it seemed like he was phoning in a fair amount of that.

Anyone have any love for Martin Cruz Smith's Arkady Renko books?

←

Oh, yeah. I LOVE this series. There is a sort of formulaic quality to them (not as much as many others, though), but the attitude is just right for my taste: rueful.

Do you happen to remember the scene where Renko watches a building burn or collapse and makes uses it as a metaphor to expalin his fascination with murder?

I've been trying to relocate it for months.

--eric

←

[BruceH]

Loved ' The Grifters', the movie that is. haven't read the book.

←

Great score by the late Elmer Bernstein in that movie.

[BruceH]

Funny, I just finished The Glass Key a while back. Though I saw the movie many years ago, as far as I can recall it also followed the book quite closely, except for softening the ending. Good book and a good overlooked movie, one of the best of the Alan Ladd/Veronica Lake pairings.

←

Better than The Blue Dahlia? ("Da monkey music! Da monkey music!") B-)

[Dr. Rat]

I'm not sure, but I think it was in Havana Bay, the one set in Cuba ... Smith is one of the few current "mystery/thriller" writers I'm still geeked on, it seems like he concentrates on the writing as much as the plotting ... I used to read a lot of Ellroy, for example, but American Tabloid really turned me off ... it seemed like he was phoning in a fair amount of that.

Ellroy has always been up and down. Some of his really early stuff where he helped pioneer the serial killer genre is really kinda lazy in the thinking department, if you asked me. American Tabloid definitely marked a sort of turning point. I didn't mind it so much as you seem to have--I think I was hopng he'd turn into some sort of Tim Powers-esque fantasist (al la Last Call and Declare), but he probably doesn't have it in him. He's just not capable of the sort of lightheartedness that'd take.

Thanks for the Havana Bay tip,

--eric

[paul secor]

Robertson Davies: What's Bred in the Bone

[jazzbo]

"The Gnosis or Ancient Wisdom in the Christian Scriptures," by William Kingsland. (A Theosophist work).

Edited May 30, 2005 by jazzbo