There seems to be a struggle here between a part of the Crime Fiction community that thinks that crime writing should be "real" and those that enjoy writing and reading more hyper-real stories. By hyper-real I don't mean anything that necessarily even approaches a reality we even suspend belief and roll with, but something we just decide to take an outside-of-reality ride with because it is either enjoyable or takes us someplace different in the story. John Woo's classic film "Hard-Boiled" would be an excellent example of this. Do I actually believe two guys can take down an entire hospital full of bad guys while holding onto a baby? Hell no. But it's fun as hell to watch.
Some reviewers likened Guthrie's book to Quentin Tarantino, Eli Roth, and Guy Ritchie. I think Guy Ritchie is the best reference for the book, because his movies "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" both are cut from the same hyper-reality cloth as Hard Man. These stories don't so much contain a series of unbelievable heroic feats such as knocking a helicopter out of the sky with a car (I'm looking at you Live Free or Die Hard,) but more an ever-quickening series of events that all wrap up into a (I think) entertaining stew of craziness.
In the end I think whether or not you will enjoy Hard Man comes down to if you enjoy the sort of hyper-reality rides I mentioned, and if you think Guthrie's writing is good. Although when I write I am firmly entrenched in the reality camp of Crime Fiction, I enjoy reading stories that push the boundaries. I think Hard Man is well-written. If you decide to check it out for yourself, please let me know what you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment