Can a good conspiracy thriller really wrap all the loose ends? I think not; that would leave readers too comfortable. Bloodland does not quite tie everything up, and Glynn promises in an interview that accompanies the advance reader's edition of Bloodland that a major character who appears in that book and in Winterland will return.
Here's a bit more from the interview, Glynn on the difference between the thrillers of the 1970s and their present-day successors:
"Back then it was genuinely shocking for people to realize that their government was lying to them. But you can't lose you innocence twice, and now we're not surprised if our governments and corporations lie to us, we expect it even, and often expect them to do much worse, so the key feature we remember from back then — that creepy frisson, that dawning realization of the truth — is no longer what animates the conspiracy thriller. ... But these days, perhaps, it's a question of scale — corporate power, for example, has grown exponentially in the last thirty years. Perhaps it's a question of the inescapable and controlling nature of power in the modern world. These stories, consequently, are as relevant now, it not more so, than ever before."Finally, here's a discussion of Glynn and the golden age of paranoia, with a link to Glynn's further thoughts on the subject.
***
If you read thrillers as well as crime fiction, what are your favorite examples of the genre? What makes a thriller memorable?© Peter Rozovsky 2011
.jpg)
0 Yorumlar