Let’s keep the introductions to a minimum this time: the first part of Chris’s two-part guest essay, “The Man Who Doesn’t Wink,” can be found here, so go read that (if you haven’t already) to get yourself up to speed. As before, we welcome your comments, even more so now that both parts of the piece are up. And with that, I’ll get out the way: over to Chris.
The Wolf Man
by Christopher Lyons
“He’s a cold guy. With me, when I stopped him, he wore this affability like a coat, it wasn’t him.”
“The cloak of invisibility,” Barry suggested.
“Exactly. Who knows who he is, down in there?”
From Nobody Runs Forever.
“All right. I know who you are. I already knew who you were. I shouldn’t act as though it’s any of my business.”
“That’s right.”
“It’s hard,” Lindahl said. “It’s hard to be around…”’
The sentence trailed off, but Parker understood. It’s hard to be around a carnivore.
From Ask the Parrot.
Ask the Parrot, the penultimate Parker novel, is to the best of my recollection, the only one that explicitly refers to wolves; only twice, and both times indirectly. Parker accompanies would-be accomplice Tom Lindahl on a manhunt (that is trying to net Parker himself), and they end up at an abandoned upstate New York mining town called Wolf Peak. After an overzealous friend of Lindahl’s has not-quite-accidentally shot and killed an old hobo in the course of this hunt, Parker asks what predatory animals are in the region, who might be counted on to clean up the remains. Lindahl says there are coyotes around, though not many. This would count as an indirect reference, since the eastern coyote is now known to have hybridized with the last few surviving eastern wolves, as well as dogs, the end result being a larger, more robust, highly adaptable animal, that is rapidly expanding its range–they’d reached The Bronx by the early 90s (I’ve seen them there), and there are several pairs now known to be frequenting wooded areas along the west side of Manhattan. For all we know, some of these Gotham coyotes may have crossed over from the New Jersey Palisades on the George Washington Bridge. Probably didn’t shout obscenities at passing motorists along the way, though they might have been tempted.
It’s in the above quote from Ask the Parrot that I believe Westlake finally showed his hand with regards to Parker’s true nature. But in saying this, I’m not saying I believe he always thought of Parker as a wolf. It’s possible, but I have my doubts. In Dirty Money, Detective Gwen Reversa (who is also quoted above, from Nobody Runs Forever) compares Parker to a cat. When telling Parker there are coyotes around, Lindahl also mentions Bobcats. Westlake is known to have kept cats, and Parker has his feline qualities (and a lot more than just nine lives), but I can’t help but note that Reversa only half-understands her quarry, which is one reason why she never catches him. For all that, I don’t believe Westlake sat down to write each new Parker novel thinking “How can I make him a wolf this time?”
The truth is, comparisons of certain lawless ungovernable types with wolves (armed robbers most notably) go back for centuries, and are a longstanding hoary cliche in the crime genre–there’s Louis Joseph Vance’s once-popular series of books (and later movies) about jewel thief turned detective Michael Lanyard, aka The Lone Wolf; and just a year or so before The Hunter came out, Richard Jessup’s Wolf Cop was published by Gold Medal. Newspapers had been referring to this or that notorious hold-up man as a lone wolf (Dillinger included) since before Westlake was born, and he would have wanted to avoid such an obvious worn-out sales gimmick–he might also have seen a lot of unrealized potential in the concept of a man who really does operate like a wild animal prowling the mean streets of hardboiled crime fiction. Making use of old ideas in a new way was, after all, Westlake’s stock in trade.
Still, as carefully as he researched the more technical aspects of his stories, I see no reason to assume he was spending much time researching animal behavior–in Ask the Parrot, there’s a remarkable passage where with almost Tolstoyan empathy, Westlake tries to get into the head of the title character, an actual parrot–and he says it sees in black and white. It’s a lovely bit of writing, but the fact remains that parrots, like nearly all birds, see color much better than we do. David Attenborough he was not, and that might be just as well. If he had done research into wolf behavior back in the early 1960s, it might not have done him much good, since much of what we thought we knew about them back then has since proven to be overly simplistic, or just plain wrong. No, I think he was feeling his way into the character intuitively, not scientifically. Nonetheless, the resemblance between Westlake’s first great literary creation and Canis Lupus is nothing less than striking, even if not originally intended. If Westlake wasn’t researching wolf biology while writing Parker, the similarities are even more astounding.
As I’ve already detailed, the most striking oddity about Parker, as we learn in his very first appearance, is that his sex life is cyclical–he’s randy as all hell after pulling a job, then the urge gradually subsides, to the point where he loses all interest until the next job is completed. This anomalous behavioral quirk has no real bearing on the plot of The Hunter (one of the few novels where Parker doesn’t get any, though opportunities abound), but Westlake still goes to some pains to describe it, telling us that Parker’s wife Lynn had a hard time adjusting to this pattern. It really does stick out from any comparable character in crime fiction–it’s one thing for a fictional tough guy to feign lack of interest, or to be able to control his impulses, the way The Continental Op stalwartly resists a deadly seductress in The Girl With Silver Eyes–or you could refer to the sexual problems of the protagonist in The Name of the Game is Death, in that he has to engage in some kind of violence in order to get it up. But see, he actually perceives impotence as a problem to be solved, as all men do, which is why Viagra makes Pfizer a billion dollars a year. When Parker isn’t capable of having sex, he isn’t interested in having sex–he doesn’t see any problem with that–it’s the women in his life who have a problem with it, though Westlake doesn’t dwell on that much. One could certainly point to many characters who are seemingly indifferent to women most of the time (Sherlock Holmes comes to mind), but for the impulse to just periodically disappear from a guy who likes women a lot and is overpoweringly attractive to them–then reappear with a vengeance once the work is done? And he seems to think this is perfectly normal, and never worries about his performance at all? Far as I know, unprecedented, in human life or literature.
Not, however, in nature. While many people know that female wolves become sexually receptive only once a year, in the winter, it’s less well known that the males likewise have no interest in copulation most of the time. Their testicles actually shrink in the summer (please, no Seinfeld refs), presumably as a means of ensuring they are not distracted by unneeded urges when there are young to be reared and fed. In captivity, these cycles can be altered somewhat, but something has to get those hormones flowing. In a different environment, the stimulation of a successful hunt might well turn the trick.
When we say “Men are dogs”, we’re referring to the fact that male dogs, like male primates, are always ready for action–in their case, even castration won’t tame the urge entirely if there’s a female in heat around (I have a ‘neutered’ Shepherd Mix, and you can take my word for that). There’s no set seasonal schedule for when female dogs go into heat (twice a year, instead of once), and stable pair bonds are rare, so the males have to be ready at all times. Domestication changed their pattern. So maybe that’s why Parker’s pattern changes once he’s settled down with Claire–she doesn’t have to endure long periods of privation like Lynn, though Parker continues to be at his most vigorous right after a heist. Still begging the question, though–how was it that this particular beauty managed to ensnare the beast, where so many others failed?
Wild wolves essentially fall in love with their mates, want to be with them as much as possible, forming a bond of genuine affection that lasts a lifetime (and it’s hard to overstate how unusual a pattern this is in nature). Before that happy union is joined, they may leave their natal packs and spend some time wandering the wilderness by themselves, seeking amorous opportunities where they may, until they meet up with ‘The One’, at which point they pair up and form the nucleus of a new pack. Those hybridized eastern coyotes I mentioned earlier may have been the result of lone male wolves, unable to find any of their own kind in the wake of mass extermination by man, coming across female coyotes in estrus, and instead of killing them (as would have been the normal tendency), taking them as mates. The same happens with wolves and dogs, dogs and coyotes, etc–basically three very different animals with highly compatible DNA, who may be trying to murder each other one minute and the next–well when you can’t find a nice girl of your own sort, you take what you can get. Nature will be obeyed, one way or the other.
I need hardly point out that Parker never meets a girl of his own sort (with one possible exception, which I’ll get to in a bit). A wolf in the body of a man is going to have problems adjusting to primate sexuality, assuming he even wants to try. Physically, the women he encounters are quite compatible–psychologically, not so much. It’s hard to say what it was about Lynn other than her looks that got him interested, since she’s far from her best when we meet her. They seem to have actually gotten married (a safe bet that was her idea–nothing unusual there), but Parker’s cyclical sex drive remained unaffected by this new level of intimacy, and Lynn had to live with it. She was involved in some way with the criminal world beforehand, and that had hardened her–but there was underlying weakness in her character, and their bond was not as strong as Parker thought. Faced with a threat to her life, she breaks, and turns on him, bitterly regretting it afterwards, but the damage is done. And this is far and away the most traumatic thing that ever happens to Parker–not because he got shot–not because he got arrested and fingerprinted, which had implications stretching across the entire series. Because he’d let her in–he’d trusted her, as he had never trusted anyone else. She was his mate, and she betrayed him. And in the wolf world, this simply does not happen.
