"Richard Stark," Ask the Parrot [Library of Babel]

"Richard Stark," is, of course, the name that Donald E. Westlake uses when he wants to write books tat aren't funny. Ask the Parrot is the umpteenth Parker novel, picking up mere minutes after the previous volume, Nobody Runs Forever.

In that volume, Parker and a crew of other guys robbed a bank in western Massachusetts, and the job, as always, went a little bit wrong. At the end of the book, the cops are hot on Parker's tail-- trailing him with dogs as he flees up a hill into the woods. As this book opens, he reaches the top of the hill, and find a man there who offers to help him escape, if Parker will help him out with a scheme that he has.

Being in a desperate situation, Parker accepts, but of course, things get complicated. Before it's all over, there will be blood shed, and a host of smaller crimes committed.

As with all of the PArker novels, these are striking as much for what they're not as what they are.

The series generally has a reputation as being much darker than Westlake's other stuff, and it's certainly that. Granted, that's not that hard to do, given that most of his other books are deliberately silly, but Parker is a genuine hard case, and doesn't shrink from violence.

What's striking, though, is how seldom he needs to resort to violence. He's an extremely competent and professional criminal, and doesn't kill unless he absolutely has to. Now, the way the books play out, he usually abslutely has to kill one or two people before the end of the story, but along the way, he usually ends up robbing a whole bunch of other people without really hruting any of them.

I don't read a great deal of crime fiction, but this is a notable difference between these books and most of the rest of what I've read (Jim Thompson and Charlie Huston are the most directly relevant names, and some of G. M. Ford's stuff straddles the line between crime fiction and detective fiction). I've got a copy of Huston's A Dangerous Man sitting on the to-be-read pile, and I'm pretty sure based on the previous volumes that hardly anyone will make it out of that book alive. They're extremely bloody and violent books, and most of the named characters will at least be badly wounded, if not killed before it's all done, and the crimes are all violent.

Parker, on the other hand, rarely racks up a big body count, at least in the books I've read. For every crime that goes wrong, there are three that don't involve any violence. Outside of people who are obviously squirrely from the first moment they appear, there's actually a pretty good chance of the characters surviving.

Really, these aren't so much novels about crime, as they are novels about professionalism. The profession happens to be crime, but the real emphasis is almost always on Parker's cool and competent professionalism. Things may go horribly wrong with the plan, but he always keeps his head, and finds a way to get out of trouble with a minimum amount of damage. And sometimes with a good bit of loot.

Tags

More like this

There is a little more violence in the Parker novels than you believe, particuarly in the 60s books, but your point about professionalism is spot on. Amateurs are always portrayed as impulsive and a nuisance, if not actively dangerous, and even the pros with whom Parker works are "bad" insofar as they deviate from the implicit code that guides all professional heisters in these books.

By igor eduardo kupfer (not verified) on 25 Mar 2007 #permalink

That's a very insightful review, Chad. I'm a big fan of Westlake, Block, and others who contrast amateur versus professional.

Speaking as a second generation former member of MWA (Mystery Writers of America) where my father was also active, starting in the 1950s, the genre has matured with the evolution of the Police Procedural and of the precinct ensemble cast. It is no accident that CSI is the top-rated TV show.

In classical Mystery/Detective fiction, this was explored from the start -- Poe and Doyle in private eye versus cop (both versus criminal). Then the trope of "playing by the rules" for authors in mystery stories, for about a century. Then the noir detective, even more actively in opposition to The Establishment including DA and cops, and to the corruption of society as a whole.

Insights are often shed through the viewpoint of the Amateur Sleuth. The same amateur/professional dichotomy applies to Espionage fiction, and other genres such as Westerns.

I shall not go on further, without your invitation, because the default fiction for scientists is usually Science Fiction, but Mysteries probably run a close 2nd. Of course, there are great authors who are award-winners in both genres -- thinks Jack Vance, Harlan Ellison, Isaac Asimov... and great editors expert in both genres.

My wife and I are partial to Physicists as amateur sleuths. I've been stuck for 2 years 3/4 of the way through writing a novel with Feynman as the amateur sleuth...

The innate difference between Mystery and Science Fiction being, perhaps, that SF presumes that Society is changing, while Mystery is conservative in the sense that the crime disrupts the order of society, and the detective uses quasi-scientific intellectual means to solve the crime, and restore society to an unchanging staus quo ante.

I, for one, would love to see more on Mysteries within your superb blog.

ULTIMATE MYSTERY/DETECTIVE WEB GUIDE
Magic Dragon Multimedia

3,092 COOL LINKS TO WEB MYSTERY/DETECTIVE RESOURCES

http://magicdragon.com/UltimateMystery/Mystery-Index.html