Remco van Vliet, Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Floral Designer

As the in-house floral designer for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Remco van Vliet creates five huge arrangements for the museum’s Great Hall each week. Via the WSJ, he talks about his inspiration and his favorite flowers:

“In Holland, flower arranging is as much a science as an art. Master florists study for seven years, learning flowers’ names in four languages, including Latin. Mr. van Vliet’s father, who had a shop that often worked for the Dutch royal family, taught such courses and trained his sons. Rem, as friends call him, came to New York in 1994 and found work at a wholesaler, but his floral pedigree eventually led Chris Giftos, the longtime floral arranger at the Met, to look him up when he needed a replacement. Mr. van Vliet apprenticed to Mr. Giftos for seven years, succeeding him in 2003.” – read more at WSJ


Graffiti Artist David Choe, Facebook Millionaire

Meet the unlikely Facebook millionaire. In 2005, graffiti artist David Choe was hired to paint murals on the walls of Facebook’s first offices in Palo Alto, Calif., by then Facebook’s president Sean Parker. As pay, Parker offered the San Jose artist a choice between cash in the “thousands of dollars,” or the equivalent in stock. Choe, who has said that at the time that he thought the idea of Facebook was “ridiculous and pointless,” decided to pick the option of Facebook stock. With the upcoming Facebook IPO, Choe’s payment will be valued at $200 million. In reaction to this news, he called himself “the most highest paid decorator alive” on his blog. “Like” Choe on Facebook, and take a look at his Facebook murals:


Brad Pitt on his Moneyball Oscar Nomination

Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Brad Pitt on Moneyball, the Oscars – and giving up dope” was written by Jeremy Kay, for The Guardian on Thursday 2nd February 2012 20.00 UTC

Brad Pitt pops his head through the balcony doorway and stage-whispers my name. He bounds round to shake hands and surveys the cauldron below that is Hollywood Boulevard. No fuss. No fanfare. No harried flunkies with clipboards listing the dos and don’ts. Just one of the most recognisable men on the planet in a black jumpsuit and sneakers. And me. And a bodyguard as tall as a sequoia outside the hotel room. “How ya doing?”

And then the deluge. I had heard of Pitt’s lively curiosity, his passion for architecture, philanthropy, his catholic taste in reading material. I didn’t know about the delivery system – a lava flow articulated in a deep, rural drawl: “Who lives there next to the hotel? How shall we arrange the chairs? Is that shorthand? You don’t see that much. How does it work? Ask me anything.”

If Pitt could somehow flit from place to place as easily as he does in conversation, life would be a lot simpler. In fact, mapping a route from point to point is a daily logistical conundrum. “My destinations are determined by parking lots,” he says, fresh-faced, neat-goateed. Today, a warm Friday in late January, he has made the tinted-window dash from the nearby Hollywood Hills compound he shares with Angelina Jolie and their six children.

Three days before, Pitt, 48, received the third and fourth Academy Award nominations of his career, earning recognition as producer and star of Moneyball. The movie took six nominations in all, while Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life, in which he also stars, went home with three.

“We’re so defined by the last success or the last failure that we even start to see ourselves that way,” says Pitt. “You’ve got these awards and there’s going to be one winner and four losers, but the four losers made great films. A subtle point of Moneyball is that we’re a string of successes and failures. Odds are I won’t have another year like this one for a while.”

Let’s hope the odds preclude another production history as tortuous as that of Moneyball. Based on Michael Lewis’s book Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, the film recounts how baseball team Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane used unorthodox statistics to allow the struggling club to compete with the best. Steven Soderbergh left the project and it took Pitt, one of three producers, five years to get it up and running again. He is quick to praise Sony Pictures for its faith in the project. Uber-producer Scott Rudin is less circumspect. Pitt, Rudin said in a recent interview, “saved it single-handedly”.

Why did he fight for it? “Well,” he says, a lazy grin unfolding across his face. “I just worked on it for so damn long. I’ve been on that end of the experience a couple of times. The main character is a guy who’s been devalued by the sport and is playing what he called an unfair game. And they go up against conventional wisdom and get called heretics in the process. At the end of the day this guy who’s trying to win games is really trying to find his own values.” He laughs. “Come on, man, that’s good stuff.”

