What do you think?
Rate this book
Lew Archer #1
O alvo móvel
Se alguém pode ser considerado o herdeiro literário de Dashiell Hammett e Raymond Chandler, esse alguém é Ross Macdonald. Assim como seus mestres, Macdonald elevou o romance noir ao mais alto patamar da literatura, destacando-se pela cuidadosa construção de personagens e elaboração de seus perfis psicológicos.
O alvo móvel, lançado em 1949, marca a estréia do detetive Lew Archer, protagonista de quse vinte romances e alguns contos. Ele mesmo se apresenta nas primeiras páginas da trama: "Sou um novo tipo de detetive". Como todo investigador, Archer procura a verdade existente por trás das dissimulações e hipocrisias, mas vai além: com um olhar irônico e o conhecimento de quem já viveu um bocado, ele quer compreender seus suspeitos para descobrir quais são suas motivações.
A história é um expressivo retrato da vida no sul da Califórnia do pós-guerra que une dois universos conflitantes: o do glamour dos endinheirados da fictícia Santa Teresa e o da decadência dos que não possuem nada – muito menos escrúpulos. Tudo regado a pitadas de jazz.
O alvo móvel, lançado em 1949, marca a estréia do detetive Lew Archer, protagonista de quse vinte romances e alguns contos. Ele mesmo se apresenta nas primeiras páginas da trama: "Sou um novo tipo de detetive". Como todo investigador, Archer procura a verdade existente por trás das dissimulações e hipocrisias, mas vai além: com um olhar irônico e o conhecimento de quem já viveu um bocado, ele quer compreender seus suspeitos para descobrir quais são suas motivações.
A história é um expressivo retrato da vida no sul da Califórnia do pós-guerra que une dois universos conflitantes: o do glamour dos endinheirados da fictícia Santa Teresa e o da decadência dos que não possuem nada – muito menos escrúpulos. Tudo regado a pitadas de jazz.
240 pages, Pocket
First published January 1, 1949
414 people are currently reading
4624 people want to read
About the author
Ross Macdonald
168 books823 followersRoss Macdonald is the pseudonym of the American-Canadian writer of crime fiction Kenneth Millar. He is best known for his series of hardboiled novels set in southern California and featuring private detective Lew Archer.
Millar was born in Los Gatos, California, and raised in his parents' native Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, where he started college. When his father abandoned his family unexpectedly, Macdonald lived with his mother and various relatives, moving several times by his sixteenth year. The prominence of broken homes and domestic problems in his fiction has its roots in his youth.
In Canada, he met and married Margaret Sturm (Margaret Millar)in 1938. They had a daughter, Linda, who died in 1970.
He began his career writing stories for pulp magazines. Millar attended the University of Michigan, where he earned a Phi Beta Kappa key and a Ph.D. in literature. While doing graduate study, he completed his first novel, The Dark Tunnel, in 1944. At this time, he wrote under the name John Macdonald, in order to avoid confusion with his wife, who was achieving her own success writing as Margaret Millar. He then changed briefly to John Ross Macdonald before settling on Ross Macdonald, in order to avoid mixups with contemporary John D. MacDonald. After serving at sea as a naval communications officer from 1944 to 1946, he returned to Michigan, where he obtained his Ph.D. degree.
Macdonald's popular detective Lew Archer derives his name from Sam Spade's partner, Miles Archer, and from Lew Wallace, author of Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. Macdonald first introduced the tough but humane private eye in the 1946 short story Find the Woman. A full-length novel, The Moving Target, followed in 1949. This novel (the first in a series of eighteen) would become the basis for the 1966 Paul Newman film Harper. In the early 1950s, he returned to California, settling for some thirty years in Santa Barbara, the area where most of his books were set. The very successful Lew Archer series, including bestsellers The Goodbye Look, The Underground Man, and Sleeping Beauty, concluded with The Blue Hammer in 1976.
Macdonald died of Alzheimer's disease in Santa Barbara, California.
Macdonald is the primary heir to Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler as the master of American hardboiled mysteries. His writing built on the pithy style of his predecessors by adding psychological depth and insights into the motivations of his characters. Macdonald's plots were complicated, and often turned on Archer's unearthing family secrets of his clients and of the criminals who victimized them. Lost or wayward sons and daughters were a theme common to many of the novels. Macdonald deftly combined the two sides of the mystery genre, the "whodunit" and the psychological thriller. Even his regular readers seldom saw a Macdonald denouement coming.
Millar was born in Los Gatos, California, and raised in his parents' native Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, where he started college. When his father abandoned his family unexpectedly, Macdonald lived with his mother and various relatives, moving several times by his sixteenth year. The prominence of broken homes and domestic problems in his fiction has its roots in his youth.
In Canada, he met and married Margaret Sturm (Margaret Millar)in 1938. They had a daughter, Linda, who died in 1970.
He began his career writing stories for pulp magazines. Millar attended the University of Michigan, where he earned a Phi Beta Kappa key and a Ph.D. in literature. While doing graduate study, he completed his first novel, The Dark Tunnel, in 1944. At this time, he wrote under the name John Macdonald, in order to avoid confusion with his wife, who was achieving her own success writing as Margaret Millar. He then changed briefly to John Ross Macdonald before settling on Ross Macdonald, in order to avoid mixups with contemporary John D. MacDonald. After serving at sea as a naval communications officer from 1944 to 1946, he returned to Michigan, where he obtained his Ph.D. degree.
