Mickey Spillane and American 'Literature'

[Emil Miller]

What does the below-mentioned information tell us about American readers and how significant is it?

Frank Morrison Spillane (March 9, 1918 – July 17, 2006), better known as Mickey Spillane, was an American author of crime novels, many featuring his signature detective character, Mike Hammer. More than 225 million copies of his books have sold internationally.[1] In 1980, Spillane was responsible for seven of the top 15 all-time bestselling fiction titles in America.

German painter Markus Lüpertz claimed that Spillane's writing influenced his own work, saying that Spillane ranks as one of the major poets of the 20th Century.

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Mickey Spillane:

"I'm actually a softie. Tough guys get killed too early... I've got a full head of hair and don't wear eyeglasses."

"I'm the most translated writer in the world, behind Lenin, Tolstoy, Gorki and Jules Verne. And they're all dead..."

"I have no fans. You know what I got? Customers. And customers are your friends."

"My work may be garbage but it's good garbage."

"Now what happened with Ernest Hemingway was that he wrote this nasty piece about me... So I was on a show in Chicago, a live TV show. It was a big theatre and there was a stage audience, and the guy who was interviewing me said, "Did you read that piece that Hemingway wrote about you?" And I said, "Hemingway who?" It brought the house down, but he hated my guts after that"

"Inspiration is an empty bank account."

[Virgil]

I've never read a Spillane novel but I understand that he really pushes the hard boiled detective genre to its ultimate. What Dashiel Hammett started, Spillane and Chandler pushed on. Is he "high" literature? No I would venture not, though it's hypocritical of me to say that without having read him. But he's got a place in pop culture. What does it say about American literature? I don't know, but for the generation before mine he was a big name.

[Jozanny]

I've never read a Spillane novel but I understand that he really pushes the hard boiled detective genre to its ultimate. What Dashiel Hammett started, Spillane and Chandler pushed on.

And James Ellroy pushes noir detective fiction to its breaking point in the modern era. LA Confidential teeters on the border between porn/graphic novel and really brutalist fiction, and some of his other titles are worse. There is no real *ism* that applies to Ellroy, his narratives are simply so harsh that you can literally feel the genre sizzle on the third rail.

[Virgil]

And James Ellroy pushes noir detective fiction to its breaking point in the modern era. LA Confidential teeters on the border between porn/graphic novel and really brutalist fiction, and some of his other titles are worse. There is no real *ism* that applies to Ellroy, his narratives are simply so harsh that you can literally feel the genre sizzle on the third rail.

Wow, thanks Jozy. :)

[Jozanny]

I am pretty tough Virgil, and have biases that make me less than perfect, but I literally had to stop reading White Jazz (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=White%20Jazz&tag=booksoftheworld&index=books&link%5Fcode=qs&field-author=ellroy) for my live book club. It was too tough for me, though as a writer I wish I had Ellroy's guts. I am still trying to write my stories about nearly dying in the inner city without only making my work suitable for supremacy tracts. Even the worst of my darkness and anger comes out like birthday cake next to Ellroy. Spillane is like a comic book in comparison--though I have nothing against Mickey.

[mono]

I've never read a Spillane novel but I understand that he really pushes the hard boiled detective genre to its ultimate. What Dashiel Hammett started, Spillane and Chandler pushed on . . .
Same here - never read any of his shi . . . err, books, but have some vague familiarity with his books on the $1 shelves of second-hand stores. I suppose I have never felt as much of a detective novel fan, regardless, but any man who shows such irreverence of past novels ruffles my feathers a bit - to place one's self to an equivalence of Lenin, Tolstoy, Gorki, and Verne, and superior to Hemingway, a Nobel and Pulitzer Prizes winner; upon some research, he never earned anything likely superior to a highschool story-of-the-day.
From the description, he sounds more associated with monetary success than literature as an art, a sell-out, and a salesman more than a writer, likely the type to more hand a "customer" a receipt for his book at a reading than shake a reader's hand - sadly, I have encountered similar Spillanes. In relation to American "readers," you ask? Of course we cannot discuss politics here, but my answer relates to a criticism of capitalism.

[curlyqlink]

I kind of like Spillane. Mostly in small doses. His writing has an over-the-top appeal, an in-your-face quality that could I suppose be seen as a kind of poetry(?) I just find him fun to read.


I've never read a Spillane novel but I understand that he really pushes the hard boiled detective genre to its ultimate. What Dashiel Hammett started, Spillane and Chandler pushed on.
I'd have to disagree with you there, in regard to Chandler. Raymond Chandler did not write hard-boiled detective fiction, and his protagonist Marlowe is in no sense a tough guy. Marlowe is a guy working in a tough city, a bit sad, a bit tired; he's a bit of a social critic, and he's a bit of a knight errant. In terms of literary characters, I'd say Marlowe is unique. And I'd also say that Chandler wrote masterful prose.


"I'm the most translated writer in the world, behind Lenin, Tolstoy, Gorki and Jules Verne. And they're all dead..."
He-hee!


"I have no fans. You know what I got? Customers. And customers are your friends."
Ha-ha-haa!

[Virgil]

From the description, he sounds more associated with monetary success than literature as an art, a sell-out, and a salesman more than a writer, likely the type to more hand a "customer" a receipt for his book at a reading than shake a reader's hand - sadly, I have encountered similar Spillanes. In relation to American "readers," you ask? Of course we cannot discuss politics here, but my answer relates to a criticism of capitalism.

Huh? How does capitalism make people read Mickey Spillane? If this is what people want to buy, what's wrong with that? No different than JK Rowling and the Harry Potter books. It's not great literature, everyone who can appreciate great literature sees that, but the mass of people don't give a hoot about great literature. Nor sure they be forced to.

[bounty]

i confess, i read i the jury a few yrs ago (which might be his most famous?) and will probably never read a mickey spillane book again.

[mtpspur]

I have only tasted Spillane and did not particularly care for it. John D. MacDonald and Donald Hamilton are superior entertainers.

[JBI]

Huh? How does capitalism make people read Mickey Spillane? If this is what people want to buy, what's wrong with that? No different than JK Rowling and the Harry Potter books. It's not great literature, everyone who can appreciate great literature sees that, but the mass of people don't give a hoot about great literature. Nor sure they be forced to.

Yes, but look how the author himself turned his works in perspective from artwork to product. I don't have fans, I have customers, is like saying I don't write books, I make products, and I don't care what people think, just as long as people buy them.

Ultimately, people will write even if there is no money in it - that's been proven more or less in the modern era even. But to degrade one's work to a worth based purely on how much capital it can generate is most certainly a capitalist - a very, very capitalist - concept of culture. In terms of American, well the American "Cultural" brand has always, since its emergence last century, functioned in the same way. Not saying that, for instance, Rowling hasn't - she clearly is a product of this sort of system, as are many other writers - in truth, it is rather rare to find an author who is both super-popular and good - the archetypal writer today like that would be Marquez, though he achieved that from a little bit of luck, and from the fact that he essentially wrote some of the greatest 20th century works of fiction, though I guess lesser known works, though perhaps read, aren't as popular on the mass, like his short stories for instance, which are superb and don't find much of an audience.

