Yeah, I know, everyone's had their say. I should have had my say in the threads that are already up.
At The Rap Sheet.
On This Site.
(For the record, I like the people who've been saying these things. Hell, KBS gave me my first shot at being published.)
And most of these arguments seem to be centered around two things to me. Respecting the past and the current crop of novels can never be as good as those written before.
To me it sounds a lot like John Lithgow in FOOTLOOSE telling the kids they can't dance. Like how people reacted to rock and roll in the 50s. And then how the rock and roll fans reacted to rap in the 90s.
It also sounds like Bloom saying there will never be another Shakespeare.
Then why try? Why should we writers try to write something new?
People will say I haven't read the "classics." I argue that by saying I've read enough of the classics to know they don't speak to me. They don't implore me to keep reading the classics. Am I missing something that I'll like? Probably. But you know what, that's too bad.
I'm too caught up reading things that I'm enjoying.
The arguments in the articles above argue that current authors should respect the past and build and expand on it. Good, but that will still wreak of the old stuff.
No, I prefer the new writers to try something new. Whether that's overt violence bordering on comedy. Whether it's "torture porn" bordering on horror. Good for these authors to try something new. They're getting away from tradition, breaking free of it.
They're trying rap, they're trying to dance when people are saying they shouldn't.
And maybe, just maybe someone will come along... who is better than Hammet or Chandler or Cain or MacDonald.
But the pontificators are going to have to open their eyes to see it.