Robert B. Parker has a Blog

[pecunium]

I like his work. I have some minor annoyances with the way the subplots in the individual books mirror the arc of continuing story, but hey, that's something which is a painful aspect of dramatic fiction in the modern age (The Closer is awful for this; then again, I dislike aspects of it on a professional level. Her interrogation strategy bothers me. Cops' interrogation strategies bother me, and hers are cop strategies on steroids, but I digress).

His books are hard-boiled detective stories, in the mold of wisecracking; but intelligent (one can also say sensitive). Spenser ("like the poet") cooks, reads, is a baseball fan (and basketball, but he has his priorities, in the season, Baseball takes precedence), enjoys poetry and is tolerant (which doesn't mean he isn't jugemental; there's a difference).

His blog is much the same. Erratic, but readable (add a dose of working writer stuff. Not so process oriented as matociquala, but some interesting insight to the life).

Robert B. Parker

Comments

Robert Parker Blog

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Interesting, but he hardly posts.

B

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

The Closer is awful for this

I, for one, would appreciate your thoughts on this subject if you ever feel moved to write about it.

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

I gave up on the Spenser books a while ago (became too formulaic, and um, not enough Hawk??).

My favorite quote: "it takes a tough man to cook a tender chicken."

I love Spenser for cooking.

And Hawk.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

What thoughts, the cheap device of her personal life giving her the clue she needs to solve the crime?

Or her interrogational methods?

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

It's hard to do a 30+ year series, with as ritualised a structure as the hard-boiled detective story, without developing some elements of formula.

Nero Wolfe had it, Spenser has it.

The more recent Spenser novels have had a bit more Hawk. Hell there was one which was pretty much all about Hawk.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Her interrogational methods. The Closer is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. I've kind of soured on police procedurals — when they catch the bad guy at the end of an episode of CSI, it's such an anticlimax that I feel a little dirty — but between the pleasures of watching Sedgewick work and the gimmick of her character wringing an “impossible” confession out of the villain, I enjoy the show.

At the same time, I've read some of the disturbing recent journalism about police interrogations drawing people into false confessions, which makes the whole thing seem a little too parallel to cop shows that glorify police brutality. And there's something about the mechanics of her interrogations that feels like a phony TV conceit in some murky way I cannot figure out.

So getting the thoughts of a proper interrogator would be very illuminating.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Police interrogation bothers me. First, they have an agenda; get the suspect to confess. Why? Because confessions equal plea-bargains. What percentage of the accused go to trial? Damned few. What percentage of them are acquitted, even less.

This doesn't mean, per se, the cops are getting the wrong guy, but get a confession out of someone, and the odds are good she's going to jail.

That's problem the first.

Problem the second, those interrogaations would probably work. Conveniently the scriptwrier is on her side. She never has a not-guilty subject when she actually starts doing her magic. But the sorts of things she has, the staff; textbook for an interrogation where one has the means to do it (the team at the transit camp Hans Sharff worked at had huge amounds of data. They knew what airfield a pilot was from; and from that who is commander was. They kept detailed records of the names of all the pilots who were ever mentioned; and the petty little things they could find out, such as home town, etc.).

They have the power of the law behind them. They are threatening people with long stretches in prison; and offering them a way out; just talk to me.

The subjects are isolated. They are being told they are likely to be arrested; i.e. never let go. It's not torture, but it's sure not a level playing field.

Truth to tell, the thing to do when a cop wants to do "an interview" is tell them you will; when you have a lawyer. They will get pissy. They will tell you that you don't need a lawyer; esp. if you aren't guilty.

They are wrong. The time you most need a lawyer is when you are not guilty. If they should decide, at any point in the investigation that you are suspect; they will start trying to get comments from you in support of that theory. It's really easy to talk yourself into jail. Its really hard to talk yourself out.

"Hey, if I'm not a suspect you have nothing to lose by waiting for a lawyer. I'll answer questions when he gets here."

And stick to it. Don't answer anything until the lawyer gets there. Really, the thing to do is leave, and come back with the lawyer; because they will be reading you for, "clues" as soon as you say you want one. They will see it as the sign of a guilty mind. But better to spend the money, and not go to jail, than to be be honest, and get locked up.

Parker has said Hawk will always be the mystery man

[cem.livejournal.com]

Most annoying to me is the refusal to have the firearms details vetted - in All Our Yesterdays Parker credits sources on Boston with the remark "G-d help me, I thought I knew enough"

In his gun fight at the OK Corral book about the Earps (where the history is acceptable if not great but a Winchester 97 appears) and in the current western fantasy series - in which Virgil Cole is arguably a - perhaps younger certainly less sophisticated - variation on Hawk? - Parker insists on having single action Colts with swingout cylinders, matching Winchester rifles and Colt pistols in .45 Colt rather than the correct 44-40 or 44 Winchester in the Winchester and .44 Frontier in the Colt. The Gray man shot Spenser with literally an elephant gun, no doubt a display of power for the proverbial white hunter but nothing such a person would have chosen. More recently the Gray Man relied on a .22 rimfire for a single killing shot through window glass in a way that might or might not have worked in reality - likely not - but that no vaguely competent shooter let alone a real expert would ever have tried. Even James Bond, licensed to kill, had a no license to kill companion shoot the glass before Bond made the killing shot. The trilogy culminating in Hundred Dollar Baby verges on great literature for a certain time and place.

