In the comments, Olman Feelyus highlights his review of The Hunter (the first of a threatened many Stark reviews). The whole thing is worth reading, but this passage stuck out:
Ultimately, personal liberty is what the Parker books are about. Parker is an individual, a free radical, attached to no institution, organization, woman or job. The bulk of the series focuses on the individual jobs, the complications therein and the work that Parker needs to do to maintain such an idiosyncratic lifestyle. But the overarching theme of the entire series is what happens when institutions try to restrict Parker’s freedom.
One reason I found this passage interesting is because, in revamping this site, I went through a lot of old e-mail, and rediscovered something Brian Garfield (author of Death Wish, Death Sentence, Hopscotch, and many others) wrote to me some years back when discussing a screenplay he’d done for an aborted film adaptation of Butcher’s Moon:
I vividly remember how [Death Wish director associated with the project] Michael Winner – not usually noted for his warm, tender or cuddly aspect – wanted to have Parker “humanized”; I think the choice was between a puppy dog and a kid playing ball in the street — Parker saves the kid from being run over, something like that. Both Don and I insisted that Parker, the ultimate libertarian even though he probably never read Ayn Rand, might observe the event, but would leave all of them alone to their own fates – the ball, the car, and the kid.
I’ve noticed through years of reading about Stark and corresponding with and talking to Parker readers that there seem to be many libertarians amongst the books’ fan base. That could be coincidental, or it may because libertarians sympathize with Parker’s obsession with having near-complete freedom, even if they would likely agree that Parker’s means should not be used to achieve that freedom.
Mr. Garfield’s comments, though, suggest that the Parker novels could be seen as a criticism of libertarianism, at least in its purest form. The novels could well be saying, this is what the world looks like when self-interest is the primary motivator. And I do mean “the world,” as nearly everyone in the Parker universe is corrupt and thinking of himself first and foremost–it isn’t just Parker.
I’ll leave it to others to do a more in-depth analysis–I mostly gave that sort of stuff up the day I finished my English degree. But I do think it is an interesting prism through which the novels can be viewed.
[For the record, this piece is in no way meant to imply that I (or Westlake) am endorsing or denigrating libertarianism, any more than if I wrote that one could easily do a Marxist take on The Ax that it would mean that either I or Westlake was a Marxist. I am merely suggesting a possible ideological framework that one could use in interpreting the books. That is all.
I’m also not saying that the Parker novels appeal primarily to libertarians. I have noticed that Westlake’s readership falls all over the political map–center-right William Kristol is a huge fan, as is center-left Stephen King. And I don’t know if director Costa-Govras is a Westlake fan or just thought it would be good source material, but judging by what I have read, his film of The Ax (as Le Couperet) is a Marxist take.]
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/violentw/www/www/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/violentw/www/www/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
Hey cool, I didn’t see that you had put this up. I need to get your blog on my blog roll. I think your analysis is really interesting. Another point to add to the libertarian lens, is that Parker is responsible for himself. Other than his crimes, he never impacts anyone else with his behaviours. He expects them to also be responsible for themselves, though, of course, they never are.
And I also agree that, for whatever reason, Parker seems to appeal to a wide range of political stripes. I am far from libertarian, but for whatever reason, I find Parker’s drive for freedom and the things he does to those who try to restrict it fiercely moving.
philipj / I understand your fear = rcpseet and/or rcpseet = fear . During a marriage counseling session, there were four couples, the shrink in charge asked me the difference. I remember putting my head down, taking a deep breath and saying I don’t know the difference, to most people there is no difference. If you are afraid of someone, your backing off of them is considered rcpseet. And with the people you have rcpseet for, there is a power factor, and you do fear them. There is no longer any difference for most people.We have just had a demonstration of that here in the Michigan Senate. A billionaire owns the Ambassador Bridge connecting Canada to Michigan. He had recently donated l.l million dollars to various Republican senators and made it clear he did not want a second bridge, even if it is needed. Wealthy persons, corporations can and do destroy things that will help someone other that them. Oh, Canada was going to pay for the bridge, crossing fees would pay any Michigan dues. Zero from tax payers.Fear = rcpseet = corruption.
Belatedly in the extreme, I still have to ask–Parker PROBABLY never read Ayn Rand? Ya think, Brian? ;)
Parker does attach himself to one woman. He does go out of his way to help people he feels a tie of loyalty towards. And he self-evidently does not respect property rights, other than his own and those of his associates. The wealthy and powerful are sheep to be shorn. Meat on the hoof. You might as well say the original version of Robin Hood (who stole from the rich to give to himself) was a Libertarian.
You could make a case for Parker being an anarchist, but one who has no interest in spreading that creed to the general populace. He benefits greatly from all the things that can only exist in a well-ordered society. Like roads, for example. A libertarian is just an anarchist with no balls.
As to the kid and his ball, in Parker’s world, that question would never be asked. It isn’t relevant. I agree there is no need to humanize the guy, but that’s because he isn’t human. Until some screenwriter can come to terms with this, they will never get him right in LalaLand
I don’t think a case could be made for Parker being an Anarchist, at least not in the way I understand the definition. The anarchy that’s created because of his “work” is strictly a byproduct of his work. Parker has no use for creating hacoc or uncertainty unless it provides financial reward. Again, I know the Nietzsche thing does not cover Parker absolutely but the part about a human being being “beyond” conventional morality is fairly descriptive of Parker.
Think: has anyone here on VWOP, ANYONE, in ANY book, ever read where Parker had a moral conundrum before commiting a supposedly immoral act? Does he ever even take into consideration that OTHER people would find it immoral?
Chris: I was watching NATGEO, the program called CAUGHT IN THE ACT, which shows animals engaging in little known or talked about “nasty” behavior. This one segment showed a bunch of Wolves tearing the stuffing out of an older Wolf for no reason other than the Wolf was old and had once been the Alpha male. The narrator said this was unusual in that most Wolf experts didn’t know about this type of behavior. I know you compare Parker to a Wolf, but this newly discovered behavior–I wonder if that hurts or helps your argument?
Unrelated, but this artist’s representation of Parker is horrendous. Is Parker supposed to be one of the walking dead?! And what about those hands–sure, Parker has big hands, but those puppies look like those huge fake hands with the first finger pointing out that people wear at Football games to proclaim their team is Number 1.;-) lol