But on the whole, to degrade one's work to its value in number of sales is quite a dreary prospect. It either shows a complete disregard for the artistry and craftsmanship needed to create the works, or else betrays a sense of self-doubt that suspects the works of being mediocre, and justifies them. That's like, for instance, a Doctor valuing himself on how much money he can make, or a politician's success based on how much influence and power he can achieve for himself (not to mention money). It creates a product out of everything, and ultimately cheapens everything.

Rowling, of course, is respectable though, in the sense that she didn't come out and praise her sales, she merely seems to be content with telling people how she is ecstatic that people can pay her to make their children happy for a while. Of course, she didn't shy away from the capitalist interpretations of her work, complete with vibrating brooms (I'm sure perhaps the adolescent girl fans can get a few cheap thrills out of that one at least), stickers, action figures, and everything in between, from movies, to soundtracks, to even essentially selling guest appearances.

But to come right out and say, "I'm in it for your money, and you are nothing to me besides an open wallet," is quite the capitalist concept. I think advertisers have been trying to subvert that notion of everything for the longest time (by stressing, for instance, how people can feel at home eating at Tim Horton's, or how Mr. Clean is out to help you) but in truth, that just takes art, and ultimately makes it an extension of capitalist thought.

I mean, you can do it, but at least pretend like you care - at least donate your money and campaign politically like all the pseudo-artists in the world, instead of just acknowledging that your artistry is meaningless toss.


As for his books though, I haven't read them, and probably won't. Detective fiction as a genre doesn't interest me; Agatha Cristie's sales are in the billions (literally) and I don't exactly run out to buy her stuff - I guess she was just the better product though.

[Virgil]

Yes, but look how the author himself turned his works in perspective from artwork to product. I don't have fans, I have customers, is like saying I don't write books, I make products, and I don't care what people think, just as long as people buy them.

Ultimately, people will write even if there is no money in it - that's been proven more or less in the modern era even. But to degrade one's work to a worth based purely on how much capital it can generate is most certainly a capitalist - a very, very capitalist - concept of culture. In terms of American, well the American "Cultural" brand has always, since its emergence last century, functioned in the same way. Not saying that, for instance, Rowling hasn't - she clearly is a product of this sort of system, as are many other writers - in truth, it is rather rare to find an author who is both super-popular and good - the archetypal writer today like that would be Marquez, though he achieved that from a little bit of luck, and from the fact that he essentially wrote some of the greatest 20th century works of fiction, though I guess lesser known works, though perhaps read, aren't as popular on the mass, like his short stories for instance, which are superb and don't find much of an audience.

But on the whole, to degrade one's work to its value in number of sales is quite a dreary prospect. It either shows a complete disregard for the artistry and craftsmanship needed to create the works, or else betrays a sense of self-doubt that suspects the works of being mediocre, and justifies them. That's like, for instance, a Doctor valuing himself on how much money he can make, or a politician's success based on how much influence and power he can achieve for himself (not to mention money). It creates a product out of everything, and ultimately cheapens everything.

Rowling, of course, is respectable though, in the sense that she didn't come out and praise her sales, she merely seems to be content with telling people how she is ecstatic that people can pay her to make their children happy for a while. Of course, she didn't shy away from the capitalist interpretations of her work, complete with vibrating brooms (I'm sure perhaps the adolescent girl fans can get a few cheap thrills out of that one at least), stickers, action figures, and everything in between, from movies, to soundtracks, to even essentially selling guest appearances.

But to come right out and say, "I'm in it for your money, and you are nothing to me besides an open wallet," is quite the capitalist concept. I think advertisers have been trying to subvert that notion of everything for the longest time (by stressing, for instance, how people can feel at home eating at Tim Horton's, or how Mr. Clean is out to help you) but in truth, that just takes art, and ultimately makes it an extension of capitalist thought.

I mean, you can do it, but at least pretend like you care - at least donate your money and campaign politically like all the pseudo-artists in the world, instead of just acknowledging that your artistry is meaningless toss.


As for his books though, I haven't read them, and probably won't. Detective fiction as a genre doesn't interest me; Agatha Cristie's sales are in the billions (literally) and I don't exactly run out to buy her stuff - I guess she was just the better product though.

Oh please. If that's Spillane's attitude so what? It's no different than all the movie makers and pop music stars and other pop books and all the entertainment magazines. You focus on the writer and turning his work into a product. I focus on the customer who has a right to buy whatever he wants and if Spillane is what he wants then Spillane is turning out a product for him. Spillane is never going to be considered great literature. He doesn't want to be. He doesn't consider himself an artist. Yes, he is in it for the money like all the other Liberal actors, actresses, movie producers, directors, you name it. When was the last time you saw a rock musician who didn't want the money? Even the Beatles or Bob Dylan, if you consder them close to artistic are filthy rich. If something requires your money it's a business. And all I have to do is say one name to repudiate any of this: William Shakespeare, who became filthy rich for his day writing, directing, and producing plays that his audience wanted and paid to see.

All this high on your pedastal thing that art is not supposed to be for money is a crock.

[stlukesguild]

There's always Samuel Johnson's great quote, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." I don't actually believe that he believed it himself... and certainly William Blake would have taken him to task on it... still I don't know many serious artists in any field that really believe the notion that money somehow corrupts art... or that art and money cannot coexist. Such a Romantic notion is usually reserved for those who aren't making any money and can certainly be chalked up to jealousy. Spillane seemingly takes it to the extreme with his statement that he has no fans, only customers. Again, I don't know if he was truly so cynical... or if he merely took such a pose so as to seem completely unconcerned with the merits of his work as art. Personally I think the relationship between art and money is far more complex. There are artists who pander to the market and their art amounts to nothing more than highly successful schlock... pure product. There are others that pander to the market... and arrive at work that is at once successful as art and in financial terms. There are those who strike the pose of rejecting the market... but in most instances they simply are seeking out another different audience. In the end I think we can say that almost no artist creates with the intention to be poor and ignored. We might also say that success in terms of popularity and economics are in no way inherently related to success in artistic terms. Popularity is not a measure of artistic merit either for or against. The drive to gain popularity and economic success is no measure of the purity of one's artistic motives for or against.

[Bluebeard]

The idea that the purpose of art is to make money is ridiculous. The question "why art?" simply cannot be answered in terms of capital without raising doubts about its legitimacy. However, that doesn't mean that art can't make money or even that artists shouldn't work inside money-making forms; art can flourish even under the stringent limits imposed by the public.