When Pitt met Beane he discovered “a funny fucker, sharp as a knife”, who shunned the limelight. “He reminded me of the characters I loved from 70s films. When I started in film I was taught that you had to have a character arc and there had to be an epiphany. As years go by I have found that to be utter bullshit. We don’t really change; we evolve in degrees and what I love about these characters from the 70s like Popeye Doyle is they were the same beast at the end of the film as they were at the beginning. I do love obsessive characters. I get off on watching that.”

Pitt has been in the business for 20 years now. He moved to Los Angeles from Springfield, Missouri, and paid his dues for a couple of years doing commercials and extra work. His first big break came when he played a horny cowboy in Ridley Scott’s Thelma and Louise in 1991. “That was the first time I was let into the show,” he says. “I remember thinking, ‘Oh, that’s how I come off.’ I felt it could have had more weight.”

After Thelma and Louise, Pitt became a household name through a string of roles in A River Runs Through It (“the first time I felt pressure”), Kalifornia (“my first attempt at character work”), Interview With the Vampire (“I was miscast”) and Legends of the Fall (“my first lead – they took a gamble on me”). Then he took a year off. “I was waiting to find something really interesting and that wait led me to [David] Fincher and Seven.

“Initially I’d read three pages of the script and put it down. A friend told me to finish it and I did and I met Finch and we were automatically talking the same language. When I got accepted to do Seven I had it written into the contract that the head stays in the box at the end. And that [Pitt's character] kills John Doe. When the premiere ended they flicked on the bright lights too quickly and people got up with this distasteful look on their faces and left. Finch and I looked at each other and said: ‘What have we done?’”

That same year Pitt earned his first Oscar nomination for supporting actor in Twelve Monkeys. “I think I was forced on Terry [Gilliam],” Pitt says with a coy smile. “I got the first half dead-on, but I flunked the second.” He is more scathing about Meet Joe Black, which came out three years later in 1998: “I flatlined in that one.” The reunion with Fincher on Fight Club in 1999 resulted in Tyler Durden, a suitably anarchic end to a tumultuous, star-making decade. “The story was so outrageous … that was just one of those rewarding experiences for all the other difficult ones that preceded it.”

By the end of the 90s, Pitt was awash in the trappings of celebrity but says he hankered after greater focus and fulfilment. “I’d smoked a lot of weed. I was professional at it. I wasn’t participating in life. I was smoking myself into a doughnut, a mollusc. I got disgusted with it.” Then he quit marijuana. “At the end I came to the very simple conclusion that I wanted to make things and be a part of stories that were personal and that I could bring value to and if I got this opportunity, to contribute something to the zeitgeist of film-making.”

The following decade continued to stimulate and, by and large, please the critics. There was a recurring role in Soderbergh’s Ocean franchise, Troy, Alejandro González Iñárritu‘s Babel, Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, the Coen brothers’ Burn After Reading and a third Fincher film, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which resulted in Pitt’s first lead actor Oscar nomination. His five-year marriage to Jennifer Aniston ended shortly after the summer 2005 release of Mr and Mrs Smith, where he met and fell in love with Jolie. “That was a monumental change for more reasons than one. Six plus one, to be exact. I think that film has merit, too. It’s really good fun.”

By the middle of the decade Pitt was flexing his producer muscles. “Instead of sitting there waiting for projects to come in, I wanted to start exploring stories that interested me.” Pitt’s new production company, Plan B, made its first deal, acquiring the script for The Departed, which would go on to win four Oscars, including Martin Scorsese’s first for best director.

Since then Plan B has produced, among others, A Mighty Heart, starring Jolie, Kick-Ass and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, with Pitt in the lead. “Jesse James is absolutely one of my favourites, and I think the more it decants the better it gets,” he says softly. “About three other people think that as well, but I think it’s got legs. It’s elegant. Andrew Dominik is a phenomenal director.”

Pitt reunited with the Australian film-maker last year to play an underworld fixer in Cogan’s Trade. Also on the runway are zombie tale World War Z and a smaller role in Steve McQueen‘s Twelve Years a Slave. “McQueen is the real deal,” he says. “And Fassbender is as good as it gets.” We discuss Fassbender’s prolific workrate and Pitt remarks, “Yeah, it’s like he’s working in the porn industry. He should be, by the way.”