So this is the Parker we see striding across the George Washington Bridge, his worldview shaken to the core by something he didn’t believe was possible–not for him. His pattern of take the money, go back to Lynn, live the high life together, find a new score–disrupted. It was hardly a natural pattern–Parker never shows any interest at all in starting a family, which might not even be possible for him, since his children would probably be–well–human. Still, it was a pattern that felt approximately right to him, and now he has to start over from scratch.
Once he’s settled with Mal and The Outfit, he thinks he can go back to what he had before Lynn, finding short-term hook-ups after a job, but it’s too complicated. Women are too complicated. Humans are too complicated. He tries prostitutes he has to slap around just to get their interest–a jaded heiress with a yen for alpha males who tries to use him–the world-weary girlfriend of a dead accomplice who manages to leave him just before he dumps her (one guesses the no-sex-most-of-the-year thing came as a shock)–a laconic bohemian fashion model another string member sets him up with who he really seems to be digging (she’s the closest thing he’s found to a female version of himself) until her humiliated ex shows up and skewers her with a sword–and a charming high-end call girl working for the syndicate, who actually manages to modify his work-sex cycle a bit, but she’s not to be trusted, and isn’t looking for anything serious. And there’s the woman from The Jugger, but I’d just as soon forget about her, as I’m sure Parker did immediately–in a pinch, he’s not picky.
By the time we reach The Rare Coin Score, he’s hooking up randomly with anybody he can find, and getting no real satisfaction out of it–he’s lost any sense of stability in his post-heist existence. It’s making him irritable, erratic, uneasy. A while before that, there’s a moment in The Score where he looks at Mary Deegan, Grofield’s newly-acquired girlfriend (and later wife), who has impressed him with her calm self-assurance–and he momentarily wonders where you find something like that–a woman with real class, who’s worth going to some extra trouble for, who has understandable agendas of her own, and will be there for him when needed–a partnership. The swinging bachelor lifestyle just doesn’t work for Parker. It’s not him. Not anymore. He’s past that stage. He needs a mate. He doesn’t think this. He feels it. It’s eating at him. He opens a hotel room door, and there she is.
Many novels later, Parker realizes belatedly that Claire had him at hello, with that little crack about how “It doesn’t sound like a very rewarding profession.” Without anyone to come home to, no it’s not. The wolf was looking for someone to tame him–resilient but not hard, interesting but not overly complex, looking for a longterm thing but not needy–and able to accept that he won’t be tame all the time. Able to let him go off and be a wolf when he needs to–probably the hardest adjustment Claire has to make, given her past history with men who lead dangerous lives, but he persuades her he’s not some reckless adrenaline junkie, while she persuades him she’s able to live in his world, without really being a part of it. She basically proposes to him, but it takes her longer to adapt to their arrangement. He realizes almost immediately that this works–much better than what he had with Lynn.
Their courtship is anything but conventional, but that tracks. Claire has to persuade Parker there’s no need to kill her, for one thing. He has to be sure she won’t turn him in. Then again, in a typical noir fiction romantic coupling, there’s always the chance of one partner betraying and/or murdering the other–it’s almost the expected thing. Whereas with Parker and Claire, once they’ve formed their bond, it becomes unshakeable–neither seems to question it much. She’s not like him, but she understands him. They figure out each others’ rhythms, and how to accommodate each other. She makes a home for them–a place where he can relax, just a bit (he can never entirely let his guard down)–not burn himself out running around between jobs. He gives her the opportunity to travel, and just enough of a sense of danger in her life–and occasionally much more than enough. But she knows Parker will do whatever is necessary to protect her. Once they’ve bonded, he never stops and calculates the odds when it comes to Claire being in trouble, as he would with a fellow heister (even Grofield). As he tells Leslie in Flashfire, all his doors and windows are open–but only for her. She is necessary to him. He doesn’t worry about it, doesn’t wonder about it. It’s how things are. If he had to walk through fire to get to her, he’d put on asbestos boots. The wolf does not abandon his mate. That’s a human thing.
It’s a good match. Not perfect. Good enough. Parker never has a problem with good enough. And strangely, his pattern alters again–he’s no longer cyclical in his sex life. Out in the heisting world, he’s still a wolf. With Claire, at their little redoubt in Northwestern New Jersey, or at some posh luxury resort in the warm months, he’s a dog. Her dog. Not a lap dog, by any means. Not all women go in for Shih Tzu’s and Yorkies, you know. I see some very nice women, some of them remarkably beautiful, with big powerful strong-willed (and frequently unneutered) male dogs, here in New York. They seem very happy together, very self-contained, and the relationship has the advantage of stability–men may leave you, but a well-treated dog stays true unto death. If they had the option of the same relationship, only the dog would have a man’s body, some small capacity for conversation, a longer lifespan, and could go out and make a living, I think those women would go off the dating market pretty quick. Not kidding. Us guys better hope science never gets around to that little project. Then again, I’ve met some really lovely bit–well, enough of that.
So anyway, his sexual proclivities are perhaps the most striking point of comparison between Parker and a wolf, but hardly the only one, and perhaps not the most important. Though we find out early on that women are drawn to him (which he finds to be a nuisance much of the time), sex takes a backseat to violence and larceny in the novels, which are about his working life. He doesn’t even find a new relationship (if you want to call it that) until the third one. We call men who are always on the make ‘wolves’, but that’s a very misleading bit of slang. Wolves are intensely interested in sex for a few weeks out of a year. They are interested in hunting for their food 365 days a year. And what was the title of that very first Stark novel? Oh right–The Hunter. Fancy that.
Yes, Parker is hunting Mal Resnick in that book, but he’s also hunting for money, which he recognizes as the true source of sustenance in this upside-down world men have created for themselves. Once he’s killed Mal, his one-track mind switches over immediately to the matter of the cash he’s owed from the job he pulled with Mal. We don’t see him form a string until the next book, by which point he has a new face (it’s noteworthy how little time he spends getting used to his altered appearance). At which point we meet the redoubtable Handy McKay, and begin the long process of getting to know Parker’s many partners in crime.
Under any name he chose to write under, Donald Westlake had a rare gift for thumbnail character sketches, and it’s in his descriptions of Parker’s fellow heisters that it often blooms most fully. Many of these characters could serve as protagonists in their own right (and one of them did, of course), but as supporting characters they keep the series fresh and engaging. Parker himself is too uncommunicative, too uncomplicated, to hold the spotlight all the time. The interplay between him and the other thieves–how they understand each other, and how they don’t–creates a fascinating tension that enlivens book after book. If he’s the sun, they’re the planets–each different from the next, full of odd contradictions and surprising interests, moments of great poignancy, humor, and of course, murder. Westlake can only tell us so much about Parker, because Parker will only tell Westlake so much about himself–he can dig deeper into the motivations of these other heist men–and of course he can kill them off, confident in his ability to create more (or in the case of Dan Wycza and Ed Mackey, bring them back from the dead, because they had some mileage left in them).
Necessary as they are to the story, how are they necessary to Parker? The question must be asked, because in Flashfire, pissed off at having been cut out of his rightful share of a not very profitable bank job, we see him bankroll his revenge with a string of small robberies that quickly net him far more than his share of the original score, and it never occurs to him to just let well enough alone. This, I must confess, is not wolf-like. Parker’s obsession with not being cheated seems very human. But I think it’s motivated by something we see throughout the series–his confusion over the vagaries of human behavior–Lynn’s betrayal drove him nearly mad for a while, because his instincts kept telling him it was impossible. A confused Parker is an angry Parker. And we humans are nothing if not confusing.
So faced with something that would never happen if he was a real wolf living among wolves–since pack members always share a kill they made together–he tends to react badly. The contradiction must be erased, destroyed, for his mind to feel in balance once more. It’s very human of him to brood over something that’s already in the past, but his reasons for doing so are strictly lupine. That being said, what lupine reasons does he have to keep putting together new strings, when he knows there’s always the potential of somebody screwing up, or turning on him? What does he need all these people for, if he can steal all the money he needs himself?