For some officers insisting on counsel is seen as a mark of the innocent.

[cem.livejournal.com]

For some officers insisting on counsel is seen as a mark of the innocent - though they'll say the opposite. The brazen, I've been here before and I can handle this, talk my way out of it, is seen as a mark of guilt - perhaps a narrow distinction between the innocent and the wise-guy (pun intended) but one to be avoided.

Re: For some officers insisting on counsel is seen as a mark of the innocent.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

That may be, but I've never known a cop who didn't try to convince people who mention wanting a lawyer that they don't need one, and get them to talk without one.

Don't do it.

Not disagreeing with your advice here - of course the dance is a formal one.

[(Anonymous)]

Not disagreeing with your advice here - the dance is a formal one. My point is to reinforce the advice by suggesting the adversary (it is an adversary system) who says: if you're innocent you don't need/only the guilty ask for.../refusing to cooperate is a sign of..... is speaking tactically not philosophically. As you know Bob, good cop bad cop works even on the knowledgeable - few interrogators are going to say here's another copy of an issue wallet card with a pretty Minuteman picture and good advice - stop after the bullet points with name..... If you want good advice although with a tone that won't appeal here herewith some from Mas Ayoob via John Farnam with John's expansion:

Selection of a Lawyer: My friend and colleague Mas Ayoob had sage advice for us at his lecture during the Polite Society Event in Tulsa, OK last week. The following is a phenomenon that I have noticed too, but Mas, who does of lot more expert legal consulting than I do, masterfully focused in on the issue. Representing criminal defendants is a narrow law speciality. Most lawyers don't know much about it. Of course, all criminal defendants are entitled to competent representation, so our System is not tempted to railroad defendants, for the sake of expediency, politics, nor a host of other illegitimate reasons. Sometimes it happens anyway! The problem is that the vast majority of criminal defendants are, in fact, guilty as charged! Most are also indigent, sleazy, unstable, and have a criminal record already. In fact, the only classes of criminal defendants who have money and who are willing to spend it defending themselves and their reputations are those accused of (1) drunk driving, (2) molesting children, and (3) dealing in illegal drugs. The vast majority of other criminal defendants don't have two nickels to rub together! In every town, out of hundreds of practicing lawyers, there is only a handful whose practice includes representing criminal defendants. They spend a lot of time with defendants accused of the foregoing crimes. They know, and their clients concede, that their clients are almost always guilty. As such, they are accustomed, often far too accustomed, to "making deals" in order to get their guilty client the best outcome they think they can. That, of course, is their job! However, when you, a good and decent person, ...are not guilty of any crime! And, a real problem may develop when you hire a lawyer to represent you who is habituated to representing guilty clients! Many have never represented a client who is not guilty, and who is, in addition, a decent and upright person, wrongly accused by a mendacious prosecutor ..... Lawyers like this may arbitrarily lump you in with the rest of their clients and thus jump at the first "deal" offered by the prosecutor, rather than carry your case forward. Juries rock! And, it may be necessary, at trial, to get your side of the story before a bunch of ordinary people.... Only the USA still has juries, and you are entitled to demand one! ... Our still far-from-perfect System is a lumbering bureaucracy which, like all bureaucracies, exists mostly to serve itself. And, you won't have to look very hard to find examples of injustice. In fact, one can persuasively argue that our System is terrible, except for all the other systems! Mas' point is that,... well-know and flamboyant defense attorneys may not be your best choice, simply because they may not want to believe you are not a criminal, like the rest of their clients. You need to find a lawyer who, at least occasionally, represents guiltless people, wrongly accused, who knows something about ...people ..., and who knows credible experts who can assist him.

Re: Not disagreeing with your advice here - of course the dance is a formal one.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

It doesn't suit, mostly because I disagree with the fundamental premise: that the system has no temptation to railroad the innocent. Mas Ayoob has an advantage in his depiction of how the system works for the not-guilty.

He's an expert witness. He gets to pick and choose whom he works for. He is also an expert witness in a very narrow field; justifiable shootings. His experience with the innocent is that they are usually acquitted.

For a different take; with a better tone, if a less pleasant conclusion: Mean Justice.

Part of the problem with the exposition is I don't trust the speaker: He's either painfully ignorant, or willing to lie to the audience, "Only the USA still has juries, is just plain wrong.

The structural comments about the attorney, "jumping at the deal" isn't really true either. A good defense att'y (which he posits) will know how to look at the case the state has, and predict; with some degree of accuracy, the odds of it convincing a jury. Since studies show juries are, contrary to hope; but in keeping with expectation, inclined to give greater weight to the state's case (and give cops the benefit of the doubt) even a haf-assed case is likely to be persuasive.

The tone of this piece, actually, supports that: he presumes the, vast, majority of defendants are guilty. Odds are, unless the case tickles his biases, he's a prosecution juror.

But even with that, the lawyer doesn't make the call, the client does. The guiltiest of clients can insist on a a trial even with the most compelling of prosecution cases.

The most important piece of that is actually at the end... credible experts, because that is what Mas Ayoob is selling; his credibility.