As Pitt pushes 50, his physicality remains, but gone is the mania from his earlier work, in its place a more contemplative kinship with the obsessive characters he seems to feel most affinity towards. Being a producer has allowed him to cheerlead work of personal relevance. Does he think he’s a good actor? “I think I’ve become one,” he says, adding that being a father of six has created the need “not to embarrass myself in front of my kids”.

There are deep reserves of goodwill for Pitt in the industry and recognition that, with Moneyball and The Tree of Life, he has quietly solidified a mighty, eccentric career, one that has embraced with equanimity gems and howlers, box-office smashes and lo-fi treasures. “I’m very sporadic, but I think I’ve got some skills now. What I’m lacking is the weight of some of the actors I like and maybe I’ll focus on that.” He waits a beat, unleashes a killer grin. “I’m so damn affable, it’s disgusting.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.


Adele to sing at the Grammys

Her retirement has been short lived. British soul singer Adele is to make her much-awaited comeback after throat surgery at the upcoming Grammys show, organisers of the music industry awards bash said.

Adele, who is nominated for six awards, including three of the key categories at the February 12 show, has been out of action since October when a throat problem forced her to cancel all engagements for the rest of the year.

“I’m immensely proud to have been asked to perform at this year’s Grammy Awards,” said Adele, whose hits include Someone Like You and Rolling in the Deep, in a statement issued by Grammys organisers The Recording Academy.

“It’s an absolute honour to be included in such a night, and for it to be my first performance in months is very exciting and of course nerve-racking, but what a way to get back into it all,” she added.

Adele (23) has continued to attract awards nominations and wins despite being dogged by her health problems last year, and was second only to Kanye west in Grammys nods. The US rapper is up for seven prizes.

The Grammys, the music industry’s top star-studded awards bash, will also feature performances from pop legend Paul McCartney, as well as Coldplay, Rihanna, the Foo Fighters, Bruno Mars, Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift.


New flagship Louis Vuitton store has its own movie theater

Louis Vuitton has reached back into Italy’s rich cinema history and meshed it with their forays into music videos and short films.

The luxury fashion brand has opened its new flagship store in Rome within Etoile, the city’s first cinema. The new location celebrates the history of Italian cinema. It includes a library and 19-seat screening room.

The Etoile was built in 1907. The Louis Vuitton Maison Etoile Rome store fills three floors in a Baroque-style interior and has a staircase that resembles a film strip.

lv-rome1 lv-rome2


“Paris Versus New York” A Tally Of Two Cities

We generally give up picture books as we age but perhaps that’s a shame. Sometimes a series of witty pictures can brighten and inform our world more than a whole stack of prose. Sometimes we just need to look. Vahram Muratyan, a freelance art director and graphic designer began making prints comparing the city he lived in, Paris, and the city he often visited, New York, and putting them on his blog, Paris Vs. NYC in 2010. The blog was a sort of travel journal which turned into a series of 105 illustrations that tell the story of each city with comparisons like bagel versus baguette, Bordeaux versus Cosmopolitan and Amelie versus Carrie.

The style is colorful and simple and the pairings inspire more than a chuckle or two. The book is a playful look not just at the two cities but about the things that define cultures. What we eat, who we admire, where we shop, these things and more define cultural identity in ways that we don’t often consider. New Yorkers and Parisians will smile knowingly.

The book, published by Penguin is on sale January 31 for $20. Should you want a larger version of one of the illustrations, Society 6 is also selling prints of some of the favorite illustrations online.

parisvnewyork parisvnyc1 parisvsnyc2 parisnyc3 Paris Versus New York


Golden Spider Silk Cape on Exhibit in London

An amazing golden cape made from the silk of spiders has gone on display at London’s Victoria and Albert Museum. It took more than four years to make the four-metre-long hand-woven textile from the silk of 1.2million female golden orb spiders, native to Madagascar.

It was made by Englishman Simon Peers and American Nicholas Godley, both of whom have lived and worked in Madagascar for many years. Spiders were collected every morning before silk is extracted from them by trained handlers. They were returned to the wild at the end of each day.

The process is extremely laborious – on average, 23,000 spiders are needed to create about 28 grams of silk, according to the museum.

