I’d never read any Ross MacDonald, but a recent article in The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/01/ross-macdonald-crime-novelstext piqued my interest.Once upon a time he was apparently ranked as part of ‘The Holy Trinity’ of crime writers alongside Hammett and Chandler. Having now read his first Lew Archer novel I’m not sure I’d place him as high as Chandler, but I was mightily impressed with what I found and wonder how I managed to miss him until now.Archer is hired to find a missing millionaire, and spends the novel cracking wise with various suspects and digging up old secrets. So far, so very noir. However MacDonald’s sharp prose style and great descriptions elevate it above the norm, while his evident interest in the psychological means that the characters have a more solid sense of motivation than is sometimes the case.I will definitely hunt down some other Lew Archers. I saw the film version of this yesterday – entitled ‘Harper’ – and I have to say I quite enjoyed it.There’s something interesting in watching the Technicolor detective tales of the sixties (see also James Garner’s ‘Marlowe’. They lack the grit and hardness of the black & white films of the forties and fifties, but have none of the disaffectedness which crept through in the seventies. As such we get to watch murder and skulduggery take place amidst happy, good looking and carefree people.Paul Newman gives a charming and relaxed performance. More of a character than the cipher of the book, he does a good job as a man who knows he’s slightly out of time and is amused at the fact. He does breeze through a lot of the film, but knows how to hit the serious moments. The weary ending is particularly memorable. The rest of the cast splits between solid screen presences (Lauren Bacall, Janet Leigh, Shelley Winters) and the good looking but insubstantial (Robert Wagner, Pamela Tiffin). Even though Bacall does get a few good moments of raising her eyebrows and being bitchy (which she could surely do in her sleep), the fact that the supporting characters are differing degrees of cardboard cut-out is the film’s main flaw. It’s hard to care what happens to any of them. Undoubtedly though the film is good looking and fast paced and an enjoyable sunny romp of a detective thriller. And that is both its charm and its problem, as while enjoyable sunny romps are good they’re not necessarily what you want from a thriller.(Why was the character’s name changed from Archer? Apparently Newman thought films beginning with H were luckier. And from the star of ‘The Hustler’ and ‘Hud’, that kind of thinking does make some sense.)
I love the mystery genre, best of all. And I must almost force myself to get out of my comfort zone and from time to time read a non-fiction; best seller; classic; anything other than a mystery. With that said, reading the mysteries that I have, it occurred to me that I should do some backtracking and read from the masters of the genre; writers (who proudly claimed to be writers, not authors) and 'just one of the guys.' They thought nothing of 'popping off' with a serial in The Black Mask as an example. Thus began my personal challenge to delve into Raymond Chandler, Ross Macdonald, Dashill Hammett, Lawrence Block (who is still writing) by the way, Donald Westlake, Charles Willeford, and Mickey Spillane. There are more, of course, and I will soon start Paul Cain another of the early pioneers of the genre. Some are considered noir, some hard-boiled but all great and entertaining books which have maintained their 'shelf-life' for decades and decades. This is my third in the Lew Archer, P.I. series. Lew is a LA detective who simply won't stop until justice is done and if not justice, then the puzzle is solved and life is good (as good as it gets) once again. Although I've said it before, it’s the sparsity of the writing which I enjoy most of the early writers. The plots are intricate with short, clip sentences, descriptive but not ‘flowery.’ What I find so amazing is that the majority of the writers had very little formal training in creative writing unlike most of the writers of today. Their background and background only prepared them to write with such clarity and readability.The Black Mask was one of the few publications available for these talented writers who are the basis of the mystery authors we love and read today such as Crais, Connelly, Sandford, Burke, Parker and Lescroart, to name just a few.The Black Mask has a wonderful website to review including the dramatic and colorful covers of the pulps and the 'dime detective' series, all in their golden age of popularity. And The Moving Target? As good as it gets! If you haven’t read the ‘masters’ of the genre do yourself a favor and start. If Robert B. Parker says Chandler was his inspiration who can argue with that? I waited much to long myself.
What do You think about The Moving Target (1998)?
For most of the book, I was asking myself "why is this book rated highly on Goodreads." The story was not all that interesting. I wasn't in love with the characters. The description was great in places, but average most of the time. I can't say I ever really felt off balance, or skillfully misdirected. Later MacDonald books, some relatively obscure, are far better at these basic tasks.About 2/3 of the way through, though, Mr. MacDonald distinguished himself with exceptional character depth. He wrote about what the characters were thinking and feeling at an A+ level. It made me sit up for 20 pages or so, and say "Wow." I also liked at it wasn't as formulaic as most in the genre. In this way, he channeled Chandler well. For example, in the genre, if there is a young femme in the book, you can expect two things. First, she will fall in love with the tough guy investigator. Second, she will die as a key part of the plot. She also will often be wrapped up in the conspiracy somehow. In this review, I won't reveal any spoilers, other than to praise the author as creative. He does it his own way, and doesn't necessarily "follow the rules."These aspects bumped it from three to four stars for me.
—Sawyer
While Philip Marlowe remains the hardboiled detective others must live up to, Ross Macdonald's Lew Archer is certainly up to the challenge. Set in 1940s Southern California, Archer is dry, self-depreciating and follows the trail of clues, wherever it takes him. The writing is clean, spare and surprisingly filled with colour (I always read this kind of book thinking in black and white) and while some of the characters exist just to move the plot along, the dialogue really crackles. I won't spoil the end, but even if you see it coming, the ride is worth it. Recommended.
—Timothy Neesam
Millionaire Ralph Sampson has been kidnapped and it's up to Lew Archer to find him. But what does the kidnapping have to do with an aging astrologer-actress, a piano player, and a holy man Sampson once gave a mountain to?The Moving Target was a fast-paced noir thriller. Archer kept getting deeper and deeper into trouble. The love triangle between Miranda Sampson, Albert Graves, and Allen Taggart seemed to be needless at first but proved to be a very important plot element. One thing I really liked was that Archer wasn't a super-hero. He got his ass handed to him but kept on coming. Most of the killing was done by other people.Things I didn't like? Archer gets knocked out way too many times. You'd think he'd be more careful after the first time. He's also kind of a stereotype noir detective. From what I hear, he breaks away from the Phillip Marlowe role in later books but I kept thinking of Marlowe while I was reading this.The Moving Target is a good noir read. Just don't expect it to bring anything new to the table.
—Dan Schwent