Nonetheless, positing that capitalism is capable of changing the mindset of "popular" society and making it more aligned with debased forms (works whose purposes are capital and can only be analyzed in terms of capital) is valid. People are affected by the structures of their society, simply enough. We're allowed to criticize it for this. It's not absurd.

If the question is whether or not the incentive of artists is money, that's irrelevant. An artist can be prompted by anything, including money, and many have been. The more vital question is whether or not the incentive of being an artist is for the money. To answer that with a yes doesn't make any sense in theory or practice.

[JBI]

Oh please. If that's Spillane's attitude so what? It's no different than all the movie makers and pop music stars and other pop books and all the entertainment magazines. You focus on the writer and turning his work into a product. I focus on the customer who has a right to buy whatever he wants and if Spillane is what he wants then Spillane is turning out a product for him. Spillane is never going to be considered great literature. He doesn't want to be. He doesn't consider himself an artist. Yes, he is in it for the money like all the other Liberal actors, actresses, movie producers, directors, you name it. When was the last time you saw a rock musician who didn't want the money? Even the Beatles or Bob Dylan, if you consder them close to artistic are filthy rich. If something requires your money it's a business. And all I have to do is say one name to repudiate any of this: William Shakespeare, who became filthy rich for his day writing, directing, and producing plays that his audience wanted and paid to see.

All this high on your pedastal thing that art is not supposed to be for money is a crock.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that most - most keep in mind - movie makers are there for the money. But there are also artists with integrity, and think of themselves as giving something to the audience other than a product - such as an actor on the stage doing Shakespeare for an unpaid audience, or a symphony orchestra putting on a free show - or giving free tickets to youths.

There are, on many levels, artists of integrity, who view their profession as more than just a way to make money. Generally, it is these pieces of art that win the big awards - lately, of course, big budget cinema, popular music, and cheap mass produced novels have been the norm (a product of textualization), yet even so, there are always those artists who work outside of that vein, simply because they love what they do, and though they want to make a living, still see themselves as doing something beyond selling products.

I am yet to find a self-supported rich poet for example, yet people have been composing and then writing poems since the beginnings of speech. There is something within all of us that is pulled in by artistic creation, for the sake of expressing an idea, whereas this idea of product-art is something outside of that.

That is, quite often, why religious artwork has such a strong effect, because of the conviction of the artist. Later, that was replaced by a faith in humanity more so, and a faith in the power of love, and finally, nationalism, and then perhaps a clinging to an ideal of a better world, until finally, we reached a stage where, for the bulk of artists, money is the soul fixation.

Bob Dylan didn't write his songs just to make money - he made money because he wrote his songs, but there was something inside him that made him write. Likewise, Shakespeare, from what I can discern from the plays, had a strong love for the theatre, and for acting, and likewise wanted to express it in the form of writing his own works, with the dream of being like his idols. He also wrote sonnets, for instance, for his own sake, which circulated for a time before, almost by fluke, being published in a rather commercially insignificant way - are we to say then, that he shouldn't have written his sonnet cycle, or that it was the product of a desire to make money only? Such a vision cheapens things.


To view your audience as customers instead of an audience is the most audacious sort of stupidity I can think of. It shows no regard for yourself, much less your work, let alone your audience. If Dylan, for instance, got on stage, put on a CD of his, didn't really look out into the audience, didn't speak to the audience at all, and just sort of played along, people wouldn't respect him as an artist, and as a performer, he would have flopped. My mother, for instance, once saw Gordon Lightfoot live, and because of previous legal trouble, he was told to not speak to the audience - the reaction to the concert, she tells me, was terrible, with people thinking it a giant waste of money - there is still a connection desired by an audience to know that there is actually something beyond monetary gain as a desire for expression.

Marquez, for instance, who I have mentioned before, who pulled in loads and loads of money, still has a sort of integrity, as he stands for something beyond the monetary value attached to his name. There has always been a strong vein in writers, particularly writers of popular periodical stuff, and since 1850 or so, novels, to think of themselves as workers, rather than artists. Zola is perhaps the best example of one who thought of himself as such, though ultimately, he proved later in life that it wasn't just the money he was interested in, as many, many, commentators and journalists suggested in countless newspaper writings and caricatures (many of which I have seen, thanks to having an incredibly annoying Zola specialist as a professor in my first year). He even ventured off, while away in England running from the law, into the newly developed field of photography, of which pictures still remain, though little money could possibly have come from such a hobby.

Lets be honest, we have come to the point where textualization has manifested itself everywhere - communication is one directional, and the audience isn't given room to respond. The role between the creator and the audience has been shifted to an relationship between a creator and a buyer, with writers having little regard for their audience, beyond how much they can squeeze out of them. That, I'm afraid, is particularly apparent in the American conception of art, which is more or less dominated by an obsession with money and the Popular. By any standards, as an "Artist" someone like Paris Hilton can be said to have for value, as her work has generated the most profit, as apposed to Richard Wilbur or something - which is rubbish, of course, but how the system generally sees itself when fans are merely consumers.

[Virgil]

Lets be honest, we have come to the point where textualization has manifested itself everywhere - communication is one directional, and the audience isn't given room to respond.
I'm not sure what exactly that means but the audience does have a voice. It's voice is its wallet.

And to list even further: Do you know what a concert pianist makes? Or a conductor? Or even a third string viloinist at the NY Philharmonic? Dop you know what those opera stars that sing your beloved Wagner make? They make a hell of alot more than the average person. They are not doing it for free or living at a poverty level.


The role between the creator and the audience has been shifted to an relationship between a creator and a buyer,
The only othe arrangement from a creator and buyer that I ama aware of is a creator and an aristocratic lord that decides to fund him. Those are your options. If you want to live in a society of lords and ladies over you, then do so. But I choose to live in a free country.


with writers having little regard for their audience, beyond how much they can squeeze out of them. That, I'm afraid, is particularly apparent in the American conception of art,
Why is this limited to an American conception of art? What the hell does that mean? I think that shows your anti-Americanism showing through. You said it yourself that Dylan supposedly (I'm personally skeptical, but be that as it may) has artistic integrity where does he come from? And are you saying that no other country has pop art? If you are you have no idea. For God's sake the highest earning writer of all time is Rowling and she's not even American. Every damned country has its pop writers, every single one, including yours.

[Bluebeard]

And to list even further: Do you know what a concert pianist makes? Or a conductor? Or even a third string viloinist at the NY Philharmonic? Dop you know what those opera stars that sing your beloved Wagner make? They make a hell of alot more than the average person. They are not doing it for free or living at a poverty level.

Not to sound snappy, but what exactly are you trying to say? That artists are only artists to make money? If not, and you're only saying that making money doesn't necessarily cheapen a work of art, I don't think anyone disagrees.



The only othe arrangement from a creator and buyer that I ama aware of is a creator and an aristocratic lord that decides to fund him. Those are your options. If you want to live in a society of lords and ladies over you, then do so. But I choose to live in a free country.