In the wild, solitary wolves are, contrary to popular opinion, quite capable of fending for themselves–some recent studies seem to indicate that they may have more success hunting alone, or in pairs, than in large packs. Packs are basically family units, with a few experienced adults teaching the youngsters how to hunt so they can go off and form their own packs, and this is a long error-filled process. A pride of lions actually has better teamwork, because it’s really a band of sisters, who spend their entire lives learning to hunt together, while the big males keep them safe. A wolf pack can take down larger prey than a lone wolf. That’s a plus. A lot more mouths to feed is not. So why form packs at all?
Protection. If a wolf manages to kill something he can’t finish eating immediately, he’s got to worry about bears, mountain lions, or other wolves muscling in on his score. A strong pack can face off almost any potential threat. It also serves as a way of protecting vulnerable pups, and then educating them, as I’ve already mentioned. It also makes them happy, as these deeply social animals only ever can be in the company of their own kind. But fundamentally, a wolf needs a pack to hang onto the fruits of his labors, and fend off rival carnivores. That’s how it started.
Parker works very well as a solo act, and even better teamed up with one of his more capable and trusted sidemen, like Handy or Grofield. He likes to keep his strings as small as possible–fewer possibilities for a weak link, fewer slices in the pie. He could, if he wished, just keep doing what he does in Flashfire, but he’d have to keep working all the time, which would greatly increase the odds of him being killed, or caught by the law. And if he made a big enough score by himself to stop working for a while, he’d have to defend it all by himself. And sure, there are specialized skills in his profession, that he can’t all master himself. But it really does come down to strength in numbers. Since men are a lot less reliable than wolves, it’s a necessary evil, but a necessary evil is necessary nonetheless. Larger scores require larger strings–and vice versa. This complicates Parker’s life immensely, but it sure makes for some good stories. And now and again, as in Butcher’s Moon, we learn that rightly as he may distrust these men he associates with professionally, he takes real pleasure in their company–and in leading them to a good score. When he needs somebody to have his back, he knows who to call. And when they hear him howl, they come running, tongues hanging out expectantly–you can almost see them drool in anticipation.
And now we come to the heart of the matter–why heisting? We meet Parker for the first time long after his primary pattern is set, and in the subsequent books we learn next to nothing about his early life. Did he have parents, siblings, a home? What schooling did he get, if any? How could he possibly have served in WWII if he was in his mid-30s in the early 1960s? (Actually, this isn’t so improbable as it sounds–look up Calvin Graham sometime).
We know he was raised in a big city (I’d say New York, but I’m biased), and we can take it as a given that he grew up fast and hard. That his early life was fraught with difficulty, made all the more challenging by a unique sort of wildness in him that nobody could ever fully understand–even other outsiders. But he isn’t much concerned with any of that. As Robert Burns pointed out, it’s a human thing to be haunted by the past, while fearing the future. A mouse only worries about what’s happening now–and so does a wolf. To our follow travelers on this planet, even if they remember the past, and plan for the future, now is really all there is. It’s not such a bad system, when you get right down to it.
Perhaps in the army, perhaps before that, Parker met up with men who made their living by institutional robbery–taking money or goods from organizations. Stealing from individuals is more likely to lead to murder, which brings down too much heat for the limited rewards involved. Somebody gave Parker an introduction to this line of work. Now I wouldn’t care to say if Westlake ever read those Lone Wolf books I mentioned a ways back, but it’s worth noting that the hero of those books is a thief who was befriended as a young man by a master thief, who took him under his wing. An old gag in crime fiction now–not so familiar in 1914. Maybe Parker’s intro was Joe Sheer, the old jugger who serves as his contact for a while (and who so improbably asks for Parker’s help when he feels the walls closing in)–maybe not. But anyway, in Parker’s case, I think it was less a case of him finding a mentor than a peer group.
Since I’m positing that Parker was born with the soul and instincts of a wolf, I’m assuming that wherever he found himself in human society, nothing ever seemed to make sense. Domesticated dogs adapt with remarkable alacrity to the oddities of the human world–first generation wolves reared as pets never do seem to get the hang of civilization. They always look like they’re ready to jump out of their skins–they feel like they’re in a madhouse, and it’s hard not to see their point sometimes, isn’t it? Parker saw it really well.
Then he saw these other guys–heavy heisters. And there must have been a moment of recognition–of a pattern that fit, however imperfectly, the template inside his head. Men who walk among the common herd, without being part of it. Always looking for a badly guarded stash, the way a wolf looks for a lame elk or a sick caribou. Striking without warning, coordinating their efforts to get what they need, then heading back to their lairs, to hunt again later. Caching money here and there, often in holes in the ground, the way wolves bury uneaten portions of their kills. Able to work together, but not the way other humans do, with all that bureaucracy and boilerplate. They have nothing written down–they just know how they’re supposed to act–they learn what passes for their law from each other. And being humans, of course, they often fail to obey their laws–they betray each other, get greedy, get stupid, get dead. But living in a human world, Parker figures this is as good as it gets for him. Close enough. He’ll make it work. And woe betide the associate who makes it stop working. Parker will start seeing him as a corpse.
While they don’t live together in a pack structure most of the time, in the Stark-verse heisters do have a tenuous sense of camaraderie–at least in the sense that they know there’s nobody else out there who’d ever understand where they’re coming from. And now and again, a new recruit shows up, and here’s where Parker sometimes bends his “every man for himself once the job is over” rule just a bit. Alan Grofield, Stan Devers–these younger men he works with mean something to him–in his wolf-mind, are they his sons? Not quite, but there’s something more than simple pragmatism at work there. He inducts Devers into The Profession, sending him to learn more from Handy McKay–and he goes out of his way to work with (and sometimes rescue) Grofield, who was probably just starting out when he first met Parker, and whose jocular roguish ways probably amuse Parker more than he likes to let on. Parker can’t afford to be too picky about who he works with, but he definitely has his favorites. It’s not compassion, and it’s certainly not sentiment that guides him–it’s instinct. The next generation must be taught. Claire is the only one he’ll come for no matter what, but there are a few of his fellow hunters he’ll go the extra mile for–if the odds are right. He has a very small circle, but it pays to be inside of it–membership has its privileges.
So heisting it was then. There were other ways he could have gone. He could have tried organized crime. He must have come into contact with it here and there in his formative years. For a wolf man, it has some distinct advantages–a really strong pack, with an engrained sense of family, loyalty, and hierarchy. Trouble is, it has the stink of civilization and its rules all over it. There’s no real freedom–every move you make is watched, every score you make gets skimmed off the top by men who didn’t work for it, and that loyalty is really just a sham when the chips are down, as anybody who reads mob history knows. Same goes for any business, really–never trust a corporation. Parker isn’t interested in going into business with anybody. Too restricting.
But one could see a guy like Parker getting sucked into that life–and I think that’s exactly who Quittner in Butcher’s Moon is. Apparently a trusted consigliere, a planner, an enforcer–the syndicate equivalent of Parker, and he’s the only one among them who understands what they’re up against at the end. He knows it was a huge mistake to give Parker the finger, so to speak (I don’t want to spoil the book for anybody who hasn’t gotten to it yet–you can groan at the pun later). “He wasn’t the right man for that,” Quittner tells them. Right. Because he’s not a man. Because this is yet another instance where Parker gets enraged by something he can never understand in human nature–not cruelty–life is cruel–but senseless cruelty. Cruelty for its own sake. We like to think of ourselves as decent folk, we whose tax dollars pay for torture and carpet bombings, and in our folktales, wolves are cruel and rapacious and a metaphor for evil. But if a wolf could look into our hearts, he’d be revolted by what he saw. Not because we kill and maim, but because we like it too damn much. It’s not natural to us former apes–an acquired taste, that we rampantly overindulge.
Maybe Westlake meant to do something with Quittner later on, and then changed his mind, but my own feeling is that he’s there to show us the road not taken–and to show us why Parker was smart not to take that road. Quittner is a failed Parker–his instincts and his cunning thrown away on an organization that can only make limited use of them. A prophet without honor in his own land, who nobody listens to until it’s much too late–and whose perceptions have perhaps been slightly dulled by living inside the lines too long.
