The detective story is a miraculous thing. It allows for a game of wits between the reader and writer which perhaps on screen (or onpage) surrogates. It is, I think the root of noir, and hence a huge family of narrative folding and similar devices.
But somewhere along the line, writers abandoned it. Writers in the genre today call themselves "mystery" writers and are as apt to engage in "psychological" fiction as in the shape of the storytelling. Rendell is one of these.
I think this because of TeeVee and the growing laziness of viewers, plus the trend in cinematic writing to focus on characters and particularly characters that drive situations. Its anti-noir. It sells. I find it profoundly pedestrian.
This edition is probably typical of the series. It features one actor, James D'Arcy who we would see later as a reimagined Holmes. And one other actor, the husband of the murdered woman, who does an uncharacteristically fine job. Otherwise, a waste. When you rely on the psychological interplay, it had better be interesting. It isn't here.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
But somewhere along the line, writers abandoned it. Writers in the genre today call themselves "mystery" writers and are as apt to engage in "psychological" fiction as in the shape of the storytelling. Rendell is one of these.
I think this because of TeeVee and the growing laziness of viewers, plus the trend in cinematic writing to focus on characters and particularly characters that drive situations. Its anti-noir. It sells. I find it profoundly pedestrian.
This edition is probably typical of the series. It features one actor, James D'Arcy who we would see later as a reimagined Holmes. And one other actor, the husband of the murdered woman, who does an uncharacteristically fine job. Otherwise, a waste. When you rely on the psychological interplay, it had better be interesting. It isn't here.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.