What I interpret JBI as saying is that the "popular artist" does not establish a relationship of communication or expression with his reader but something only meaningful insofar as it is monetary. I don't see how the former abridges freedom.

[stlukesguild]

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that most - most keep in mind - movie makers are there for the money. But there are also artists with integrity, and think of themselves as giving something to the audience other than a product - such as an actor on the stage doing Shakespeare for an unpaid audience, or a symphony orchestra putting on a free show - or giving free tickets to youths.

There are, on many levels, artists of integrity, who view their profession as more than just a way to make money...

I think that what Virgil bristles at is the Romantic notion that money inherently sullies art... that the artist whose intention is to make money somehow lacks integrity and cannot possibly think of their art as something more than a profession and a means to earn an income. I know that such a concept still predominates among many younger artists in my own field. The very suggestion that art IS a profession is seen as an anathema. The reality is that art is not unlike any other profession in that it is possible for the practitioner to expect to earn an income... to desire to be well compensated... while maintaining integrity. Most medical students and law students expect to be well paid as professionals within their fields. The fact that they desire such financial returns in no way denotes that they may not also be passionate about the law and justice or about medicine and helping the ill. I greatly doubt that the vast majority of the old masters in art went into their respective field without expecting to earn a living. Many of the finest (Michelangelo, Titian, Rubens) were quite competitive businessmen. This in no way lessened their art or their integrity.

The role between the creator and the audience has been shifted to an relationship between a creator and a buyer, with writers having little regard for their audience, beyond how much they can squeeze out of them. That, I'm afraid, is particularly apparent in the American conception of art, which is more or less dominated by an obsession with money and the Popular.

I must agree with Virgil that this strikes me as a transparently anti-American sentiment not uncommon for JBI. There have always been "artists" willing to give the people what they want... whatever makes the most money... without concern for the integrity of their art or for a more profound relationship or communication between the artist and audience. I have had repeated arguments with a Canadian glass "artist" who looks upon art as nothing more than "product" and measures "success" as an artist solely in terms of revenue. He dismisses anything other than such to be an outdated and "elitist" business model. I would never think, however, to suggest that such is proof of a typically Canadian approach to art. There have always been and will continue to be those who create ONLY for money... and there are those who as professionals create for money but also for some higher purpose, be it a love of the art, a desire for self expression, a desire to communicate, a passionate religious or spiritual belief, etc...

[mono]

Ahem! (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/announcement.php?f=9) As most of us appear as long-time members of the forum, I suppose we can discuss things with some civility . . . ?

Huh? How does capitalism make people read Mickey Spillane? If this is what people want to buy, what's wrong with that? No different than JK Rowling and the Harry Potter books. It's not great literature, everyone who can appreciate great literature sees that, but the mass of people don't give a hoot about great literature. Nor sure they be forced to.
Capitalism does not force people to read Spillane, but Spillane in his idea that he "has no fans, only customers" demonstrates an idea that he writes for the purpose of people purchasing his books, rather than reading them; whether his "customers" read them or not makes no difference in his profit, and his indifference to this fact seems highly apparent, if he made this statement in sarcasm or not. Feeding these products to the public more as a mere object, rather than showing no reverence to literature as an art or to his fans, involves a production, distribution, and exchange of monetary values through a medium of the author and publishers, which identifies with capitalism more than any other economic system. Whether or not the "customer," allegedly a fan, feels satisfied with the product does not matter, or does not appear to matter.
To make a simple analogy, I work full-time as a critical care nurse, and, as sad as it sounds, my career's security relies upon individuals getting critically ill; without critically ill patients, I would have no job, but I earn my paycheck biweekly from this job, without which I would not have what I have - a home, food, clothing, etc. Having some respect for my career and the patients I care for, I do not consider my patients customers, even though my paycheck relies upon their existence; instead, I geniunely care for them, and do everything I can to improve their physiological and psychological health, indicated by applied science. In this case, I try not to do a mediocre job, but instead do everything in my ability to benefit my patients. Sure, I produce and distribute invaluable care, similar to capitalism, but I do not do these things with the ulterior motive of receiving a monetary profit. Unlike Spillane, I do not sell a product - the product of improving health; though I work in a large corporate hospital, my career does not function in a capitalistic manner. If I/we did work in a capitalistic manner, and few my patients as customers, I could provide the most minute care possible just to "get by," and only provide more care by asking "what's in it for me?"

Yes, but look how the author himself turned his works in perspective from artwork to product. I don't have fans, I have customers, is like saying I don't write books, I make products, and I don't care what people think, just as long as people buy them.

Ultimately, people will write even if there is no money in it - that's been proven more or less in the modern era even. But to degrade one's work to a worth based purely on how much capital it can generate is most certainly a capitalist - a very, very capitalist - concept of culture. In terms of American, well the American "Cultural" brand has always, since its emergence last century, functioned in the same way. Not saying that, for instance, Rowling hasn't - she clearly is a product of this sort of system, as are many other writers - in truth, it is rather rare to find an author who is both super-popular and good - the archetypal writer today like that would be Marquez, though he achieved that from a little bit of luck, and from the fact that he essentially wrote some of the greatest 20th century works of fiction, though I guess lesser known works, though perhaps read, aren't as popular on the mass, like his short stories for instance, which are superb and don't find much of an audience.

But on the whole, to degrade one's work to its value in number of sales is quite a dreary prospect. It either shows a complete disregard for the artistry and craftsmanship needed to create the works, or else betrays a sense of self-doubt that suspects the works of being mediocre, and justifies them. That's like, for instance, a Doctor valuing himself on how much money he can make, or a politician's success based on how much influence and power he can achieve for himself (not to mention money). It creates a product out of everything, and ultimately cheapens everything.
Precisely! I could not have said it better myself. :)

These days, everyone requires funds to survive, and, if they do not receive or earn funds, they must attempt to survive off of the charity of others, if available; this includes authors. If an author intends to making a comfortable living off of his/her writing, then, clearly, s/he must provide some product, but ought to have no excuse, in Kantian ethics, for forgetting the duty of producing literary art - to indeed create art. A customer gives money, a fan gives admiration, devotion, reliance, and, quite possibly, more money than an average customer, as a "repeat customer."

I must agree with Virgil that this strikes me as a transparently anti-American sentiment
Even as an American, I must admit that Brian Bean, the thread starter, asked the question as to what Spillane's ideas upon his writings and "customers" reflect on American literature, for better or worse.