And there were other roads not taken–we see one of them when we meet Sandra Loscalzo, the bounty hunter, in the final trilogy of novels. And finally, Parker meets a girl of his own sort. I rather think Westlake made her a lesbian just to avoid the question of whether Parker’s pre-existing bond with Claire trumps the immediate sense of mutual understanding he has with Sandra. Like him, she has no children of her own, but she’s got a lover with a kid she supports–by legal means if possible, by other means if necessary. Parker thinks maybe she’s on the wrong side of the street working with him, but she says there are no sides. She talks about how her life is like a frozen lake, and every day she crosses a bit more of it, watching and listening to see if the ice is too thin–Parker rarely cares much for listening to people talk about themselves, but he’s fascinated. She makes perfect sense. He’s not the only one after all. Go figure.
But while Parker may no longer be the only one of his kind at the end of the saga, now I have to ask–is he out there in reality? Could a man think like a wolf? I honestly don’t know. I do know this–before we began to tame the land, raise crops and livestock, build settlements and towns, we lived very much like wolves–so much so that we saw the wolf not as an enemy, or an ‘endangered species’, but as our kindred. Our animus towards them only came to be once we started to settle down, and our cattle and sheep became prey for the wild packs. In our newly-constructed houses of straw we heard the distant howling that had perhaps once thrilled us with its abandon–and shivered. Because we were afraid of becoming their prey? Or because they reminded us of the freedom we’d given up for security?
And we still don’t know what to feel about them–we’re still torn between love and hate, admiration and terror–as we are with long-dead outlaws, as we were with the American Indian–slaughtering one moment, romanticizing the next–so easy to admire what you are able to destroy. As one expert remarked to the New York Times, when a young loner wolf was discovered wandering Northern California recently, “When wolves come back, one side says it’s the end of civilization, our children will be dragged down at the bus stop–The other side thinks nature is finally back in balance and can we all have a group hug now.” We can’t be objective about them, ever. They seem to be pretty objective about us, though. They don’t have the luxury of mythology.
Why do we fear wolves so much more than we do mountain lions, bears, and other more powerful predators? Because we sense an intelligence in them that in some ways rivals our own. Unlike most dogs, wolves and coyotes have mad problem-solving skills, that can seem almost supernatural at times. We need every cultural and technological advantage we can muster to defeat them, and before the advent of very modern times, even that wasn’t always enough–sometimes it took a deeper understanding of the wolf’s mind to finish him. Take a moment now to read the story of Ernest Thompson Seton and Lobo, The King of Currampaw. It’s well worth the time.
Now I realize I’m not writing for a nature blog here, and I hope you’ll bear with me while I get to the point of my referencing this famous story (Disney made a movie of it, full of ‘Real Life Adventure’ footage and folksy narration, and gave it a happy ending of course–and in this case, I guess I don’t mind that so much)–which is simply, suppose the story had gone differently? Suppose Lobo had a larger brain, opposable thumbs, the ability to manipulate his environment as we do, the ability to blend into human society without being easily detected, to make and execute complex plans, to anticipate and defeat the plans of his human opponents (not simply detect and avoid them), to obtain and employ firearms–but had retained the mindset of a wolf, the intense focus, the deep situational awareness, the lack of conscience or doubt, the absence of all the various dysfunctions and distractions and outright dementias that come with our human minds? Suppose he had all the powers of a man, while retaining the consciousness of a wolf? Then the story would have gone very differently, wouldn’t it? Then Ernest Thompson Seton wouldn’t have been around to tell us any story at all. He’d most likely have wound up in an unmarked grave, somewhere in the New Mexican hills.
And here’s Parker. Contrary to what it says on the cover of that wonderful Gold Medal first edition paperback of The Rare Coin Score, he’s never as human as the rest of us, nor does he aspire to be. And that’s why he’s so damned interesting to read about–and why we’re torn between identifying with him, and thinking “Why in God’s name am I identifying with this monster?” But seriously–he’s the monster? There’s a mirror at the Bronx Zoo you should look at sometime. It’s a violent world he lives in, yes–but he didn’t make it that way. He didn’t choose to be be a wolf prowling the cities of men–that’s the hand he was dealt, and he plays it with cold efficiency. Trapped somewhere between the fictional milieus of Dashiell Hammett and Jack London, he makes the best he can of a bad situation. He doesn’t belong here, and he never will, but he’s not whining about it. He’s howling. At the Butcher’s Moon, if you will.
What would have happened if Westlake had lived to write a few more novels, I wonder? Would Parker finally have met an adversary who took his measure, found his Achilles Heel as Ernest Thompson Seton found Lobo’s, taken him down? He’s having a harder and harder time making ends meet in the Information Age, where there’s less and less room for a truly independent operator. We see him adapting, learning from each mistake, updating his tradecraft, but at his core he’s old school (the oldest), and there’s only so far he can go. But then again, how much further can this civilization of ours go? The cracks are already there, and getting wider. There will always come a point when everything old is new again.
And even in the last few novels, he has more trouble with the old methods of hunting down carnivores–for all the fancy digital doo-dads, it always comes down to dogs, doesn’t it–the wolves that cast their lots with men. Ever wondered why he never pets one? Why they attack him so often? Why he tries to avoid robbing any establishment with a dog guarding it, though the fanciest alarm systems never give him much pause? Now you know. When Parker looks at a dog, he sees not Man’s Best Friend, but a bad blood relation.
We’ll never know the end to his story, so in our minds he’s still out there, the Wolf Man. Roaming the urban wilderness, lurking in the shadows, watching for danger, slipping through the cracks, probing our defenses, looking for weak spots, opportunities–taking a toll on our livestock, but also disposing of vermin for us along the way–one might argue it’s a fair trade. And in reality–well, probably he isn’t there. Probably a human brain always comes with a human mind into the bargain, and the Parker Saga is just a remarkable storyteller’s Shaggy Man Story.
But if he’s not out there on two legs, he’s certainly out there on four. Not just in the deep northern forests, and the arctic tundra. Right here, where we live. Remember those urban coyotes I mentioned? That lone wolf found roaming the California countryside? In Australia there’s dingos–midway between wolf and dog, able to solve complex problems and read human minds, they might have better suited my purpose here, but Parker is a Yank, and “The Dingo Man” just sounds funny.
Maybe you’re reading this with some portable device, out in a park somewhere on the west side of Manhattan, the Hollywood hills, the outskirts of Denver. If so, the eyes of wild hunters could be watching you right this very moment, studying you, deciding what to do next. That’s right. It’s hard to be around a carnivore, but who says we have a choice? Don’t worry, they usually know better than to hunt us–brings down the heat like nothing else. Probably they’ll just vanish silently into the brush, seeking their next score. You’ll never even know how close they were.
Lucky for us they don’t have guns.
Christopher Lyons is a very recently minted Westlake reader, a lifelong science fiction fan who has taken a notion to explore the crime genre for a while. He lives in Manhattan—Washington Heights, to be specific. He often exercise his dog in the shadow of the George Washington Bridge. He’s even walked across it a few times. He’s never seen a big mean-looking guy in ill fitting clothes stomping over it into the city. But he lives in hope.
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
ok this has been bothering me for a while, what book does Dan Wycza die in, when i read that he died in flashfire i was confused, i have read ever parker book multiple times, when did i miss this?
There’s no book where we see him die. I’m trying to remember which novel it was–The Rare Coin Score, The Green Eagle Score, somewhere around there?–but Parker is putting a string together, and somebody asks how about that wrestler guy, and Parker says “Dead.” No details. So later on, Westlake had no trouble bringing him back for Butcher’s Moon, and then just explaining in Flashfire that the rumors of his death were much exaggerated.
It’s more of a problem–it’s a gaping plot hole, actually–that we see Ed Mackey shot down in Plunder Squad, and we’re told he’s dead (even though Parker can’t hang around to confirm it), and then a short while later, he’s in Butcher’s Moon (the ultimate Parker 101 class reunion), and he’s fine, and he’s free, and Brenda isn’t saying “Hey, stay away from this guy, he nearly got you killed.” And you figure Westlake just wrote up the character for that novel, and then regretted killing him off afterwards, and he figured anything’s possible. It’s not like there was a coroner’s inquest or anything. The cops showed up with an ambulance at that garage, Ed pulled through, and then he managed to slip away before they could ask any inconvenient questions. Probably Brenda sneaked him out–batted her eyes at the cop guarding his hospital room, then blackjacked him when he wasn’t looking. Hey, that would totally work on me. ;)
Actually, it was Backflash, not Flashfire, where we’re told there’d been a rumor Wycza was dead. Wycza isn’t in Flashfire. More’s the pity, since they made a movie of that one. One of my favorite Parker collaborators, is Dan. Fairly interesting in The Score–Westlake made him more central to Butcher’s Moon. If they ever use him in a filmed adaptation, they should hire an actual pro wrestler to play him. Those guys really know how to put it over.
thank for clearing that up. i tried to figure it out once by keeping notes as i read but they got ruined and i gave up
OK, I’ll respond here, Chris. You don’t drink or smoke pot? OK. Well, then you have a lot of imagination. Kudos. The article was quite good, but really way too long. By the time I finished reading it, my legs were asleep and my ass was numb from sitting.
