I Write Like...and Dennis Lehane

I'm assuming everyone else has already seen this site, but today I came across it for the first time. I Write Like is a website that purports to tell you what famous author you write like. I know, it's probably dubious, but it's the kind of thing that I am always curious about. So...I cut and pasted all the sections of the Gumshoe that I've published so far and the name that came up most often was Raymond Chandler.

Which is awesome.
I mean, clearly, Raymond Chandler is, along with Dashiell Hammett the apex for noire writing and any idea that I may resemble his writing, no matter how superficially is a signal that I'm at least partially getting done what I want with Gumshoe. Also clearly, I don't mean to invite any real direct comparisons to Chandler. He draws a much better picture. His use of language is more engaging and interesting. In short, I know he is better writer than I. Still, I take this as a signal that I'm at least playing in the same big sandbox as one of the greats. Even if he's made grand castles and I'm just digging a moat.

*******************

Speaking of writers. I just finished Dennis Lehane's latest book, The Given Day. Good book, definitely worth a read. I recommend it to anyone looking for something to read. It's 700 pages, but they went by fast.

The book is a departure from the rest of Lehane's work in a way, but it's also not. The book is less suspsense and thriller than most of his other books. Instead it is more historical novel, but I still had trouble putting this down. And what I think of as Lehane's biggest theme--the price someone pays to do the right thing--is still there. I'm going to think more about this book before I say anything too much about it.

It's been a while since I've read a book that required me to think about it like this one does. But I'm gonna try to give some thoughts on this. Forgive me if they aren't fully formed or all that interesting. So, yeah, spoilers below (you can skip to the end of this section at which point, I will spoil no more).

A lot of the book centers around the labor movement in Boston, a lot specifically with the Boston Police Department. And one of the things I found striking* about this novel is how much of the things I assume police officers could take for granted were things that had to be fought for.** Things like sanitary sleeping conditions. Or less than 80 hour work weeks. Or uniforms and supplies that they didn't have to pay for. Or for workers' compensation when injured in the line of duty. Or to be paid above poverty levels. I should know better than to assume that everyone appreciates what police officers do and is willing to give them what they need to live at least somewhat comfortably on it. And certainly, I know now that our priorties are all messed up and that the police get shafted many times because of it. But, wow. There were no good old days. That comes across so clearly as characters repeatedly say how the problems of worker against employer (and the problems of face agains race, father against son, brother against brother, husband against wife, society's needs against society's desires, the mob against everyone) are the same as they ever were. And that this is how they will always be. This book drives home that point especially well during the riots that occurred during the policeman's strike.

As, I said, a lot of his books discuss the price someone has to pay for doing what they think is right. In this book we see the main character lose so much--family, his body, friends--to try and get what he considers to be a fair shake. The main character isn't beset by one person in this book, as is often the case in the private detective novels. There's no serial killer with an axe to grind. Instead, the hero's antagonist seems to be the political system with all of it's players and entanglements, and to some extent, the society that allows that system to stay in place. It's not really one person who makes the hero suffer or defeats him. It's all of them in concert, though with no real mastermind.

And related to what the hero of the book loses is how and why society elevates others to hero-status. Lehane examines this most obviously through the use of Babe Ruth, who is shown as a child-like alcoholic and womanizer. He has some affinity for the working man and has his own frustrations with his working conditions. He, however, has a lot more bargaining power than most the other workers in the book. And when he makes demands, they are met, though not happily. And there are no reprecussions for this action really. I mean, yes, Ruth gets traded to the Yankees, but no one seems to think of it as punishment.

Anyway, these were some thoughts.

*********************

And speaking of Lehane....I see he's working on another detective novel featuring Gennaro and Kenzie. And it's coming out in late November. Note to Dinah. My birthday is a week after this. And Christmas not long after that. And with Christmas break coming up, I will have time to read this book that I covet, especially after reading the description. So, this would make a great gift. For me.

Why be subtle?

*Note 1. Pun!

**Note 2. I know it's generally not a great idea to hang your argument on the details of an historical novel as being more historical than novel. After looking over the books that served as reference to this novel and seeing some comments made about the book, I am willing to be made a fool of if these details turn out to be changed a bit for dramatic purposes.