Dop you know what those opera stars that sing your beloved Wagner make?
Very little, but Richard Wagner saw to it that in his day, his singers, actors, and actresses earned fine sums; obviously that has fallen out of his control about as much as Spillane's novels will likely appear on the $1 shelves of second-hand stores. As a socialist, however, unlike Spillane's very capitalistic views upon the writing of products for "customers," Wagner did very well at distributing his operas and writings out of a passion for music, literature, and philosophy, particularly during his friendship with Arthur Schopenhauer.
The thesis of my debate attempts to prove the capitalistic writing and selling of Spillane's novels through the analogy of attempting to provide unsold high-quality healthcare, and while sticking to the topic, per forum rules. A capitalist writer and publisher will do anything to make a profit, even provide a mediocre product, and to distribute it for even cheaper, for even ". . . a last capitalist hanged shall be the one who sold the rope" (Karl Marx).

[billl]

Well, i think that the quote "I don't have fans, I have customers" would most likely be a reference to the fact that Spillane felt he had to prove himself with every book, at least in his mind. It's not as dramatic as being a nurse responsible for the well-being of injured strangers, but I think that such a devotion is, perhaps, what he in all envy was hoping for. Not fans who would be predisposed to love his releases no matter what, but customers, who he had to satisfy with his best effort, every time. The context of an overtly capitalistic society might make such a stance strangely anti-heroic to more idealistic and self-satisfied writers, but I'm wondering if it might actually be a rather humble statement, made with the intention of elevating his readership, rather than denigrating his craft.

Never read any of his books, but I'm just trying to make sense of this...

[Jozanny]

I have not read Spillane, but I have seen Mike Hammer adaptations, and prefer Hammett, or even Ellroy. I wish I was versed enough in Borges experiments with noir detective fiction to put him up against Ellroy and see what I could come up with. I don't think Ellroy is a modernist, but he is so stark and such a brutalist that he pushes the boundaries of noir to the breaking point. I am thinking that maybe one day I buy the other three novels in his L.A. Quartet and just take it a page at a time.

White Jazz makes LA Confidential look like a tame thriller by comparison, however.

To Brian: I learned some years ago not to get too upset about American genre writers and self-aggrandizement. I used to get myself into trouble despising Stephen King, but he is rich, and I am a depressed disabled woman who runs as much as completes. I don't think Spillane is really in vogue anymore. The latest franchise authors are people like Meyers, and simply on an economic level, if these franchise authors make money, then they are doing what I need to do more of (though I am having problems beyond my mood).

I do not think it says anything particular in the way of American shallowness. Earning a living through formula writing is no more easy than doing it through promoting a Hollywood blockbuster.

The aesthetics will always be debated, and deemed poor or not or good, or someone will say it points to this. And we will always have authors, even Americans, who want to satisfy a difficult ambition beyond what Spillane appears to desire.

There is also some degree of caste resentment between *commercial* writers and *literary* writers, though I asterisk this because it is not a hard and fast distinction. Spillane is kind of saying I am earning my living, did these others do that? But I am not his target audience.

[Emil Miller]

In setting up this thread there was absolutely no intention of implying that America was the only country whose literature is debased by the likes of Spillane. It was simply that his type of fiction is often seen from an American perspective ie. the world of the private eye etc. Even in the UK we have had similar writers eg. James Hadley Chase and Hank Janson who modelled themselves directly on Spillane's style of writing but the story location was always the USA. So the thread could equally have mentioned Spillane's influence on English literature, but it will be generally acknowledeged that the genre originated in the US.

[Jozanny]

But is it debased? I am not sure, but it would lead us right back to playing pin the tail on the donkey, aesthetic wise. I do not know that Ellroy wouldn't be too colloquial for you Brian, but you might attempt to browse L.A. Confidential, and then we can consider debasement. I cannot really explain Ellroy without the possibility of causing offense--and not just to one group--but HE got a publisher, and a movie deal. My markets would beat me over the head probably for what I am trying to examine--but I am not finished yet.

I am not Ellroy, but looking at what would seduce a main character to genuine racial hatred, and it is like writing a minefield, really, since I am not desirous of accusations leveled at me about fascist sympathies...

[Emil Miller]

...since I am not desirous of accusations leveled at me about fascist sympathies...


That's a charge levelled at a lot of common sense people these days. We must hope for better times to come.

[Jozanny]

...since I am not desirous of accusations leveled at me about fascist sympathies...


That's a charge levelled at a lot of common sense people these days. We must hope for better times to come.

I actually don't know if you are being ironic here or not, but I suppose my angst may be poked at;). Why do you think reading Spillane debases? I only know Hammer from television, and the writers rather up-end the genre tropes as opposed to playing them straight. I assume Spillane's actual writings have some of this swash-buckle mentality to them, though I know television can hatchet novelists.

[Emil Miller]

I actually don't know if you are being ironic here or not, but I suppose my angst may be poked at;). Why do you think reading Spillane debases? I only know Hammer from television, and the writers rather up-end the genre tropes as opposed to playing them straight. I assume Spillane's actual writings have some of this swash-buckle mentality to them, though I know television can hatchet novelists.

Not at all, I meant every word.
I may have read Spillane when I was a schoolboy as there were usually a few books of that type knocking around ( it was that kind of school) but even then the meretricious nature of pulp fiction soon lost its appeal. It debases literature because like all cheap replicas of decent works, such as those of Chandler or Hammett, it seeks to lower the genre to the demands of a mass mentality which is similarly debased.

[stlukesguild]

Capitalism does not force people to read Spillane, but Spillane in his idea that he "has no fans, only customers" demonstrates an idea that he writes for the purpose of people purchasing his books, rather than reading them; whether his "customers" read them or not makes no difference in his profit, and his indifference to this fact seems highly apparent, if he made this statement in sarcasm or not. Feeding these products to the public more as a mere object, rather than showing no reverence to literature as an art or to his fans, involves a production, distribution, and exchange of monetary values through a medium of the author and publishers, which identifies with capitalism more than any other economic system.

Certainly Spillaine's attitude is one that I personally cannot stomach. On the other hand, where I find the concept of art being reduced to nothing more than product repulsive, I find the notion that art is inherently corrupted by money... that artists should somehow be above monetary concerns to be simply naïve. While I am far from being a champion or apologist for America (and politically I am most probably well to the left of Virgil) I can fully understand his being angered at the sentiment that somehow the blatant embrace of capitalism by an "artist" such as Spillane is symptomatic of America or a uniquely American distortion of what art should be. The development of the "cult of personality" in which in which the audience sought out a product by a specific artist as opposed to an art work... a Rubens as opposed to a Venus and Adonis... began with the Renaissance or earlier and the assertion of the individual. In the visual arts it was the Dutch who mastered the modern system of the art galleries and works of art reduced to products competing for attention in an open market. Certainly the development of the novel in France and Britain had as much to do with tapping into the large reading audience as it did to anything else. A figure such as Damien Hirst in Britain belies the notion that art as capitalism is a uniquely American approach. If anything... it is simply the success of the American corporations behind the arts (publishers, art galleries, recording industries, film producers) that leads to such an illusion. Do we really believe that there is some sort of moral or ethical difference between American and non-American artists? That the French, Russians, and Japanese (for example) only create art with the highest of intentions? That there are not more than a few artists among the Germans, Canadians, and English (Rowling anyone?) who would not love to have the support of the great American capitalist corporations?

