Jack7
First Post
Yesterday I saw on the internet a recorded interview with Jim Butcher (my current favorite author of modern fantasy).
During the interview the woman interviewing him asked who his favorite authors were (who he reads when writing). The first person he mentioned was Robert B. Parker. I well understand Butcher's inclinations. Parker is without a doubt the single best writer of crime fiction alive today. He reminds me of a cross (in all the good ways possible) of Raymond Chandler and Ernest Hemingway.
He's brilliant, and not just at crime fiction either. He's written some of the best Westerns I've ever read. There are a lot of things to like about Parker, but to me the bets is that his characters are obviously all men. (I don't mean all his characters are men, I mean all his male characters are actually men - not plastic, not artificial, not afraid to be men men, but real men.) His characters are throwbacks to the days when real men write real books about real men. He appeals to me as a man. To most all of the masculine qualities I associate as best in manhood. I don't know how to say it any better than that, but after I read his books I generally end up thinking to myself, "this is exactly the way a man should behave." It's a real shame so much of that has been lost in our culture (Western, and even American culture).
Now I like Westerns and Frontier works (which appeals to the Frontiersman/Explorer/Woodsman/Survivalist in me), and Military fiction (which appeals to that part of me interested in the military and in service), and Adventure works (ditto), and I like Mysteries and Vadding works (cause that's a big part of my nature, problem solving, sneaking about, infiltration), and Espionage works (double ditto). All of these things appeal to the man in me, and they all either interest, fascinate, or excite my nature. Doesn't matter if these kinds of things are fiction or non-fiction. It's all equally enticing to me. (Well, maybe non-fiction is more enticing, but the really best fiction is usually base don real life anyways, so it all works out eventually I reckon.) Cause that's the way I'm made.
Now sometimes my inclinations will swing in one direction or another. I might prefer a work on survival better than a Western at one moment, a Western being the best possible thing I can read the next. It sorta fluctuates from time to time with me, exactly what I like best to study or read, but that's about the gist of it. All of the things I mentioned tend to interest me, stimulate me, encourage me or provoke to have adventures of my own. I reckon I like danger a whole helluvah lot better than being bored. Then again I like pretty much anything a whole helluvah lot better than being bored. I'd rather be a stiff than be bored stiff. At least dead I'd be free to explore things again. Least ways I hope I will be.
Anywho, and all of that being what it is, I suppose that most of the time, and generally speaking, I prefer works on crime. I like to study crime, to work on my own cases (and I've had some good ones), to read about crime, and to read crime fiction (usually as much to see how others operate, even fictional characters, as the cases themselves - I'm always picking up "working and operational tips" from every source I can that to me seems worth pursuing).
Parker's works are first rate to me in this regard. The cases themselves are often very interesting, but to me it's watching his characters work that really excites me. And that I enjoy. (You know it's often been said that good work is it's own reward. That's certainly true. But good work is also a step into the future. A better one than not being good at what you do.) The way they work, their methods of operation, what they do and just as importantly, (and I think most people overlook this when it comes to work against criminals) what they don't do, or what they do or don't do in order to break or bend the rules in order to try and achieve Justice. And Justice is far more important than the law. I'd rather see one instance of real Justice achieved than all mere efforts of the law ever undertaken. Of course, in the end, there's only one real kind of Justice, the kind that prevents bad things from happening in the first place. Everything else is really just catch-up, if that much. Justice should never be blind, and it should never be slow. It should always see farther, hear clearer, sense more cleanly, and anticipate more cleverly than anything else, so that it kills injustice before injustice can ever be born. Certainly before injustice can stand upright. Maybe I should write a play or something about that. Justice as the sleepless Nemesis who never stops hunting and thwarting rather than the senseless judge who is always trying to put the useless pieces back together again after it's far too late. After all you break it and you buy it even though it's already ruined, but you save it, and everybody's got a decent shot at enjoying it then. Well, that's for another time I suppose. I'd best get back to what I meant to say about Parker and his men.
Of his crime works two guys stand out to me. Stone and Spenser. (It also don't hurt much that both men are real dog lovers.) Now I really like Spenser. Didn't think I would when I first started reading him, but I've been through four books now and in everyone the guy appeals to me. I like to read how he works, try and guess what he'll do next, and in which way. I like the way he talks. He's clever. He's usually ahead of the competition. He's a helluvah good Dick. No doubt about that. I'm not sure if I had a buddy like Hawk I could always stand behind the guy. Fact is I'd probably bust him. But the friendship between Spenser and Hawk is admirable. I understand it, even if I personally couldn't stomach some of the things Hawk does or how he operates. But I do understand it. One other thing I really like about Spenser. I both admire and fully understand why he works alone. why he quit the Force and can't stand to be part of an organization. Been that way most of my life. As I've gotten older I reckon I've mellowed. Don't mind being part of an organization now. Don't mind having superiors. Don't always mind taking orders either. But by nature, and I've always been this way, even as a kid, I've always desired to work alone. I like working alone. Being a loner (in certain respects anyways). I suspect I'll always be that way too. For the most part. I'd much rather go undercover alone, with no-one really knowing exactly where I am or what I'm doing til I decide somebody needs to know. So I get that about Spenser. We're simpatico in that respect.