The last known spider silk textile was made for an exhibition in Paris in 1900 but no examples remain.

The textile is on show at the museum from Jan. 25 to June 5.


Elmore Leonard: the great American novelist

Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Elmore Leonard: the great American novelist” was written by Philip Hensher, for The Guardian on Friday 27th January 2012 22.55 UTC

The best novelists create a world around the reader. You can feel it bubbling up in irrepressible invention. So we have “a guy by the name of Booker, a twenty-five-year old super-dude twice convicted felon” in his Jacuzzi when the telephone rings. No one answers it, and Booker gets out of the Jacuzzi. At the other end of the line, a woman, Moselle, asks him to sit down. When he does, she informs him that he’s triggered a bomb in the chair – “when you get up, honey, what’s left of your ass is gonna go clear through the ceiling”. The bomb-disposal boys arrive in their nonchalant way: “Booker said ‘Another one goes hmmmmm. I’m sitting here on high explosives the motherfucker goes hmmmmm.’” Is there a bomb? They can see 10 sticks of dynamite underneath Booker. But they can’t see a fuse. And now Booker really needs to go to the bathroom, and one bomb-disposal guy is talking about his wife Phyllis’s bad behaviour to a waiter in a restaurant. “Phyllis goes, ‘Wally, when we’ve finished dinner, you gonna take us out and introduce us to the dishwasher?’ She goes ‘We really don’t care what your name is as long as you’re here when we want something.’” And there we leave them.

Does Booker get bombed to bits? Oh yes, of course he does, as we find out much later, in passing. The magnificent first chapter of Freaky Deaky is Elmore Leonard at his most audacious, balancing the promise of ultra-violence, a ludicrous situation and a series of more or less cool dudes possessing a perfect, profane articulacy. As in many Leonard novels, the main action is preceded by an eye-popping set piece with limited connection to the story. It takes the unexpected path from beginning to end; it never abandons the possibility of humour, however rough the going; and it casts its sympathies unpredictably. There is no greater writer of crime fiction than Elmore Leonard, and no one who has more resplendent energy.

Leonard has had the classic career of a market-oriented novelist. Born in New Orleans in 1925, but growing up in Detroit, he began by writing novels and short stories in the then popular western genre. During the day, he worked as an advertising copy-writer. When the magazine market for western stories dried up, he turned to crime fiction with The Big Bounce. His stature has grown steadily. With the publication this month of his new novel, Raylan, a revival of an old hero after the success of a TV series, Justified, his mastery of his own particular genre is complete. Anyone can write a plot in which crooks kidnap each other to extract each other’s kidneys; it takes an Elmore Leonard to conceive of one in which the kidneys are sold back to their indignant original owner.

Raylan is unmistakably a late-period work; its texture is spare, even by Leonard’s standards, and it cuts to the chase laconically. The hero-marshal, Raylan, has cropped up before: Leonard likes to save himself time by repeating not just the type of character, but the same character under the same name. Raylan is a drily witty cop who, in another life, might have been a useful and charming armed robber. Like the western sharpshooters of Leonard’s first books, his speciality is shooting several villains more or less simultaneously without blinking an eye. This novel, too, carries on with Leonard’s trademark energy, including some memorable members of the repulsive Crowe family who have previously turned up as pathetic villains; one here has an unbelievable collection of Elvis memorabilia; the other lives in a house so dirty that he entertains himself by shooting the rats in the kitchen and discussing whether it’s worth cooking and eating them afterwards. Like pretty well every Leonard novel, it is a delight.

Though many of his novels have been turned into films, it’s the novels themselves that possess the real crackle and technical command. If you think of the first lines of the great Tishomingo Blues, it is quite unfilmable – “Dennis Lenehan the high diver would tell people that if you put a fifty-cent piece on the floor and looked down at it, that’s what the tank looked like from the top of that eighty-foot steel ladder … when he told this to girls who hung out at amusement parks they’d put a cute look of pain on their faces and say what he did was awesome. But wasn’t it like really dangerous?” A film could show Dennis telling one girl this, on one occasion. The resources that allow a narrator to convey the endless repetition of Dennis’s conversation and the predictable responses, and put it within a dry reported speech, as if Dennis were, bored, half-overhearing himself, are there to be exploited by the novelist of huge technical command.