If an author intends to making a comfortable living off of his/her writing, then, clearly, s/he must provide some product, but ought to have no excuse, in Kantian ethics, for forgetting the duty of producing literary art - to indeed create art.

Perhaps. But are all "artists"... all writers, film makers, painters, etc... really in it for the love of ART? I suspect there are lawyers who are in it solely for the money... who would surely never have entered the field if it had been as well paid as social workers or house cleaners. I would also note that it is easy to take the moral high ground when we are not directly involved. It is easy for me to say I would never prostitute my art for pure profit... because that option has never presented itself to me. If, on the other hand, I had the option to churn out paintings that I knew were crap in return for gross sums of money... where I would never have to work at my day job again... where I would never need to worry about my financial situation... where I could freely travel the world as I wish... How much more difficult does that temptation become when it is real?

Virgil- Do you know what those opera stars that sing your beloved Wagner make?

Very little, but Richard Wagner saw to it that in his day, his singers, actors, and actresses earned fine sums...

I take it you don't follow classical music much. The average member of the Cleveland Orchestra earns well over $100,000 a year. I would assume even higher for the New York Philharmonic, The London Symphony, The Vienna Philharmonic, and the Berlin Philharmonic. These are not even the "stars". The conductor of the Cleveland Orchestra earns over $1,000,000. It was reported that Herbert von Karajan was worth over $1,000,000,000 at his death. Undoubtedly the stars that are able to perform Wagner in the major opera houses around the world and in recordings are very well paid. By the way... I would never choose Wagner as a model of ethics and morality. We are talking about a man who was, as Phil G. Goulding puts it in his book, Classical Music; the 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Greatest Works:

"Richard Wagner was a dreadful human being. He was a liar, a cheat, a wife-stealer, a home-wrecker, and a betrayer of friends. He was antisemitic, anti-Catholic, and anti-French. He was immoral and dishonorable. No one in music had a bigger ego, and he properly belongs high on a list of the World's Most Unpleasant Men. He was also, of course, an incredible musical genius..."

[JCamilo]

It is not as simple as the voice of the public is the wallet, Capitalism is the one to be blamed, or nothing forces us to read X,Y,Z.
The problem is the mass communication, that simple. Following a formula that is popular is a faulty that we find with sonnet writers, Homer, Shakespeare, Dickens, etc. In the past the fact that no one had power enough to assume an untouchable position in the entire world would grant us the renewal of literature, the assimilation of formulas, the experience. Shakespeare power could not grant him a central position in French drama where Moliere, Racine and a few others could present their own vision, for example.
Now, with a mass market it is different. The central production domains other countries, became a model to be copied because they must have products that will have the profit of the model. While dealing with a giantic market the producer, editor will play with safety - after all he have the option to abandon one author and move to another - and playing with safety is adopting a rule of averages (Not quality, but something that can be appealing to everyone in some degree). We all (or many) can enjoy Star Wars, but it is not a masterpiece (something that must have individual appeal). Sometimes we have Hitchcook that can do both, because the big capitalist is not fool. He will try to bring quality, if possible. If Finnegans Wake had sold like Agatha Christie we would live in hell where people would try to write like it and most of them would suck.
So, when a new artists, with something original came, the producer will try to get his best qualities to follow the rules. And of course, the promissing artist should develop his own limits and if he adapts to the average he will never go much far.
That happening in every market, in every space, is a problem. Not USA, capitalism, etc,etc,etc.

[Lynne50]

Well, i think that the quote "I don't have fans, I have customers" would most likely be a reference to the fact that Spillane felt he had to prove himself with every book, at least in his mind. It's not as dramatic as being a nurse responsible for the well-being of injured strangers, but I think that such a devotion is, perhaps, what he in all envy was hoping for. Not fans who would be predisposed to love his releases no matter what, but customers, who he had to satisfy with his best effort, every time. The context of an overtly capitalistic society might make such a stance strangely anti-heroic to more idealistic and self-satisfied writers, but I'm wondering if it might actually be a rather humble statement, made with the intention of elevating his readership, rather than denigrating his craft.

Never read any of his books, but I'm just trying to make sense of this...

I guess I'm jumping in with my opinion, too, even though I haven't read any Mickey Spillane. My father, however, did and I considered him very educated and one who appreciated good literature. He was very much an admirer, but I don't think even my father thought it was great literature,just a very good read. But that is beside the point. I have to agree with billl totally. I think Spillane's statement was being humble. He knew who paid the bills and was very aware that he wanted to satisfy his followerers to the best of his ability.

[Virgil]

Not to sound snappy, but what exactly are you trying to say? That artists are only artists to make money? If not, and you're only saying that making money doesn't necessarily cheapen a work of art, I don't think anyone disagrees.

I'm trying to say that money is a huge incentive to what people do. I'm trying to say that artists consciously try to satisfy their public, no dsifferent than Spillane's "customers" with their product. This notion that artists do things without concsciously understanding and satisfying their public is simple at best, rather childish at most.


I think that what Virgil bristles at is the Romantic notion that money inherently sullies art... that the artist whose intention is to make money somehow lacks integrity and cannot possibly think of their art as something more than a profession and a means to earn an income. I know that such a concept still predominates among many younger artists in my own field. The very suggestion that art IS a profession is seen as an anathema. The reality is that art is not unlike any other profession in that it is possible for the practitioner to expect to earn an income... to desire to be well compensated... while maintaining integrity.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The role between the creator and the audience has been shifted to an relationship between a creator and a buyer, with writers having little regard for their audience, beyond how much they can squeeze out of them. That, I'm afraid, is particularly apparent in the American conception of art, which is more or less dominated by an obsession with money and the Popular.
Thank you for bringing a sense of maturity to the table.


I must agree with Virgil that this strikes me as a transparently anti-American sentiment not uncommon for JBI. There have always been "artists" willing to give the people what they want... whatever makes the most money... without concern for the integrity of their art or for a more profound relationship or communication between the artist and audience.
Absolutely. This kind of selling of pop culture happens in every country in the world. His fingering the US is shear prejudice. And if you look at what's happening in Russia and China, countries supposedly indoctrinated with Marxism, you will see mass selling of other people's art (not even their own) that would astonish you. Now that's wrong and violates copywrite rules, but they have no sense of pure nature of the artist.


I have had repeated arguments with a Canadian glass "artist" who looks upon art as nothing more than "product" and measures "success" as an artist solely in terms of revenue. He dismisses anything other than such to be an outdated and "elitist" business model. I would never think, however, to suggest that such is proof of a typically Canadian approach to art. There have always been and will continue to be those who create ONLY for money... and there are those who as professionals create for money but also for some higher purpose, be it a love of the art, a desire for self expression, a desire to communicate, a passionate religious or spiritual belief, etc...
Thank you.



