James Lee Burke's Voice

[Dan L. Coleman]

Mega-selling author James Lee Burke is my favorite crime novelist, though there are many I like, speaking here of his Dave Robicheaux series, of course. But I've noticed in the last few books that his narrator's voice is carrying over into the other characters in each story; the metaphors strung together in a poetic, sing-song fashion, to the point it is distracting. Well, not enough to make me want to stop reading. All his characters are strong in some way, even when seemingly weak on the surface, but no way each can be the quick, glib, slick-witted verbal gymnist as Robicheaux himself.

Anyone else who reads him notice this? Or am I imagining things?

[Dana King]

I can't disagree with this, and I've been a Burke fan since I was turned on to him over ten years ago. The last few Robicheaux books I read were missing something they used to have; maybe this is what i was sensing. All Inknow for sure is I noted in my Books Read log to go back and read some of the early stuff. Maybe I'll start from the very beginning, when Dave and Clete were still in New Orleans, then watch the evolution again.

[Dan L. Coleman]

I agree. The Louisiana settings are his best works. His writing seems to lose something when he ventures out.

[Dana King]

I definitely agree with this. There is something about how h writes that makes his Louisiana stories sing; not so much with the Montana books. This may be dumb, but I wonder if it has to do with how lush his style of writing is. Western states are beautiful in their own way, but seem to invite dryer descriptions. (No pun intended.)

[I. J. Parker]

It always amazes me that James Lee Burke is praised so highly for his descriptions (or his style, which may be that same thing), when the American opinion on description in mysteries is "Don't do it!" 

Yes, Burke does some lovely scenery. Little set pieces inserted into the action.

As I don't care for Louisiana and all that Southern charm, I'm not otherwise a fan.

[Dan L. Coleman]

Yes, some folks get away with descriptive narrative, but if I were to do it, I'd be chastised for it--death by modifier-- adjectives or metaphors. I've learned over the years to curb the modifiers and find it a nuisance in others, but Burke is an exception, though I'm now skipping passages of his descriptions, especially in the later chapters of a book. Of course, I'd be fortunate if someone read my work closely enough to make such a complaint.

[Dan L. Coleman]

But I also believe Burke was a literary writer and scholar before doing mysteries. That experience might explain his lean toward the colorful language.

[I. J. Parker]

Yes, it would.  And in my opinion, description is a very good thing when it sets place and creates atmosphere.  If seen through the eyes of a character, it also works for character. Too many mysteries read like radio programs.

[Dan L. Coleman]

Yeah, Robert B. Parker, who I liked very much, would have been great in radio in the '30s & '40s, I think.

[Dana King]

This reminds me of Elmore Leonard's exceptions to his Ten Rules. To paraphrase, if you're good enough to get away with it, do it. Burke's good enough. What amazes me about him at his peak is how he can take his time to describe violence. Conventional wisdom is to shorten the sentences to quicken the pace. He does the opposite, and gets away with it.

[Dan L. Coleman]

Hey, whatever sells, sure. I don't fault any halfway decent writer for making it. The thing about genre is, it doesn't represent all of the literary spectrum, just the little cubby holes where readers can get lost and scratch their itches, have their favorite drinks; therefore, it doesn't have to be judged along with the other, more serious subject matter.