The beauty of Leonard’s novels can be achieved at the expense of any kind of moral judgment. It’s often been said that it is hard to tell who the good guys and who the bad guys are in his novels. Sometimes, as in Freaky Deaky, you only work out who you might have been rooting for when you see who is left alive at the end. In a world of unbridled criminality, the criminal who carries out his robbery or murder with style and wit is the object of our admiration. Above all, the allure of intelligence and of articulacy carries the day: we tend to like the man who speaks best and most wittily in Leonard, the one who says “motherfucker” with the best timing.

The suspension of moral judgment is particularly relevant when sexual considerations come into play, and rules are momentarily suspended. Out of Sight pivots on a moment in a hotel lobby, when an alluring female marshal bumps into the sexually charged bank robber she has been hunting, and they agree to take time out to repair to a suite upstairs to screw. Sometimes, the characters rise above moral considerations quite consciously. Jackie Burke, talking in an entranced erotic haze to the bail bondsman Max Cherry in Rum Punch, seems like a figure envisaged by Nietzsche, beyond good and evil: “We’re alike. We weren’t before, you were holding back, but now we are. You and I. Could you pass out complimentary tropical punch in little plastic cups? That’s my alternative and it’s unacceptable.” Jackie, an airline stewardess, rises above the mass of humanity just as the magnificent figure of Dennis, the high-diver in Tishomingo Blues does. They look down, and they make choices which may or may not be moral ones but are unconditioned by conventional standards of judgment. This may confuse other characters in Leonard as much as it does the reader. Harry Zimm in Get Shorty, listening to an extended movie pitch based on the pitcher’s life, says: “You know why it doesn’t work? I mean even before I find out you don’t know how it ends. There’s nobody to sympathise with. Who’s the good guy? You don’t have one.” But every page of Get Shorty disproves Zimm’s inadequate maxim: there are no good guys, and the drama works, supremely.

Leonard’s novels are not, especially, thrillers; they are almost completely lacking in the puzzle element and the meretricious wielding of that most boring of novelistic features, mystery. In the end, they are closer to that most joyous of criminal genres, the “caper”. You always know very soon who killed whom, who is in charge of the scam, what the criminal’s plan is. And so do the forces of the law, more often than not. Secrecy is much less interesting than indiscretion – the joke in Pronto is that Harry tells absolutely everybody the story of how he shot a deserter in the war, all of whom faithfully keep the non-secret when Harry is seeking out new acquaintances to blab to. In Mr Paradise, the wrong prostitute is killed, and the villain persuades her friend Kelly – similarly blond and tanned – to pretend to take on her identity for the sake of an insurance payout. In almost any other crime novel, the pretence would be drawn out, and some kind of mystery spun around the perpetrators of the crime. In Mr Paradise, Kelly’s pretence is seen through immediately, and no one is in any doubt from the start that Montez, Mr Paradiso’s sullen major-domo, orchestrated the killings. Mystery is the most banal thing in everyday life. Look out of the window and ask yourself where that man you see is going. It’s a complete mystery, but, like most mysteries, rather a boring one. Leonard has asked why mystery should be any more interesting in fiction, and has concluded that it can be done away with altogether.

The understanding of a situation can be advanced by bizarre and apparently trivial details, in the tradition of Chesterton’s Father Brown. In Mr Paradise, the untrimmed pubic hair of a murder victim acts as a crucial little cog in the powerfully motoring plot. Ezra Pound is crucial to Pronto. In the exuberant Riding the Rap, a kidnap plot is undone by someone noticing some Jell-O. But the unweaving of a dastardly plot is never Leonard’s real concern. What interests him more is the evolving of the impossible before everyone’s astonished eyes – live alligators delivered to judges as threat, leper colonies (Bandits), whisky priests, Heinrich Himmler’s double (Up in Honey’s Room), and on and on even into the supernatural. Profanity aside, it is all a little bit like Gladys Mitchell on occasion.