Capitalism does not force people to read Spillane, but Spillane in his idea that he "has no fans, only customers" demonstrates an idea that he writes for the purpose of people purchasing his books, rather than reading them; whether his "customers" read them or not makes no difference in his profit, and his indifference to this fact seems highly apparent, if he made this statement in sarcasm or not. Feeding these products to the public more as a mere object, rather than showing no reverence to literature as an art or to his fans, involves a production, distribution, and exchange of monetary values through a medium of the author and publishers, which identifies with capitalism more than any other economic system.
You don't like Mickey Spillane. How about Mick Jagger.


I came into music just because I wanted the bread. It's true. I looked around and this seemed like the only way I was going to get the kind of bread I wanted.
Mick Jagger


Whether or not the "customer," allegedly a fan, feels satisfied with the product does not matter, or does not appear to matter.
Oh really. Then if no one buys anything then there is no art. You can't make a plumber want to read TS Eliot. A plumber may be interested in reading Mickey Spillane. The mass of people don't give a rat's behind on TS Eliot. The mass of college graduates don't give a rat's behind on TS Eliot or real art. Do you k now who Bill Clinton's favorite writer is? Walter Mosely, the detective writer of today and frankly a modernised hip version of Mickey Spillane.



Dop you know what those opera stars that sing your beloved Wagner make?
Very little,
Are you serious?


The thesis of my debate attempts to prove the capitalistic writing and selling of Spillane's novels through the analogy of attempting to provide unsold high-quality healthcare, and while sticking to the topic, per forum rules. A capitalist writer and publisher will do anything to make a profit, even provide a mediocre product, and to distribute it for even cheaper, for even ". . . a last capitalist hanged shall be the one who sold the rope" (Karl Marx).
Oh please, Karl Marx is on the ash heap of history. There isn't a communist country left in the world with any credibbility. Let's not even go there. Let me answer whether Spillane is mediocrity. The answer is no. He satisfied what his customers wanted. His customers do not want Leo Tolstoy or William Faulkner. His customers want the adventures and attitude of Mike Hammer. To that plumber who enjoys Mike Hammer, Mickey Spillane is William Shakespeare and no intellectual is going to make it any different.

One final note. Mickey Spillane is being honest. Rowling and Grishom and whoever else are the popular writers of today are either deluding themselves or being coy. They are as much satisfying their customers as Mickey Spillane. In fact all those literary novelist are alos satisfying their customers. Us. If we didn't like their work, they would not be published.

[mono]

Apparently some of us have irritated each other upon the subject of Spillane as a capitalist bookseller, and I regret to have brought it up; the discussion material has shifted from a logical debate to a violent argument, stirred by emotions - in The Republic, Plato detailed the vast differences between the use of logic and emotion in his tripartite soul/state, placing the emotional thought (the middle tier) inferior to rational thought (the top tier, "philosopher kings"). Even as the few LitNet users who come here to discuss poetry, too many fingers have gotten pointed, personal insults have flung (against forum rules), and, if we, as friends of a literature forum, cannot come to an agreement, the most we can do seems to honor each other's beliefs, which comes with maturity (this can come with age, but even someone at age 26 can claim this as a truth). I will.
Good to hear the thread-starter mentioned his initial intention:

In setting up this thread there was absolutely no intention of implying that America was the only country whose literature is debased by the likes of Spillane. It was simply that his type of fiction is often seen from an American perspective ie. the world of the private eye etc. Even in the UK we have had similar writers eg. James Hadley Chase and Hank Janson who modelled themselves directly on Spillane's style of writing but the story location was always the USA. So the thread could equally have mentioned Spillane's influence on English literature, but it will be generally acknowledeged that the genre originated in the US.
This "private-eye" related literature, I agree, seemed to reform in the U.S., popularized here, and quite possibly started. Edgar Allan Poe wrote some short stories that may have contributed to this private-eye genre, including "The Mystery of Marie Rogêt" and "Murders in the Rue Morgue," but I cannot recall the name of the detective. Another of the kings of such mystery tales, borderline-private-eye fiction, however, came from England, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; from what I have heard, nonetheless, his works, particularly those of Sherlock Holmes, sell more in the U.S. than anywhere else, and his fictional character has gotten a bit Hollywoodized.
In high school, years ago, I recall encountering some "Sam Spade," the fictional private eye of Dashiell Hammett, and of Philip Marlowe, a character by Raymond Chandler, both writers from the U.S. These characters and tales even gained enough popularity to gain features on pre-television radio and later the silver screen (at least The Maltese Falcon did).

[Mark F.]

Chandler and Hammett's have often been adapted to the big screen (Murder My Sweet, The Big Sleep, Lady in the Lake... by Chandler and The Thin Man, The Glass Key, The Maltese Falcon by Hammett), many of these films are considered classics. Pulp fiction cannot be discarded as some sort of lowly trade, it has its own importance in literary History. Camus, for example, cited James M. Cain (The Postman Always Rings Twice, Double Indemnity...) as one of the main influences on his writing.
I have only seen Kiss Me Deadly, adapted from the works of Micky Spillane and never read any of his novels, but I think he's being more provocative than anything else in those quotes. Of course, entertaing fluff will always sell better than demanding literature, but's that's always going to be the case.

[prendrelemick]

I read a couple of spillane's, with some enjoyment, in my teens. The overt anti-commie message was off putting though.

I also remember some of his interviews on the publicity circuit. He came across as a man who was having a lot of fun making outrageous statements. He was discussing the cover of his latest book on Parkinson, it had a naked picture of his wife on the cover.

"Was you there at the photoshoot?" Parky asked.
"You bet your boots I was there!" he shouted enthusiastically, "I was selling tickets!"

[Emil Miller]

Why do I like this forum? Because it is such a fun place to be.
No sooner have I opened a thread about Mickey Spillane than a full-scale war breaks out involving communism, capitalism and fascism, where names such as Johnson, Blake, Wagner, Shakespeare, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Eliot and Tolstoy are flung about like hand grenades.
Believe me folks I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Scheherazade]

Believe me folks I wouldn't have it any other way.Hear, hear! ;)

Here is a question: Why do we feel so offended and outraged that an author might have financial worries in mind while writing; ie doing his job?

I am a teacher and love my job with a passion but if I weren't paid for it, I am sure, sooner or later, I would start looking for another "passion". Having said that, I would not agree to teach things I am morally against but, otherwise, even if I do not agree with the course material at times, I would still go and do my job.

We all do different jobs here and I doubt if any would agree to be an engineer, nurse, artist, soldier etc merely for the good of the society and/or out of humanitarian interests... and if any of us were to be paid enough money to turn around not only our own lives but our children's and their children, we would take more than couple of minutes to consider before (if at all) we refuse the offer.