Stone, however, Jesse Stone. Well, he seems like a brother to me, only far closer to me than my real brothers. He tends to think like me, act like me, operate like me. I read the way he's working a case and I think to myself, "yup, that's pretty much exactly the way I'd work it." Some people, familiar with Stone, even tell me we sorta talk alike. Not in vocabulary so much as in mannerisms, and style. I suspect there's some truth in that. And like Spenser he's also a helluvah Dick. And a superb Chief of Police. He's more company man though than Spenser, but then again he operates outside of policy. Sometimes way outside of policy. I admire that. Really admire it. I've never thought much of organizational structure and policy just for the sake of organizational structure and policy. That kinda thing doesn't float me very far. I'd much rather run on my own wind, and tack my own course. What I like about Stone, really like about Stone, is the fact that he operates within the system but he ain't part of it. He's in it, solid to all appearances, but in all of the ways that count, he's really an outsider lookin in. In that way he's quintessentially American to me. In it, but not. Clan man, but ain't. Outsider. His own self. Enterprising. Frontiersman.
I also like the guys who operate with Stone. Captain Healy for instance always makes me laugh. He reminds me a lot of a guy I once knew. The one thing I don't like about Stone though is that he's a lush. He needs to kick that in the head and just be done with it. He carries the booze around like a dead albatross. One day it might get him killed.
(By the way, I see a lot of Stone in Butcher's Harry Dresden. I see now how Butcher took a lot of Dresden from Stone and Spenser. From Parker. I knew that sub-consciously I liked all three characters, for pretty much the same reason I reckon I like all such characters. They seem familiar and natural and similar to me. But I never really thought about how close they all were til I heard Butcher mention Parker as one of his big influences. Butcher and Parker don't write a lot alike, not at all. Parker is sparse, and sharp, externally oriented, and all craft. Butcher is wordy, and rambling, and articulate, and self-concerned. But their characters are pretty much the same guy wrapped in different mannerisms, and working along different tracks. Same Rome, different roads.)
Last Spenser book I read had Spenser operating near Paradise and Stone and Spenser actually working together. Overlapping on a case, so to speak. It was really interesting to me.
In any case I just want to say that I highly recommend Bob Parker and both the Stone and Spenser crime novels. If you like that kinda thing, then you'll like those guys. And if you don't then I'm not sure I can help that much. Nevertheless that's my story and I'm stickin it to ya.
During the interview the woman interviewing him asked who his favorite authors were (who he reads when writing). The first person he mentioned was Robert B. Parker. I well understand Butcher's inclinations. Parker is without a doubt the single best writer of crime fiction alive today. He reminds me of a cross (in all the good ways possible) of Raymond Chandler and Ernest Hemingway.
He's brilliant, and not just at crime fiction either. He's written some of the best Westerns I've ever read. There are a lot of things to like about Parker, but to me the bets is that his characters are obviously all men. (I don't mean all his characters are men, I mean all his male characters are actually men - not plastic, not artificial, not afraid to be men men, but real men.) His characters are throwbacks to the days when real men write real books about real men. He appeals to me as a man. To most all of the masculine qualities I associate as best in manhood. I don't know how to say it any better than that, but after I read his books I generally end up thinking to myself, "this is exactly the way a man should behave." It's a real shame so much of that has been lost in our culture (Western, and even American culture).
Now I like Westerns and Frontier works (which appeals to the Frontiersman/Explorer/Woodsman/Survivalist in me), and Military fiction (which appeals to that part of me interested in the military and in service), and Adventure works (ditto), and I like Mysteries and Vadding works (cause that's a big part of my nature, problem solving, sneaking about, infiltration), and Espionage works (double ditto). All of these things appeal to the man in me, and they all either interest, fascinate, or excite my nature. Doesn't matter if these kinds of things are fiction or non-fiction. It's all equally enticing to me. (Well, maybe non-fiction is more enticing, but the really best fiction is usually base don real life anyways, so it all works out eventually I reckon.) Cause that's the way I'm made.
Now sometimes my inclinations will swing in one direction or another. I might prefer a work on survival better than a Western at one moment, a Western being the best possible thing I can read the next. It sorta fluctuates from time to time with me, exactly what I like best to study or read, but that's about the gist of it. All of the things I mentioned tend to interest me, stimulate me, encourage me or provoke to have adventures of my own. I reckon I like danger a whole helluvah lot better than being bored. Then again I like pretty much anything a whole helluvah lot better than being bored. I'd rather be a stiff than be bored stiff. At least dead I'd be free to explore things again. Least ways I hope I will be.
Anywho, and all of that being what it is, I suppose that most of the time, and generally speaking, I prefer works on crime. I like to study crime, to work on my own cases (and I've had some good ones), to read about crime, and to read crime fiction (usually as much to see how others operate, even fictional characters, as the cases themselves - I'm always picking up "working and operational tips" from every source I can that to me seems worth pursuing).