I think you read more into the character than may be there. Simply put, here’s my view of the character:
I just think of Parker as a guy who doesn’t lie about the fact that he’s like most humans. He wants cash and lots of it and doesn’t want to work some shitty nine to five job to get it. His morals are obviously his own and not influenced by society. He could almost be called the ultimate idea of a striped down psyche. He wants money, sex with an attractive woman, and the adrenlin boost of heisting to get the money. In that way, he’s not all that different from me: I want money, I want EASY money, and I want sex with an attractive woman now and again, and I want to spend my money on things/hobbies I like and buying my girlfriend pretty things. I just don’t have the guts to rob a bank, nor am I an adrenelin junkie who needs that sort of stimulation.
Oh, yeah, he has no moral compunctions about killing people who stand in the way of his aforementioned goals, whereas I do. Sometimes I wish my own morals were more flexible as I would probably be a richer and more content man, but hey, I was raised Catholic and a lot of it stuck.
Using a wolf as a metaphor for Parker seems OK to me to the extent it would suffice as a metaphor for the multitudes of people who are predatory and have little moral compunctions. If you believe there aren’t people like that on the earth, brother, you’ve led a sheltered life. I can gladly introduce you to a few.
Also, one thing that irritates me about your article is how you read way too much into his relationship with Claire. Parker likes to get freaky when his work is through. She’s the woman he gets his freak on with. I don’t see him valuing Claire nearly as much as McGee values Gretel. McGee romanticizes, sentimentalizes, his women, puts them on a pedestal. Parker basically likes the affection and intimacy they provide, along with the sexual release they facilitate, and it ends there.
Remember: he almost cheated on Claire in Comeback with the evangelist’s wife. The only thing that stopped him was the time factor. He was about to break his time-honored rule of no sex on the job. Maybe he was feeling exceptionally horny. He didn’t resist because of some sense of commitment to Claire; he didn’t do it because it was too risky as there were men in the building chasing after him.
If Claire caught an infectious disease, he’d probably make sure she was comfortable and well taken care of til the end, then he’d probably look for another source for affection/sexual release. Remember in The Hunter he stated the man thing he liked about the relationship with his wife was a sense of routine. If I told my current girlfriend that the man thing I value about her is the sense of routine and familiarity she brings out of me, she’d slap me.
Then burn my clothes.
So I like your article, Chris, it proves what I’ve said many times: you’re intelligent and your posts are well thought out.
One last thing; you busted my cojones about me ruminating on the fact of Parker’s childhood. You stated we are what we are from birth and the rest is detail. In some cases, that is true, but I’d wager that the VAST, I repeat, VAST amount of people walking the earth are an amalgamation of their childhood experiences (including the relationship they had with parents, family, friends, etc., as children), fears, hopes, aspirations, pieces of characters from books, films, that left imprints on them, religious and philsophical superstitions and idealogies that have imprinted, etc., etc., etc.
Very few people are born BAD or GOOD. It’s usually a process. I was merely stating that Parker’s childhood may have created some of his motivations/values/morals.
Perhaps he WAS born with the same personality he displays in adulthood.
Who knows?
Great post–THANK you. Took long enough. Now you make an excellent point about the piece being too long (for a blog article). I apologize to your benumbed ass, and wish I could avoid the conclusion that you sometimes do your thinking with it.
Unfortunately, everything else you say is wrong–not without an admirable ring of honesty here and there, but you just haven’t understood what you were reading–in my articles, or the Parker novels, which like so many other of Donald Westlake’s writings, were designed to be read on several levels, the shallowest of which is mere wish-fulfillment–like so many other ‘franchises’ in this genre, such as Mike Hammer. Is Parker just Mike Hammer on the other side of the law? Is he Travis McGee without a need for self-justification, or a tendency to philosophize endlessly (geez, he should apologize to my butt)? Nope. He’s not remotely like them.
You didn’t really respond to a single point I made. Particularly to the questions I asked in the first part. Sure, you wish you could be like him–thanks for admitting it. Everybody does, now and again, including, I’m sure, many female readers of the series, such as my girlfriend, who has more than once lately expressed her despondency that there are no more Parker novels for her to read. She’d heartily agree with you that as much fun as Dortmunder can be, he doesn’t come close to filling the gap. But why do we love this guy so much, when he doesn’t love us at all?
The truth is, much as we enjoy civilization, we also find it to be a prison (some of us much more than others, and here class rears its ugly head). Religions, philosophies, whole systems of thought and belief (and quite a few fictional universes, of print and screen) have been created to try and devise some kind of escape from this trap we’ve made for ourselves, and none of them have ever truly worked. Because the prison is inside ourselves. We want to be free, and we don’t know how to be.
That is not, however, a universal truth. It is a universal HUMAN truth. Not the same thing at all. There are free beings on this planet. We see them all the time. We watch them on television all the time (with much of the best lensing being done by Brits, I should add). We don’t envy them the hardness of their lives, we shudder at the thought of giving up our ‘higher’ consciousness (that 99.9999% of us squander on a daily basis), but we look at them and think “How wonderful–they’re free.” Then we build another shopping mall over their homes, lay out poison baits for them, blow them out of the sky with shotguns, shoot harpoons into them, etc, and so on.
Westlake was not an idiot. He knew quite well he was writing about a man who didn’t exist, and couldn’t exist, outside of his imagination. A man whose mind is free of extraneous clutter–who never so much as thinks about sports, culture, unsatisfied appetites–whose powerful sex drive simply shuts down for long periods, and he evidently thinks this is perfectly okay–who never asks himself “Hey, what’s up with that?” Who is never haunted by his past, never worries about his future, never seems to be troubled by memories of those he’s killed. You know people like this? No you don’t.
I knew some people–guys, mainly–would be bugged by my description of his relationship with Claire. All I can say is that I read the books–and you read them with one eye closed, looking for the fantasy, ignoring what was actually being said. And I have to ask–did you click on that Wikipedia link, to the article about Lobo? What you seem to be saying here is that Parker is LESS than a wolf. Even though Westlake went out of his way to demonstrate that Parker will do whatever he has to in order to protect Claire. That in his own distinctly nonhuman way, he loves her. Just because he cuts away all the frills we bedeck our feelings with, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have them. It’s hilarious to me that we humans still cling to the delusion that we invented love–we who understand it less than any other creature that feels it.
I’m a little confused by what you said Parker would do if he found out Claire had an infectious disease. You seem to have confused him with Newt Gingrich. I repeat–wolves don’t abandon their mates. That’s a human thing.
Now if she died, would he go on? Sure–so would a real wolf, given time (that Lobo wasn’t given). A pair of hawks set up housekeeping near where I work. They raised young together for several years. The male ate part of an animal that had eaten rat poison, and was found lying on the ground in a severely weakened state. The authorities came to take him away to die in a cage–his mate had other ideas. She dove furiously on anyone who came near him. This two pound bird held off a squadron of cops in riot gear for the better part of an hour, defending her mate–sure, call it instinct, if that makes you feel better. They took him away anyhow. She felt an absence in her world. Spring came. Hormones flowed. A new male presented himself. She went on with her life. And all of this makes perfect sense, except for her defending a mate who was clearly too weak to be of any use to her, against odds she could not possibly hope to overcome (this was the only time she had ever behaved aggressively towards humans). This is where Darwin breaks down. More to heaven and earth, Horatio.
I’m hardly arguing with the importance of our experiences, but I still think Lady GaGa had a valid point, tiresome though it may become from over-repetition and trite over-amped musical arrangements. I said myself, with different experiences Parker might have been something other than a thief, but whatever he became (such as a mob enforcer, or a bounty hunter), his reactions to his experiences would still be uniquely his own. He was born that way. We’re born another way. He’s not one of us. I knew some people wouldn’t want to hear this. But it’s the truth. You don’t have to see him as a wolf, which is my personal solution to the riddle of this Sphinx, but acknowledge the Stark reality that Westlake was trying to get across, which got more and more focused the further the series went on. Parker sees all of us as alien beings–and not the kind with superior intelligence.