There is a high degree of irrationality in Leonard. One of the disorienting, as well as exhilarating qualities in the books is the sense that neither narrative laws nor the laws of the world as we know it constrain the action. A pivotal book, Touch, which so disconcerted Leonard’s publishers that a decade elapsed between its writing and its publication in 1987, turns on a stigmatic with the gift of healing – memorably curing every broken bone in his enemy’s body after he has fallen four storeys. Leanne, Bob’s wife in Maximum Bob, is in touch with a long-dead slave girl called Wanda, who brings about the denouement. Perhaps more characteristically, there’s the thrilling presence of a psychic called Reverend Dawn in Riding the Rap, who recurs in Road Dogs; she seems, on the surface, to be a charlatan, something that most of the characters take for granted. Only as the plot proceeds does it become apparent that Dawn knows much more than she should, and the only way she could attain her degree of understanding is through some kind of supernatural means.

Characters who stand outside the normal run of things are Leonard’s stock in trade – miracle workers, gangsters, Nietzschean superwomen, men who dive 80 feet from a platform into a puddle. He’s interested, too, in people below the normal standards of humanity. The dazzling cavalcade of Freaky Deaky centres, in the end, on the monstrous figure of the multi-millionaire Woody, constantly sozzled and lying on his back naked in a swimming pool. Woody’s inability to understand why his scheming houseboy Donnell wants him to amend his will in Donnell’s favour provides some delicious comedy of out-of-focus chatter: “Woody said ‘I guess the place to start, put down I want to cross out Mark’s name and anything in it that has to do with him. Say “As he is no longer a successor co-trustee of the estate.” I’m pretty sure that’s what he was. Put that down under his name, successor co-trustee. But you know something? It must say in there what happens if he dies. I mean before I do.’ Donnell, sitting at the library desk with the green lamp on, said ‘Cross out Mark,’ as he wrote it on a legal pad.”

The comedy of the hopeless and of the inert reaches a sort of climax in the scene in Rum Punch when the three savage “jackboys”, Zulu, Snow and Sweatman, find a rocket launcher in the back of their van to fire at the police trying to arrest them. Their superiority in firepower seems assured, but “‘How to fire the motherfucker,’ Zulu said.” Here’s the problem: none of them went to school much, and they are thrown back on their limited literacy, trying to read the instructions:

Zulu said “‘Re-…’ The fuck is that word there?” Snow said “‘Re-…lease.’ Yeah, it say to release the … something. ‘Release the safe…ty.’”

It’s going to end badly, as the police gather round the van.

Leonard’s work is a very long way from the average crime novel, with its sequence of atrocity, mystery, maverick investigator and solution. He is fascinated, for instance, with the mechanics of writing, and wants his readers to share that interest. Characters investigate the textures of dialogue – “‘How come,’ Raylan said, ‘you can’t answer a question without asking one?’” (Riding the Rap.) They discuss diction in intricate detail – Foley and Buddy reading a newspaper report in Out of Sight: “‘They think you may “flee the country.”‘ ‘I’ve had to run like hell a few times,’ Foley said, ‘but I don’t think I’ve done any fleeing. You ever flee?’ ‘Yeah. I read one time I fled the scene of a robbery.’”

Most strikingly, Leonard often places the action in a context where we are going to have to contemplate the means of narrative. The superb climax of Tishomingo Blues takes place in a civil war battle recreation event where real shootings and staged shootings within a narrative – all within the context of the pretence of the novel, of course – chase each other. Djibouti is strung along a sequence of a pair of film-makers making editing decisions about how to narrate the story the reader is reading.

Most powerful is Get Shorty, accurately described by Martin Amis as “a masterpiece” and surely one of the greatest novels of the century, the American If on a Winter’s Night a Traveller. A dry cleaner fakes his own death and flees to Las Vegas, then LA, with the insurance payout. The protection man who has been fleecing him for years follows him, dropping in first on a Hollywood director who owes a fat wad to a casino. The protection man thinks it’s a good story, and, in the middle of the night, starts pitching it to the director. The novel revolves around at least three film scripts and an enormous extended pitch, and clearly loves its own consideration of the narrative structure. Scenes begin, repeatedly, “Now they were having a drink,” like someone retelling, or telling in advance, a film. Scenes occur in reality then re-occur, mildly or fundamentally jigged, in the pitch and the pitchee’s response – “the scene in the casino … should build a certain amount of tension. The audience is thinking, Jesus, here it comes. They know you’re a tough guy, they want to see how you handle the bodyguard.”