So, why is it so offensive and unacceptable when an author does it?

[prendrelemick]

Its afunny thing, his novels are considered pulp. And yet his work for early Marvel Comics, are becoming classics.

[Emil Miller]

He may not have advanced the cause of literature but if any of his books have subsequently been recycled as toilet paper his life hasn't been entirely wasted.

[Jozanny]

Hear, hear! ;)

We all do different jobs here and I doubt if any would agree to be an engineer, nurse, artist, soldier etc merely for the good of the society and/or out of humanitarian interests... and if any of us were to be paid enough money to turn around not only our own lives but our children's and their children, we would take more than couple of minutes to consider before (if at all) we refuse the offer.

So, why is it so offensive and unacceptable when an author does it?

Very cool point Sche. It isn't so much that writing for money is unacceptable, as it is extremely difficult to do, one, and almost nearly impossible to do, today, for the sake of writing for art.

I have published over 300 poems in a 20 year span. My earnings on that were just about 200 USD over the course of those 20 years.

As a glorified disability case manager I earned just enough to enter in the lower middle class, over the course of five years.

As a freelance reporter after that I made about 3k. Assuming that I live long enough and stop talking online once in awhile :D, am I going to be remembered for my monied bylines or my finished literary products? It is a rare author who can make money, these days, and still satisfy aesthetic criteria we apply to the classics. Arguments have been made that literature has been ghettoized because of this, and I haven't fully made up my mind about it.

[Emil Miller]

This "private-eye" related literature, I agree, seemed to reform in the U.S., popularized here, and quite possibly started. Edgar Allan Poe wrote some short stories that may have contributed to this private-eye genre, including "The Mystery of Marie Rogêt" and "Murders in the Rue Morgue," but I cannot recall the name of the detective. Another of the kings of such mystery tales, borderline-private-eye fiction, however, came from England, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; from what I have heard, nonetheless, his works, particularly those of Sherlock Holmes, sell more in the U.S. than anywhere else, and his fictional character has gotten a bit Hollywoodized.
In high school, years ago, I recall encountering some "Sam Spade," the fictional private eye of Dashiell Hammett, and of Philip Marlowe, a character by Raymond Chandler, both writers from the U.S. These characters and tales even gained enough popularity to gain features on pre-television radio and later the silver screen (at least The Maltese Falcon did).


I think we can make a distincton between the earliest detective stories and their American variant. There is a world of difference between Sherlock Holmes and Mike Hammer, Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe.The only thing Holmes has in common with them is that he is a detective but there all similarity ends. Holmes is an eccentric genius and the private-eyes are neither. They spend their days in a world of blondes and booze while Holmes doesn't bother with either and the whole milieu is different. I haven't read the Sherlock Holmes stories since I was about eleven-years-old but, although I enjoyed them, I wouldn't bother with them now. Like Agatha Christie, Conon Doyle was an imaginative writer but not a very good one.

[Jozanny]

I haven't read the Sherlock Holmes stories since I was about eleven-years-old but, although I enjoyed them, I wouldn't bother with them now. Like Agatha Christie, Conon Doyle was an imaginative writer but not a very good one.

I disagree to some extent about Doyle's creation. Holmes shares some attributes with Dumas famous Count--flawed, ( a detective and a drug addict) but nearly superhuman in his ability to deduce. Characters like Batman are modeled on these earlier creations, and they do serve an important psycho-social function. Holmes, Batman, Spock of Star Trek. I am not adverse to examining popular culture needs in the aggregate and coming up with useful theoretical constructs thereby. One can even pick up from where Poe left off.

Hammett calibrates Sam Spade a little differently. He is Manichian in outlook (review the passage in MF where he tells the story about the married man and the falling beam, that is the key to this philosophy's manifestation in the noir hard boiled hero), morally ambiguous if not stained himself by some sin, but not willing to violate the honor code a real man lives by, i.e., it is cool to fall in love with a beautiful villain, but if she killed your partner, that has to be avenged. These *dark* heroes have retained popular favor up to the present, so if Spillane adds nothing to the genre, he hasn't damaged it much, as noir send-ups were popular before Hammer as a rough and tumble ham.

[Virgil]

Apparently some of us have irritated each other upon the subject of Spillane as a capitalist bookseller, and I regret to have brought it up; the discussion material has shifted from a logical debate to a violent argument, stirred by emotions -
Sorry if I got testy. ;) No ill will was intended, just some passion on my part and I'm sure on yours and others. :)


Why do I like this forum? Because it is such a fun place to be.
No sooner have I opened a thread about Mickey Spillane than a full-scale war breaks out involving communism, capitalism and fascism, where names such as Johnson, Blake, Wagner, Shakespeare, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Eliot and Tolstoy are flung about like hand grenades.
Believe me folks I wouldn't have it any other way.
:lol: This is a great place. There is very little to Lit Net that I don't persoanally like. And remarkably I must say I love just about all the people here, even those i argue with. I hope Mono doesn't hate me now.


Hear, hear! ;)

Here is a question: Why do we feel so offended and outraged that an author might have financial worries in mind while writing; ie doing his job?

I am a teacher and love my job with a passion but if I weren't paid for it, I am sure, sooner or later, I would start looking for another "passion". Having said that, I would not agree to teach things I am morally against but, otherwise, even if I do not agree with the course material at times, I would still go and do my job.

We all do different jobs here and I doubt if any would agree to be an engineer, nurse, artist, soldier etc merely for the good of the society and/or out of humanitarian interests... and if any of us were to be paid enough money to turn around not only our own lives but our children's and their children, we would take more than couple of minutes to consider before (if at all) we refuse the offer.

So, why is it so offensive and unacceptable when an author does it?
That's abslutely right. And Mickey Spillane is essentially acknowledging that he's trying to do his job as well as possible. He knows he's not James Joyce. His readers don't want to read and will never read James Joyce. He's a writer of detective fiction, no different than all than the sci-fi writers and the romance writers and whatever other genre writing there is. That's their capability. Their selling to their public. Publishing is a business first and foremost.

Let me tell you another story that came back to me last night as I was thinking about this. I have a friend whoI went to college with and with whom I took some creative writing classes. He wrote short stories and drama, I dabbled in short stories and poetry. He wasn't a bad short story writer in college, better than me for sure. He once made the comment that apparently has stuck in my head these twenty years. He said something to the effect, "I don't know if I'll ever make it as a great writer, I don't even know if I can make it as a serious writer, but I know worst comes to worst I can turn out those pulp novels." Well it's been around twenty-five years since he said that. He hasn't published a serious novel. He hasn't published a pulp genre novel. Today he writes news articles on health issues for magazines. If it were so easy to just turn out a Miickey Spillane novel, then anyone could do it. I challange anyone here, write a detective novel or whatever genre floats your boat and get it published. It's not as easy as you think. Mickey Spillane knew his talent and satisfied those who appreciated it.