And who said anything about bad or good? You have read the books, right? Do you not get there is no such thing in the Parker-verse? Which is not to say there’s no such thing in our lives, but think about it–aren’t most of the truly evil people in this world the ones who are most determined to see themselves as good? Aren’t a lot of people who see themselves as bad actually pretty damned decent? The Pharisee and the Publican. Parker wouldn’t have much use for either of them, but he judges no one, and hates no one, which I’m tempted to say makes him a better Christian than most Christians.
As to what you said about how your girlfriend would react if you told her what you’ve told me, I rather think you could use a good slapping. Time to walk the dog. Happy Easter Monday, David. :D
. . . At which point I step in with my “Deputy Head” mortar board on, stern expression on my face and piece of chalk in hand ready to throw at the next unruly miscreant: Chris, David, by all means continue this discussion you have going, but before you do, I’d like you to both take a moment before you post your next replies, read what you’ve written, and make sure everything stays civil. Thus far it has (just about), and I’m sure it’ll continue to do so, but please bear in mind that this isn’t IMDB, or even a message board full stop. It’s Trent’s site, and he works bloody hard on it, and therefore commenting, while encouraged, should be seen as a privilege, not a right. Informed debate enhances the content of the site, so as long as that’s what you’re engaging in, we’re all good. Personally speaking – and I’m not saying this has happened yet, or that it will – insults and arguments, even if written in jest, can make for uncomfortable reading, and I’d hate to see anyone – regular reader or passer-by – put off the site because of a stray comment.
Gentlemen: as you were.
I honestly think most of our respective posts were civil, and as far as I’m concerned, my few personal jibes were made in good humor–and I was merely returning David’s serve. With interest.
I’m all for good manners, but not when they get in the way of communication. Do we say what we mean, or don’t we? Insults, of course, can get in the way just as much. But frankness can often be interpreted as rudeness, and of course it isn’t.
Or if it is, we must really like rude writers. Richard Stark, for example. In a mock interview Westlake wrote, featuring himself, Richard Stark, Tucker Coe, and Timothy J. Culver, here’s what Stark has to say about Raymond Chandler–“His sentences were too fat.” “He was interested in literature. That’s the worst thing that can happen to a writer.”
And in the same interview, here’s Westlake on Ross MacDonald–“He must have terrific carbon paper.”
Now Westlake was not writing this online, so he could not resort to smiley faces to tell us he was kidding. And quite honestly, I don’t think he quite exactly was, but I’m sure he still respected the contributions of these two gentlemen of a rival school, the latter of which quite certainly outsold him. In my opinion, both opinions are spot-on. Oh, and MacDonald was still very much alive and typing when that interview was published.
I will avoid any further personal remarks concerning Mr. Plante, and if he directs any my way, I shall simply refrain from responding at all. Say this much for IMDb, they have a delightful feature called the ‘ignore button’ that simplifies one’s life immensely. ;)
Most of yours and David’s posts have indeed been civil, Chris, and so long as you’re both taking the jibes (and the frankness) in the spirit in which they’re intended, I’m sure you’ll both be fine.
Nick, thanks for the semblance of reality in an otherwise truly bizarre 24 hours. By the way, I asked this before, but doubt you read it: have you ever read Paco Taibo’s Hector Shayne series? Or Manuel Vasquez Montalban’s Pepe Carvalho series? I am just curious as I respect your critiques and was wondering if you thought them as well written as I.
Chris:
Chris, Chris, Chris…
Chris…
I am honestly at a loss for words.
You REALLY seem to have an obsessive need to qualify your beliefs. I’m beginning to think there is something far more serious at the core of this need than I suspected before. So I’m not going to go over a point by point response to your slamming my ideas. I feel I expressed my take quite succinctly in my earlier post.
I did however phone a good friend who is a licenced Psychologist AND Stark fan and had him view the last few series of “debates” we’ve had here on IMDB and TVWOP and his conclusions are quite revealing. BTW, his comments on your assesment of how we are born what we are and more or less that’s it were quite harsh but I reminded him you ARE a Stark fan so some slack should be given on your lack of current psychological perspective.
I’ve expressed this before but I’ll say it again, Chris, there’s a thing called civility. Even in my last post, which I disagreed with you on a number of subjects,I included how intelligent you are and whether I agree with you or not, I am pleased you post here. It does liven things up.
I’m kind of used to being at the receiving end of your jibes and put-downs. Sometimes I think they’re good-natured. Sometimes not. I realized recently that no one, not Trent, not Nick, not I, NO ONE will ever get the last word where you’re concerned, so that must be understood beforehand before replying to one of your posts.
The “ignore” option, which you used on IMDB simply because I called you on the fact that you were criticizing films you hadn’t seen, much as I caught you criticizing books you haven’t read here on TVWOP, simply says to me you blot someone out of your life when they have the balls to disagree with you.
I choose to not use the “ignore” option. When I smell something that reeks of BS, I call you on it.
David, David, David.
If you don’t have anything to say, why take so long saying it?
:)
Chris, I’d retort with a snappy comeback but I’m putting the finishing touches on my first guest post for The Violent World of Parker. It’s called:
Parker: The Man with the Soul of a Flat-Billed Platypus.
Hee. Good one. And still waiting for you to respond to a single one of my points. Do you think you could manage it before we all die of old age? :)
Also, isn’t it DUCK-billed platypus? More accurate AND funnier. And then you could have sequed over to a Phineas and Ferb ref. Honestly, maybe you should just let me write your responses for you. :)
Sigh. I give up.
To answer your question though, David: nope, I haven’t read ether of those series. They look intriguing, though. Worth giving them a try, you think?
Nick, they really are great books. I can’t recommend them enough. Carvalho is something of a national treasure in Spain, especially Barcelona, his stomping grounds. An ex-Communist, Ex-CIA, lover of gourmet food. He uses the books he once relished as firewood because he thinks they decieved him about reality. His girlfriend is a prostitute named Charo. There are quite a few of them, and quite a few have been translated to English. I actually liked the series so much, I started learning how to read/speak Spanish, to read the ones nottranslated yet, which is an amazing feat if you knew how lazy I am;-)
The Hector Belascoaran Shayne books also have a political literary bent. Shayne is a factory worker who quits his job after stopping a notorious serial killer in Mexico City and becomes sort of the “People’s PI”. The books are very well written and of much substance. Shayne is in no way a Mexican “Spenser”. He’s a unique character who is very human and very endearing, it’s hard not to root for this guy. He usually goes up against Mexico’s, and the USA’s, vastly powerful industrial criminals on behalf of the little guy and, quite realistically for a detective series, usually winds up getting his ass kicked, bones broken, even one of his eyes shot out.
Most if the Shayne books have been translated and published in very handsome trade paperback editions.
Chris, what else can I say? I liked your article. I just have a different opinion on some of your points. Trust me, life will go on. Put down the revolver;-) lol
Hey, don’t be such a baby. It only has five bullets. Won’t hurt a bit. :)
I’m fine with the different opinion, seriously. I’m just still waiting for actual counter-points to be made. And apparently will wait forever. :(
Chris, I can’t put my ass through another round of reading your article and scribbling detailed notes. It hasn’t forgiven me for the first time I sat through the thing.
To be honest, the main thing I recall about your post was how well it was written, and admiring your obvious love of wildlife, which is something we have in common. In my earlier post I think I mentioned the couple of odd things I had issues with. But they weren’t huge things.
One could view the character of Parker through numerous prisms, and I think someone could imagine certain things in Parker’s childhood/past that caused him to be who he is, or someone conceding he may have had a perfectly normal childhood but just may lack the moral compulsions that would inhabit most of us from doing what he does. Or the character could even be thought of as someone who secretly isn’t human at all…
Those theories, plus yours, are all equally valid, I just don’t see why it has to be ONLY yours and no one else’s.
It just seems it’s pigeon-holing a great character who can be viewed through many different frames of reference.
You have a distinct love of wilflife, so you’re melding that with your appreciation of the character.
Perhaps a Sci-Fi junkie who has a love of alien life forms may conclude, since Parker behaves so little like most other human beings, he is actially from another planet altogether, and imagines an elaborate backstory to foster THAT belief.
Or any other of the multitudes of theories.
Yours is no more or less valid than mine, Trent’s or anyone else’s. Except DEW. But he’s not spilling any beans, is he? And maybe he kept so much about Parker private information so we could all have a richer context to appreciate him?
Sounds good to me.
