I’m Always Home. I’m Uncool.

I think there are a few things that we need to see when we think of the main character of a “hard boiled” detective novel. Those things basically boil down to this: swave, smarts, and sex. Yes, this term and I deeming The Triple S. As an object of reference: James Bond (not that the James Bond books or flicks are deemed “hard boiled”). This is the frame of reference for our “hard boiled” detective heros. Think of James Bond for a moment. What comes to mind? I’m willing to bet its swave, smarts, and sex.

I know that these three things are evident in our movie version of “Ed.” They are also quite prevalent in our Samurai friend in Yojimbo. Both seem to exude a sort of confidence. Everything is under their control. Nothing that happens is unexpected. Even when they are both beaten to bloody pulps they still have enough wits about them to devise clever escapes. Not to mention the Samurai’s chin scratching – a sure sign that very clever thoughts are being thought.

I’m not sure why it is that we like to see these types of men as the lead in detective stories, but I do know that if they weren’t there, the movie/book just would feel the same.

Oh, the irony! I’m sure the rest of you saw it too. In the scene where “Ed” confronts Paul at, what I can only assume is, campaign headquarters the posters are everywhere:  A Vote For Henry is a Vote for Honesty! This just goes to show the power of the film-maker, framing the shot just right to make those signs visible throughout the whole scene… not to mention conjuring up the idea of the posters in the first place. Absolutely brilliant!

Why is it that love/lust makes everything just a little bit more interesting?

I can fully appreciate the fact that sex sells. Of course it does. I just find it funny that this love/lust thing that “Ed” and Jannet have going on is so blatantly obvious, and that Paul is so oblivious to it. Of course he’s oblivious to it, they always are… I have to agree with Robyn, there is “eye sex” going on like there is no tomorrow. But I don’t think that all of this love interest stuff is out of place. Yes, in the book it is debateable about whether or not Ned truely loves anyone (although I do believe that he feels genuine emotion for Paul… but that is another blog entirely) I think that comes from the fact that we, as I have said before, are not invited in. We’ve no idea what Ned actually feels. Maybe he does really love Jannet. I mean, after all, they are going away together. Wether or not that is love or just plain old lust, there is something there. But back to my original point: the love interest is not entirely out of place. It’s there in the book. But it had to be there times ten in the movie for the movie to do well at all. I defy anyone to bring to my attention a movie that does NOT involve love, sex, lust, or any combination of the three.

What all this love/eye sex/lust makes me think about is the end that is to come. If “Ed” and Jannet still run off together in the end (I’m holding off saying that they will, simply becuase this is an adaptation and for all we know Jannet could end up with Paul if the film-makers felt it would work out better for them) then it be a much more devistating blow to Paul than in the book. In the film they are going to be married. She’s wearing the ring, although they aren’t saying anything “until after the election.” If “Ed” runs off with his best friend’s girl now, it really will be a much bigger slap in the face. I also think it makes Paul look that much more pathetic, which is something I think the film-makers are really going for (that, perhaps is a thought for another blog).

“The road to hell is paved with adverbs.” – Stephen King, On Writing

In part, I subscribe to Mr. King’s theory. In his book on writing (coincidentally titled On Writing) Stephen King goes on to say that he believes that if you’ve done your job as a writer, that job being to tell your story truthfully and with clarity, then adverbs become superfluous. I’m not saying that I entirely agree with this theory, or that all other writer’s should abide by Mr. King’s standards. I have, however, read his book on writing approximately four times as well as a number of his other works, and find him to be, in no uncertain terms, a genius.

One of the things I noticed while reading The Glass Key was the use of adverbs and adjectives. For the purpose of this blog however, we’re jus’ gonna be talin’ ‘bout adverbs. Now, I haven’t read many, if any, other “hard-boiled” detective novels but I believe that I can safely assume that they would also go along with this trend of bountiful adverbs. Please, if any others of you out there have read more “hard-boiled” detective novels let me know if I am hot or cold.

The usage of adverbs got me to thinking; exactly what is their purpose in this novel (other than to modify verbs, obviously)? Is there a reason that whenever a person does something the exact mode of their doing it needs to be described to us, the reader? Does it matter to us if Ned Beaumont ‘slammed the door loudly’ or if he ‘spoke solemnly’? If this were any other book of fiction, I might say no, adverbs are in fact useless. The Glass Key, however, is not just any other book of fiction. This is a book in which we are never once allowed inside the head of the characters. We are only allowed to see what we would be able to see if we were there. Occasionally we are given the advantage of seeing Ned Beaumont alone, or seeing him in a position that the common looker-on would not be able to bear witness to. But we are never allowed inside of his head. Everything, it seems, is an act. People position their faces into carefully thought-out expressions, are identified only by physical appearances, even the simple movement of sitting down in a chair is described to us as if we were reading stage directions.

Due to the fact that we are not invited into the book, other than to be another casual looker-on, adverbs give us a better sense of precisely what is going on. With the overly descriptive, often stage direction-like, accounts given to us by Hammett we can better understand what exactly is going on, and how he wants us to perceive things. Adverbs, in this case, are somewhat of a necessity.