You know, I had completely forgot about that scene and when I read it again I was totally caught up in the adrenaline of the action. But then I sort of forgot about it until you mentioned it. It is a good example of Spenser’s willingness to face big odds and take action when the situation requires a rash action.
I noticed the similarity between Vinnie and Phil too. I think knowing which henchmen work for which crime lord is evidence that Spenser has been around the block. No doubt Phil would have punched Spenser’s ticket if the wife had not jumped in – it still took two of them to take Phil out.
And I am so looking forward to reading Hawk’s introduction to the series again!
This is a busy week in a busy season, maybe others have or will finish TGM and will make comments on this book before Monday roles around. Anyone have additional insights about The Godwulf Manuscript?
Thank you! (Have no idea how I got off by so many, many months!)
If you would like to put it off until the new year that will be fine with me. I was going to suggest that originally, but thought it too far out and some might lose interest before then. On the other hand, spending a day curled up reading Parker is best not delayed in my opinion.
Just succeeded in requesting it on hold from my public library (absolutely best adult use of my tax dollars) and I should have it in hand in a few days.
I’m late to the party but I’ll add my general observations about TGM - although I am guessing they would probably apply to most Parker books written in the 1970s and other detective novels as well.
While reading the book, I was struck by the way the world has changed since 1973. Spenser is obviously portrayed as a good guy, not a bigot in the least and, as becomes clearer the more we learn about him in later books (or so I recall), he has enormous respect for women.
So if Parker were writing in 2020, I’m sure he’d characterize people differently and avoid the casual sexism/anti-gay sentiment that his writing inadvertently implies. The biggest example is his depiction of Hayden’s wife - her lack of femininity, the fact she is physically larger than Hayden, the fact she seems stronger than he is are meant to cast both of them in a bad light. He also derisively talks about a “mannish secretary,” which suggests that it’s okay to put down women if they don’t follow certain feminine ideals.
And don’t get me started on the fact he successively slept with both Terry and her mother…really? It’s nothing but a little harmless promiscuity in the book, and certainly fits in with the whole hard-boiled detective trope. Still, it would have been off-putting for the character if it were written that way now. Not that a 2020 male detective wouldn’t sleep with clients, but I do think an author would be intending to create a somewhat different impression of the character if that author chose to write him that way.
Anyway, it probably sounds like I’m being critical of Parker/Spenser, and I’m not. The book is inevitably a product of its time, and it was written nearly 50 years ago. I just find it fascinating to view societal changes through the lens of the detective novel.
If I were a college student in a gender studies class I would love to write a term paper using “evolution of the portrayal of women in the American detective novel, 1920-2020” as my theme. Wouldn’t that be fun!
I remember in the next few books, Parker wrote about what Spenser was wearing in such a way that he’s obviously dressed to impress. But through a 2020 lens, his outfits sound ridiculous.
I wrote a four (well, three and just more than a half) page reply that I meant to edit down but have not yet. I will start again and try to address only one item to limit over verbalization. First off, if you ever write that paper I would like a copy- it does sound like a very interesting read.
I have a different take on this matter. I actually think he was attempting to paint the masculine wife in a sympathetic light. While she was actually bigger and stronger than her husband she was a very good wife who sacrificed to save her husband and be loyal to him (despite knowing he cheated on her). She is by far the more admirable of the pair, and she cannot help the fact that she was born tall and strong. I suppose she could have steered more into a feminine dress and hair and makeup use, and been more traditionally ‘lady like’ in demeanor but I sort of admire her for being herself. Remembering that Parker himself had two gay sons, I wonder if he didn’t place her in the story on purpose to demonstrate that she was born that way and it was not a choice for her to be as she was.
Further, I believe she was meant to show a little bit of shame for not being more petite and feminine; a self shaming that made her endure Hayden’s philandering. Her love and devotion to her husband was nothing short of heroic. In contrast, the pathetic Hayden was little more than a booming voice coming from a pipsqueak. He was the very embodiment of a delusional fraud (and how odd to type that phrase outside of Politics & Elections in reference to the temporary resident of the White House) who took advantage of his female students, tried to extort his employer, dealt drugs, ran with criminals, was pompous and devoted to a cause he didn’t fully understand.
I believe the wife was meant to be admired as an ideal despite not being born tiny and cute. She loved her husband, admired him, protected him with her own life and forgave him. She was a valuable human despite her being unconventional. She sure saved Spenser’s bacon, and Hayden’s as well. Perhaps she was often underestimated because of her looks but when it came down to it – she went into action even before Spenser could.
As for the ‘mannish secretary’, I have not gone back and found that section but I am willing to believe that it was a practical description that was meant to not put down the woman – but to describe her. Perhaps it was just a form of shorthand that described without explaining or judging? But that is just speculation on my part. The most valuable life lesson I was ever taught just might be this one: Everyone is an individual despite how many stereotypes that person may fit into.
This section of the book was cringe worthy to me also, but it reminded me of a truism a distant cousin routinely says: If there was as much sex in real life as there is in books and movies the world population would double every year.
I think the amazing thing about the entire episode is that there was no “me too” moment at all. In both cases he was in fact doing the women a favor – one time by actual verbal exposition (the other time, with the mother, by strongly implied actions and words). It is not like he took the quivering, confused woman in his big strong arms and soon she quite fighting and admitted she wanted this too. In both cases he was the ideal version of manhood the mother and then the daughter wanted to experience because other men do not measure up. Talk about living the life of Flynn!! (Errol Flynn, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, and apparently Spenser are the men that if your wife is going to cheat on you – it better be one of those guys she cheats with.)
Temporary_Name, your reaction to the description of Hayden’s wife was the same as mine. I also cut Parker some slack, given the times and the fact that this was his first novel.
That’s really interesting, and plausible. You haven’t changed my mind but you have provoked some thought. I will say in response that I am trying to imagine how a contemporaneous reader would have interpreted what Parker wrote about her. Given the times, I think a typical reader in 1973 would have felt a little contempt based on how Parker described her.
I think this contention is supportable by quoting various descriptive phrases about her, but I find it unpleasantly tedious to flip back through the pages on a Kindle, so I’m not going to offer any cites. What I will do is take notes as I’m reading the next book, keeping track of anything that supports or provides evidence against what I’m claiming.
Regarding his two gay sons - Parker would have been in his late 30s or at most 40 when he wrote TGM. I can’t say for sure, but it seems likely his two sons would have been quite young at the time - quite possibly their sexual identify would not yet have been something that had an impact on his writing. I’m going to speculate that we will see increasing evidence of tolerance and support for gay people as we get later into Parker’s writing. Should be fun to see!
Thanks for taking the time to write so thoughtfully on this topic, BTW. It’s fun to discuss such things and opportunities don’t arise all that often. (Don’t get me started on my last bookclub - they were delightful women but the only point of the bookclub was to get together and drink wine.)
)