“First, even in the 21st century women find it hard to express anger or disapproval, and so they get tremendous vicarious satisfaction from watching Jack knock some heads off. Second, women, much more than men, are concerned about basic injustice, and they like that Reacher puts things right. They also like that the female characters in the books are all genuine, fully fledged, capable women, not decorative bimbos, and Reacher treats them well. He’s kind of a post-feminist.Read the whole article here.
“And finally, reason No. 4, what makes Jack so attractive is the absolute impossibility of his sticking around. Affairs in the real world are messy — you get found out, you get divorced, you lose your house. But what if you could absolutely guarantee that the guy would stick around for two or three days and then he’d disappear? He’ll never phone, he’ll never write, and you’ll never see him again. That makes him the irresistible boyfriend.”
A more recent interview appeared in The Observer at the weekend.
We at Euro Crime are big Lee Child/Reacher fans and you can read our reviews (all written by women strangely enough) via the bibliography page.
2 comments:
As one of above-mentoined Jack Reacher fans (apart from the most recent book, disappointinly sub-standard) I don't agree with the NYT "reasons for appeal", but there you go. I would not (have) be(en) interested in a boyfriend who would be guaranteed to disappear after a few days. Call me conventional!
I think he's nicer than James Bond, though.
Apparently this resulted from a reading he did in "Scottsdale, Ariz., where the audience consisted almost entirely of women, and at the end he reversed the usual procedure and asked them some questions".
The women thought that a guy sticking around for two or three days and then disappearing; who'd never phone, write, and you'd never see him again makes for an irresistible boyfriend?
I'm with Maxine, that's not b/f material. That's a fling a la Postman Always Rings Twice without the aftermath.
Post a Comment