A post about Angel Colón's "No Happy Endings" that includes just one ejaculation/masturbation joke
Angel Colón reads. Photos by Peter Rozovsky |
Look closely. That vessel next to the book is not a gift-set jam jar. |
Fantine Park, on the other hand, the new book's protagonist, is an epigone: She's not nearly the safe cracker her mother was. And her relationship with her father (said Colón and some attendees who had read the book) is a thread running through the novel and one reason I'm looking forward to reading it. Farce and character is not always an easy combination to, er, pull off, and I'll be eager to see how Colón does it here.
From left: Scott Adlerberg, Angel Colón, Dave White |
For me, though, the evening's most trenchant observation came from Scott as we rode the subway from the bookstore to the bar. True crime, said this crime writer, is depressing in its brutality, banality, and stupidity, if I recall his words correctly. Crime fiction, he said, avoids this because it is highly stylized. That is the most thought-provoking observation I've heard about crime fiction in quite some time, and I'll be thinking about it and quoting it. So thanks, Scott.
© Peter Rozovsky 2016
Labels: Angel Colon, Dave White, Jen Conley, Mysterious Bookshop, Scott Adlerberg, Suzanne Solomon, Todd Robinson
4 Comments:
That Adlerberg is a pretty sharp cookie. Led a hell of a panel at Bouchercon and his blog posts are always worth a read.
(So are yours, Peter. I'm too much of a pussy to risk offending you.)
Only a loser would call himself a pussy.
Scott is sharp, all right. He had some interesting criticism of how history is taught in schools. I may add them to this post or even spin them off into a separate one,
Please do. I'd like to see what he says.
As I recall, the criticisms were that teaching of history has rejected chronology in favor of theme, and that in teaching the bad side of what great people--OK, men--did, current practice leaves students clueless about the good things they did. I hope I'm citing Scott reasonably close to correctly on this.
I replied to the latter point that we tend to forget that the Founding Fathers were not philosophers, but rather practical men trying to figure out how to make a country work. There are alternatives, in other words, to considering these men demigods on the one hand and racist oppressors on the other. That's the way the conversation went. It was a tremendously enjoyable evening.
Post a Comment
<< Home