Parker's works are first rate to me in this regard. The cases themselves are often very interesting, but to me it's watching his characters work that really excites me. And that I enjoy. (You know it's often been said that good work is it's own reward. That's certainly true. But good work is also a step into the future. A better one than not being good at what you do.) The way they work, their methods of operation, what they do and just as importantly, (and I think most people overlook this when it comes to work against criminals) what they don't do, or what they do or don't do in order to break or bend the rules in order to try and achieve Justice. And Justice is far more important than the law. I'd rather see one instance of real Justice achieved than all mere efforts of the law ever undertaken. Of course, in the end, there's only one real kind of Justice, the kind that prevents bad things from happening in the first place. Everything else is really just catch-up, if that much. Justice should never be blind, and it should never be slow. It should always see farther, hear clearer, sense more cleanly, and anticipate more cleverly than anything else, so that it kills injustice before injustice can ever be born. Certainly before injustice can stand upright. Maybe I should write a play or something about that. Justice as the sleepless Nemesis who never stops hunting and thwarting rather than the senseless judge who is always trying to put the useless pieces back together again after it's far too late. After all you break it and you buy it even though it's already ruined, but you save it, and everybody's got a decent shot at enjoying it then. Well, that's for another time I suppose. I'd best get back to what I meant to say about Parker and his men.
Of his crime works two guys stand out to me. Stone and Spenser. (It also don't hurt much that both men are real dog lovers.) Now I really like Spenser. Didn't think I would when I first started reading him, but I've been through four books now and in everyone the guy appeals to me. I like to read how he works, try and guess what he'll do next, and in which way. I like the way he talks. He's clever. He's usually ahead of the competition. He's a helluvah good Dick. No doubt about that. I'm not sure if I had a buddy like Hawk I could always stand behind the guy. Fact is I'd probably bust him. But the friendship between Spenser and Hawk is admirable. I understand it, even if I personally couldn't stomach some of the things Hawk does or how he operates. But I do understand it. One other thing I really like about Spenser. I both admire and fully understand why he works alone. why he quit the Force and can't stand to be part of an organization. Been that way most of my life. As I've gotten older I reckon I've mellowed. Don't mind being part of an organization now. Don't mind having superiors. Don't always mind taking orders either. But by nature, and I've always been this way, even as a kid, I've always desired to work alone. I like working alone. Being a loner (in certain respects anyways). I suspect I'll always be that way too. For the most part. I'd much rather go undercover alone, with no-one really knowing exactly where I am or what I'm doing til I decide somebody needs to know. So I get that about Spenser. We're simpatico in that respect.
Stone, however, Jesse Stone. Well, he seems like a brother to me, only far closer to me than my real brothers. He tends to think like me, act like me, operate like me. I read the way he's working a case and I think to myself, "yup, that's pretty much exactly the way I'd work it." Some people, familiar with Stone, even tell me we sorta talk alike. Not in vocabulary so much as in mannerisms, and style. I suspect there's some truth in that. And like Spenser he's also a helluvah Dick. And a superb Chief of Police. He's more company man though than Spenser, but then again he operates outside of policy. Sometimes way outside of policy. I admire that. Really admire it. I've never thought much of organizational structure and policy just for the sake of organizational structure and policy. That kinda thing doesn't float me very far. I'd much rather run on my own wind, and tack my own course. What I like about Stone, really like about Stone, is the fact that he operates within the system but he ain't part of it. He's in it, solid to all appearances, but in all of the ways that count, he's really an outsider lookin in. In that way he's quintessentially American to me. In it, but not. Clan man, but ain't. Outsider. His own self. Enterprising. Frontiersman.
I also like the guys who operate with Stone. Captain Healy for instance always makes me laugh. He reminds me a lot of a guy I once knew. The one thing I don't like about Stone though is that he's a lush. He needs to kick that in the head and just be done with it. He carries the booze around like a dead albatross. One day it might get him killed.
(By the way, I see a lot of Stone in Butcher's Harry Dresden. I see now how Butcher took a lot of Dresden from Stone and Spenser. From Parker. I knew that sub-consciously I liked all three characters, for pretty much the same reason I reckon I like all such characters. They seem familiar and natural and similar to me. But I never really thought about how close they all were til I heard Butcher mention Parker as one of his big influences. Butcher and Parker don't write a lot alike, not at all. Parker is sparse, and sharp, externally oriented, and all craft. Butcher is wordy, and rambling, and articulate, and self-concerned. But their characters are pretty much the same guy wrapped in different mannerisms, and working along different tracks. Same Rome, different roads.)
Last Spenser book I read had Spenser operating near Paradise and Stone and Spenser actually working together. Overlapping on a case, so to speak. It was really interesting to me.
In any case I just want to say that I highly recommend Bob Parker and both the Stone and Spenser crime novels. If you like that kinda thing, then you'll like those guys. And if you don't then I'm not sure I can help that much. Nevertheless that's my story and I'm stickin it to ya.
