If my writing seems to lack in detail to some people, I do say in my own defense that this is directly related to my reading habits and inspiration. I am drawn to – stuck on, you might say – mid-20th century fiction. I like older things and occasionally I like newer things, but my favorite literature was usually written somewhere between the 30s and the 60s. I don’t know why this is, but it’s more than evident in a list of my favorite writers: Patricia Highsmith, Daphne Du Maurier, Philip K. Dick, Evelyn Waugh, Dashiell Hammett, Barbara Pym, Shirley Jackson, Agatha Christie.
There’s only one writer on my “favorites” list whose not firmly anchored in this mid-20th century period, and that’s Elmore Leonard. Well, he actually started in this time (the 50s), he just went on to greater glories and a prolific career that is still going (born in 1928, P K Dick actually came into this world after Elmore Leonard, who was born in 1925. It would have been nice if Dick could have lived long enough to see his fiction beloved by the movies like Leonard did; I’m sure it’s inspirational to be getting new fans in your eighties, and I hope Leonard can push his career into his hundreds).
But as for the details, or lack thereof, I think the literature of this mid-20th century period has a slightly different feel than its current cousins. Things were tighter and terser. Does this connect to the modernism of the mid and post war era? The extreme example is found in noir mysteries (such as those by Hammett and Chandler), which never waste a word and try to sum up complex feelings and situations with a fast metaphor. But even the non-noir books often keep it light and airy on the details. To me, the emphasis is on the quality of the writing: packing all you need into as few sentences as possible. Now the cycles have turned, as styles cycles do. The new mode of fiction writing is no better or worse, just maybe slightly different; perhaps it’s a bit more verbose, a shade heavier on the details.
No comments:
Post a Comment