Okay, first of all, are you David Plante, or another David entirely? I can’t see why someone would post here under two similar names, but the recurrent ass-reference has me wondering. :)
I think I’ve already made it clear–in the article and subsequently–that I am doing precisely what you say, using this notion of Parker the Wolf Man as a lens (not really a prism) through which to view a truly anomalous fictional character–I set this up in the first piece, by listing all the things that make Parker unique both among both real and fictional humans, in the crime genre or really anywhere else.
I said upfront that I don’t think Westlake set out to create a Wolf Man, per se–he would be wary of any such gimmick–but I do think that over time, he began to see more clearly what he had created–that instinctively, he’d stumbled onto something bigger than just a tough guy.
Parker simply isn’t human, and many before me have made that observation. I just felt the recurrent words used–‘robot’, ‘sociopath’, ‘alien’, ‘ice-man’, etc, didn’t match up with the guy we see in the novels. ‘Wolf’ did. Even down to the business of a cyclical sex drive, which really is something out of science fiction–which you’ll recall Westlake wrote quite a fair bit of, and only stopped because he was straining against what he perceived as the limits of the genre–too much about ideas, not enough about people. I don’t think SF always has to be that way, but back in the Mid-60’s, it wasn’t an unfair observation. All genres have their failings, and their cliches, and Westlake needed to find a place where he could best express his own personal vision, in his own personal style.
Still, you look at what Ursula LeGuin came up with in “The Left Hand of Darkness”, you see that in a science fiction story, you’d have to EXPLAIN Parker’s sexual quirk, go into detail about it. In a crime novel, Westlake just throws it out there, and lets us make what we will of it. And you can see what I made of it. I’ve yet to see anyone else come up with anything resembling a satisfactory explanation of why Parker behaves the way he does, regarding sex or anything else. I think Westlake always wanted the ambiguity–both in the sense of why Parker is that way, and how we should feel about it. A lot is left up to the reader. And I’m writing here as a reader, but coming at it from a somewhat different perspective than most other readers.
It’s hard to imagine any kind of early life that, in and of itself, could make Parker into the man he is when we first meet him. Westlake had to have known that, and that’s one reason he told us almost nothing about Parker’s origins–they are necessarily vague and undefined–you might as well write an origin story for The Man With No Name in those Sergio Leone films. He’s a mystery in himself, and he’s supposed to be. I think he would have remained a mystery, if Westlake had written another 24 novels about him. We’re not supposed to know, but we’re allowed to guess. And Westlake was guessing along with the rest of us–I’ve read enough interviews with him to know that he himself was often baffled by Parker–saw him as something that had existed before Westlake got to him, and he was just bringing him out in more detail than past storytellers. The old idea of how the sculptor senses the figure inside the block of wood or marble, and just chips away the unnecessary parts.
So sure, I’m guessing–I said so. I don’t think all guesses are equal, though. Forgive my being stubborn on this point, but I do think you need more than just an opinion, based mainly on personal projections. You need arguments, based on the known facts, and I think I provided some. And what I’m looking for–seriously, HOPING for–is good solid arguments for some other ‘prism’–which would provide a real test for my own thesis. I’m just not seeing them. But I must acknowledge that it’s not necessary to have an opinion on why Parker is the way he is in order to enjoy the novels, and get something out of them.
Westlake used Parker to reveal the inherent weaknesses of human nature–that Parker himself isn’t mainly susceptible to. By identifying with Parker, we’re stepping far outside ourselves, into a mindset so different from our own–even from that of any criminal–that we get perspective–we see how we look to him. And boy do we not look good.
One perspective I have problems with, however, is people just seeing the books as pure wish-fulfillment. “If I had the guts, I could be like that.” No, you couldn’t. You could be a criminal, sure. You could be selfish, murderous, unfeeling–easy peasy for a human–but Westlake made sure we understood that humans like that are nothing like Parker–different outlooks.
Lots of people in Parker’s world have guts. And they usually end up spilling them all over the floor. Because we’re always our own worst enemies. Because we’re afraid of the truth about ourselves. Parker knows the truth about himself, and he’s fine with it. We’re the only animal that hides from its own nature.
You say I love nature. Truth is, I fear it. And admire it. And respect it. Because one of these days, it’s going to take us out. Snuff us like a candle. We think all this technology makes us powerful, we think we’ve subjugated creation, but one of these days we’ll find out like Jimmy Cagney in Public Enemy–we ain’t so tough.
As an aside, there aren’t many fictional leading characters in crime fiction series who are as mysterious as Parker, wouldn’t everyone agree?
I thought Travis McGee was mysterious, but JDM revealed a truckload of info on McGee’s history before we meet him in The Deep Blue Goodbye compared to Parker!
Entirely different type of character. MacDonald clearly wanted us to know EVERYTHING about McGee. The only mystery is how he doesn’t get hoarse from all that talking. :)
This is simply not true. There are hints dropped throughout the series about some very life-changing experiences that McGee endured which helped create many facets of his personality, such as his inability to sustain long-term relationships with women, the reason he became a salvage consultant, and his paranoia. JDM tantalized us, but never revealed everything about McGee’s past. He actually revealed quite little. One of the pleasures of reading a new McGee was the hope of gleaning some new biographical facts anout him.
McGee goes into such detail about his reactions to everything, I don’t honestly feel there’s that much mystery to him, but clearly MacDonald was too smart a writer not to leave a little room for wondering. I posthumously apologize to him for not realizing that.
Yes, I’m the same guy.
I began posting as Dave but found out there’s another Dave here, so I just switched to DAVID PLANTE. Sometimes when I reply, for some reason, the name field is already completed with “Dave” and I forget to rewrite it.
I don’t have a problem with anything you just wrote, Chris. You have a strong viewpoint and you sat down and wrote, quite skillfully, the points that flesh out your theory.
One of my best friends works as a Psychiatrist, particularly in the field of helping people overcome instances of abuse–sexual, but other types too–in their childhood. I’ve known him quite a while and he shares some of his cases with me–no names, just case histories–and the extent of what people can do to each other, especially their own offspring, is more chilling than any horror film you can see at the local cineplex. We also trade book recommendations as he’s a voracious reader like myself. I lent him a few Starks to get the ball rolling and he was hooked.
He had some pointed comments about what could have happened to a character like Parker to create the persona he uses in adult life. There are even psychiatric names for some of them, most of which I’ve forgotten, I know one is soemthing about grand narcissistic something or other.
But anyways, he had a few theories about what could have made the character such as he is. And he definitely thinks there isn’t a reasonably functional human alive that to some degree or another isn’t an amalgammation of numerous experiences, fears, desires, hopes, etc., including many strong memory imprints ffrom childhood, that create their adult psyche. I would imagine he would make an exception, to some degree, for someone who is mentally challenged, or say someone with Down’s Syndrome, although, frankly, I could be wrong about that, and wouldn’t dare put words in his mouth.
Anyway, I doubt he’d take the time to write a treatment for TVWOP concerning what “makes” Parker, Parker. He’s a fan, but he doesn’t get into stuff like this as we obviously do;-) lol He probably would have some choice comments about our shared mania concerning a fictional character;-) lol
I haven’t come to a final decision, personally, about what makes Parker tick. It’s too much fun speculating. For a while I might employ my friend’s theories, and for a while I might employ yours, and maybe I’ll come across some of my own. I’m a conspiracy theorist so maybe I’ll imagine Parker as a Project MKULTRA escapee.
Eithr way, it sure is fun speculating.
I think the very last thing Parker can be described as is a narcissist, and I don’t believe his essential nature could be changed (merely shaped), but I’d be delighted to argue the point with him sometime. He must know that there is a long-standing debate in psychological circles about the role of nature vs. nurture–most would agree that both are vitally important, but there’s usually an emphasis on one or the other. Somebody whose job it is to try and fix the problems created by a difficult childhood and later experiences is clearly going to put more emphasis on the latter. Which makes him less than fully objective on the subject.
Problem is, for a long time this meant that psychiatrists were trying to ‘cure’ gay people. Their sexuality was considered a mental disorder. In A Jade in Aries, which takes place mainly inside the gay enclave of Greenwich Village in the 1960’s, Mitch Tobin expresses his belief (clearly obtained through reading literature written by your friend’s predecessors) that improper parenting causes homosexuality–bit of a shock to read that now, but it was a common assumption then. It’s only recently that other branches of science have found out that trying to cure gayness is like trying to cure lefthandedness–oh right, people used to try and cure that as well. I’m a southie myself, and If I’d been born a generation earlier, I might have had quite an unpleasant time of it–well, more unpleasant.