Leonard handles events which occur, are narrated, and then retold in other novels. The celebrated 22nd chapter of Rum Punch, with bags containing various sums of money, or none, being passed and switched around Macy’s ladies’ department, is followed by at least two detailed retellings of what actually happened. Get Shorty, however, is the most intricate meshing of narrative and meta-narrative, concluding with a lovely Calvino-like consideration between Karen, Harry and Chili of how it should end: “Chili didn’t say anything, giving it some more thought. Fuckin endings, man, they weren’t as easy as they looked.”

The violence in Leonard’s action is not dwelt on, but swiftly rendered and passed over. In Pagan Babies, the priest Terry exacts vengeance on some “genocidaires” in Rwanda: “He pulled Chantelle’s pistol out of his cassock and shot Bernard, shattering the bottle he held against his chest … Terry held the pistol at arm’s length on a level with his eyes … and made the sign of the cross with it over the dead. He said ‘Rest in peace, motherfuckers.’” What Leonard loves best is not violence, but the promise of violence expressed with some verbal wit, like the sign in a police station in Mr Paradise: “Too often we lose sight of life’s simple pleasures. Remember, when someone annoys you it takes 42 muscles in the face to frown. But it only takes four muscles to extend your arm and bitch-slap the motherfucker upside the head.” They are surprisingly chaste novels, too, given the weight they place on erotic fascination. It is generally not the novel but the characters that lapse into obscenity, and then it is clearly the character’s way of talking that enchants the novel: the gogo-dancer/drug dealer Cundo is talking to his sexy wife, the Reverend Dawn, from prison, reporting the advice he’s getting from the other cons in the telephone queue. “‘They ask me if I ever stick hamburger in your – I think they saying “twat” and have a pussyburger.’ Dawn said, ‘What else?’” (Road Dogs).

In the absence of detailed description of sex and violence, what fills the novels – joyously, incomparably – is talk. Leonard is rightly celebrated for his mastery of dialogue, but it isn’t exactly a realist rendering. Rather, like PG Wodehouse, or Dickens, or Waugh, he has half-heard and half-invented a totally convincing idiolect. No one ever talked so well in reality as Robert Taylor in Tishomingo Blues, telling the story of his life like a Scheherazade in a silk shirt, chain and pleated slacks: “I never got sent down. I went to Oakland University three years and did some dealing to pay for my tuition and books and shit, but only weed. I wouldn’t sell heroin to students, fuck up their young minds. Lot of ‘em were fucked up to begin with, worrying about what they gonna do when they got out. I took eighteen semester hours of history – ask me a question about it, anything, like the names of famous assassins in history. Who shot Lincoln, Grover Cleveland. I took history cause I loved it man, not to get a job from it.”

One source of Leonard’s eminence is a semi-jocular “10 Rules of Writing“. They constitute good, solid advice on the side of simplicity – “Don’t go into great detail describing places and things. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.” The magic of his own dialogue, however, is that he never underestimates the potential pleasure of the elaborate, high formality and the abstruse in speech. His characters are allowed to explain what they do in dizzying arcana: “A guy calls, he says ‘I like the Vikings and six for five dimes.’ Another guy calls. ‘Harry, the Saints minus seven thirty times.’ He loses, what’s the juice, straight ten percent? If they forget the juice they won’t even get close to the gross.” (Pronto) He allows even the most brutal of his gangsters the right to bicker over terminology – “‘We didn’t kidnap him,’ Louis said, ‘we took him hostage.’” (Riding the Rap). And, most of all, he recognises the relish his characters have for single words, such as the splendid moment when the hangdog houseboy Lloyd comes into his heritage at the end of Mr Paradise and takes the guns to massacre the villains with the words: “I told you this ain’t your bidness.”

Leonard has long been seen as the greatest of crime writers, walking all over even Raymond Chandler, but perhaps the time has come to drop the qualification of genre. In his analysis through laughter of money, crime, spectacle and the play-acting of the powerful, he has created something entirely his own. In his 40-odd novels, his examinations of the way people manipulate language and stories have both recorded and created an aspect of human behaviour. He is just the great American novelist of the great American comedy.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.