Here’s a brief quote from Wikipedia (you can see what an expert I am on this)–
“Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder[1] in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. [2] First formulated in 1968, it was historically called megalomania, and it is closely linked to egocentrism.”
Does that sound like Parker to you?
My opinion is that your friend focused in on what was familiar to him about Parker’s behavior, or seemed to be, and pigeonholed him–imagining how he might help such a man if he ever came under his care. But in so doing, he had to block out all the things that didn’t fit his diagnosis. It’s his training, and I’m not in any way impugning his expertise, but then I’m not impugning the expertise of his predecessors who thought you became gay because your mommy coddled you too much and dad was a poor role model.
So anyway, what did he think of The Green Eagle Score? ;)
I’m not sure the Grand Narcisstic thing came from him–he threw a bunch of psychological terms at me that got jumbled in my brain quite quickly. I may have read the Grand Narcisstic thing somewhere and inadvertantly implanted it in that conversation with Kevin.
I’m not touching that with a ten foot pole, Dave. :)
By the way, since DEW endorsed the nurture side of the coin in Jade in Aries, that would indicate DEW’d probably agree with my friend over you;-)
As far as my friend not being objective about nature/nurture … wow, you have some serious balls, Chris. Out of every single human being I’ve encountered in my 38 years of inhabiting this planet, YOU are the least objective person I’ve interacted with. I’ve never seen you back down one inch from any idea you endorse, ever. There are times when I realized I was wrong, and there are times I’ve gone out of my way to look at an idea from another’s perspective, both of which there’s ample evidence right here on this site, but you have such a grandiose opinion of your own intellectual infallibility that you need not imagine any other alternative to a given connundrum once you’ve procalimed your “verdict” from on high. You make folks like Rush Limbaugh and Catherine Coulter shrinking violets by comparison;-) lol
Yeah, because Westlake so totally thought being gay and being Parker were the same thing. ;)
It’s not such a firm endorsement–Tobin basically admits he could be wrong. It’s really just a way to have him stress out over whether he’s being such a bad father that his own son might turn out gay. But as the novel progresses–well, have you read it?
You’re confusing being objective with being wishy-washy. It’s not objectivity to say “Well, you could be right” when somebody hasn’t made an argument of any kind. I admitted going in that I could be wrong, but I made my arguments, and I don’t back down from them without a fight. Now if somebody would just GIVE me a fight.
Dude, you started out saying “I know people like Parker”, and then you say “This therapist I know says he can explain Parker”, then you’re all “I may have gotten what he said confused with something else.” That’s not objective. That’s just CONFUSED.
Give me something to work with here. There’s no point reading books about tough guys if you can’t at least be tough-MINDED.
When did I say I know people like Parker? I think I said I know people who are predatory and have little scruples.
If DEW were on the side of nurture causing homesexuality, it’d be logical to assume he’d believe nurture could have made Parker the way he is.
I’m not confusing objective to be wishy washy, I’m just saying you have no respect for anyone’s opinion but your own.
Oh, Chris, believe me, I’d LOVE to give you a fight;-) lol
I know you would, but so far, you haven’t. :)
Crime fiction is full of people who are predatory and have few scruples. You agree Parker is different. You don’t seem to be able to put your finger on why. I think I did.
Westlake (writing as Tucker Coe) may well have gone into A Jade in Aries believing that homosexuality is caused by bad parenting. Or he may not. The fact that Tobin says he believes this is not proof that Westlake concurs, since Tobin is an unreliable narrator, who is hiding from his own emotions much of the time, and often says things the reader isn’t necessarily supposed to take at face value, If you read the novel (and I highly recommend it), you’ll find that the gay characters he populated it with don’t agree with that conclusion–that they can speak for themselves, and they are so richly individual that you just can’t see them merely as products of bad upbringings–they obviously had very different childhood experiences, that led them to the same place. And since we know now that people are born with certain tendencies that lead them to become gay, this is a bad argument any way you slice it.
Tolstoy started to write Anna Karenina with the notion that she was a bad woman who was going to get what was coming to her. The best writers don’t let their opinions get in the way of listening to their people. Westlake listened very closely to Parker–he had to, because Parker says so little about himself.
Narcissists never stop talking about themselves. Now maybe that’s not what your friend said Parker was, but what did he say? You want me to accept an argument I haven’t even heard, coming from somebody I don’t know, who is in a profession that is very far from being an exact science?
Let me point something out–if Westlake had wanted to say “Parker is the way he is because of things that happened to him”, don’t you think he’d have TOLD us something of what happened to him? You look at other violent criminal characters in this genre, you generally find out a lot about their past. We know almost nothing about Parker’s past. That’s no accident. That’s by design. By telling us nothing of Parker’s past, Westlake is saying “The past isn’t important to Parker, the way it is to us.” And the explanation for that is that Parker isn’t one of us.
Dammit, Chris, don’t you listen??? I TOLD you already, Parker is the man with the soul of a Flat Billed Platypus. You schmuck;-) lol
Which makes about as much sense as calling him a narcissist, when he doesn’t even care what face he’s wearing. ;)
I wish I’d never wrote that post: I clearly pulled that Narcissist thing out of MY ass. I don’t know why I picked that term, I’m almost 100% sure Kevin (my social worker/psychologist friend) didn’t use it. I’m seeing him next week and I’ll ask him again what makes Parker, Parker.
Not that I’m subscribing to his theory any more than yours, although they’re both solid. Actually, both theories are too pat for me. If Parker were a real, walking talking man, I think the answer would be more complex. People are just never that simple–and yes, Chris, Parker was still human, even if he wasn’t like the rest of us.
Whatever it is, once you look more closely, it will turn out not to fit certain aspects of his behavior. Guaranteed. I fully agree any specific theory, mine included is never going to really nail down Parker. He’ll always get away. But I honestly think I got a piece of him before he slipped off.
People keep calling him a robot, and you don’t seem to have a problem with that. Wolves are at least related to us. We share something in common with everything that lives on this planet. Parker’s approach to life simply isn’t human. His thought processes don’t resemble that of any other human in fiction or reality. Maybe he’s a throwback to ‘primitive’ man, but you’d have to go back pretty far in the evolutionary process to find somebody that uncomplicated and instinct-driven. And even our earliest human ancestors didn’t have cyclical sex drives, as a wolf does.
It’s fine you’re not convinced, but again, you just don’t seem to have any counter-argument to make. If you post again without making an argument, I’ll take that as your admission you don’t have one, and we can let this thread go for a while, at least until you talk to your social worker friend. Who sounds like the kind of guy who’d probably die in a Parker novel. Actually, so do you. ;)
Chris, can I ask you a serious question?
Do you wear a werewolf mask and Spongebob Squarepants Underoos while you’re chasing your boyfriend around your apartment? With “Monster Mash” blasting in the background? AWWWOOOO, I’m Chris Lyons the wolf-man, GRRR!!!
Yeah, Parker’s a wolf-man. That’s why DEW has him licking his balls and squatting to take a dump in his backyard.
You dumbass;-)
Dave, can I ask you a serious question?
Are you like five years old? :)
PS: Let’s take this back to IMDb. I will not respond to you here anymore. Period.
Yeah, a bit of your own medicine hurts, don’t it bro?
You hint I’m gay becuase I quote-unquote like my noir heroes single, you accuse me of thinking with my ass, you state me and my psychologist friend should be dead, etc., etc., etc… simply because we have a different take on what makes Parker tick.
But you can’t stand a little, excuse the pun, “Payback”.
Just like I’ve always known, that bullies are the most cowardly lot imaginable.
Press the “ignore” button, Chris, because I’m here on TVWOP to stay, and ain’t goin’ NOWHERE unless Trent asks me to, understood.
P.S. If I’m five years old than you’re one, because nobody acts more like a spoiled baby than you, Wolfsy.
Pretty sure we stepped over the civility line a while back now, guys, so please either knock it on the head, or take it elsewhere. As I said before: this isn’t a message board, and neither Trent nor I have the time – or indeed the inclination – to police the comments. If you respect what Trent’s been doing with the site all these years, and my meagre recent contributions, I’d ask you to also respect this request.
For the love of Mike.
I haven’t checked in for awhile, and I come back and get this?
Please stop. Folks can argue all they want at the VWOP Yahoo group, which is not moderated. But here? This isn’t the tone I want and this isn’t the place for it. Take it elsewhere.