Macdonald's popular detective Lew Archer derives his name from Sam Spade's partner, Miles Archer, and from Lew Wallace, author of Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. Macdonald first introduced the tough but humane private eye in the 1946 short story Find the Woman. A full-length novel, The Moving Target, followed in 1949. This novel (the first in a series of eighteen) would become the basis for the 1966 Paul Newman film Harper. In the early 1950s, he returned to California, settling for some thirty years in Santa Barbara, the area where most of his books were set. The very successful Lew Archer series, including bestsellers The Goodbye Look, The Underground Man, and Sleeping Beauty, concluded with The Blue Hammer in 1976.
Macdonald died of Alzheimer's disease in Santa Barbara, California.
Macdonald is the primary heir to Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler as the master of American hardboiled mysteries. His writing built on the pithy style of his predecessors by adding psychological depth and insights into the motivations of his characters. Macdonald's plots were complicated, and often turned on Archer's unearthing family secrets of his clients and of the criminals who victimized them. Lost or wayward sons and daughters were a theme common to many of the novels. Macdonald deftly combined the two sides of the mystery genre, the "whodunit" and the psychological thriller. Even his regular readers seldom saw a Macdonald denouement coming.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 549 reviews
May 6, 2020
I read all of the Archer books some thirty-five years ago, and since then I have been under the impression that none of the books until The Galton Case was worthy of attention. I was wrong.
True, The Moving Target (Archer #1) lacks a family tragedy with haunted children that is the hallmark of later Archer, and it also lacks a disciplined series of images--both in metaphor and in the visuals evoked by the narrative--that carry us to the heart of the classic Archer tale.
Still, there's enough here to make it worth your while. The fringes of Hollywood are handled with flair (a sleazy piano bar with B-girls and a coke-head soloist, plus a has-been actress--and former S&M club mistress of ceremonies--turned astrologer/grifter), Archer's narrative voice is spare, elegant and already close to perfect, the imagery is precise, and the picture of a money-obsessed Southern California society living off the energy of countless anonymous Mexicans and Filipinos is very well done.
I thought the first and last part of the book were better than the middle (which relies a little too much on cliches), but this is still the work of a fine genre writer, well on his way to becoming a master.
February 7, 2017
I’ve got to make a shameful confession here. Even though I consider myself someone who is fairly well versed in the crime/mystery genre I’d never read any of Ross Macdonald’s work until now. I know, I know. I’m disappointed in me, too.
It’s a weird oversight because it’s not like I haven’t been aware of the Lew Archer series since I started picking up PI novels, and I’d even seen and enjoyed the two film adaptations Harper and The Drowning Pool that starred Paul Newman. (Why did they change the character name from Archer to Harper? I dunno. You can try asking Hollywood.) It just doesn’t seem like any of the Macdonald books ever fell into my orbit for some reason. Anyhow, I was long overdue to get to this series and a little prodding from Anthony finally got me motivated.
Lew Archer is a private detective in post war Los Angeles who gets hired by a rich woman to find her drunk husband who she fears has gone off on another bender that might result in him giving away large sums of money. Archer starts investigating and quickly determines that the man has probably been kidnapped, and he’s soon following up leads that take him from mansions to seedy bars to bogus religious retreats. There’s a twisted web of double crosses going on, and Archer follows a whole lot of shady people around and gets knocked out a lot. (Old school PIs seem more at risk for CTE than football players.)
All of this sounds like standard stuff for a detective novel from it’s SoCal setting to the dialogue, but like the best writers of the genre it’s all done well and with a style that makes the most of the tropes of it. Archer as a character is also set up fairly well, if typically. He’s smart, tough, cynical, and has a commitment to his own moral code that sometimes puts him conflict with the legal niceties of the case so again we’re using the basic PI template, but there’s a reason this particular form is still used today.
Overall, it was good, not great, but you can see the elements in the writing that I assume will be built up for the rest of the series to earn it’s reputation as one of the best of its kind.
It’s a weird oversight because it’s not like I haven’t been aware of the Lew Archer series since I started picking up PI novels, and I’d even seen and enjoyed the two film adaptations Harper and The Drowning Pool that starred Paul Newman. (Why did they change the character name from Archer to Harper? I dunno. You can try asking Hollywood.) It just doesn’t seem like any of the Macdonald books ever fell into my orbit for some reason. Anyhow, I was long overdue to get to this series and a little prodding from Anthony finally got me motivated.
Lew Archer is a private detective in post war Los Angeles who gets hired by a rich woman to find her drunk husband who she fears has gone off on another bender that might result in him giving away large sums of money. Archer starts investigating and quickly determines that the man has probably been kidnapped, and he’s soon following up leads that take him from mansions to seedy bars to bogus religious retreats. There’s a twisted web of double crosses going on, and Archer follows a whole lot of shady people around and gets knocked out a lot. (Old school PIs seem more at risk for CTE than football players.)
All of this sounds like standard stuff for a detective novel from it’s SoCal setting to the dialogue, but like the best writers of the genre it’s all done well and with a style that makes the most of the tropes of it. Archer as a character is also set up fairly well, if typically. He’s smart, tough, cynical, and has a commitment to his own moral code that sometimes puts him conflict with the legal niceties of the case so again we’re using the basic PI template, but there’s a reason this particular form is still used today.
Overall, it was good, not great, but you can see the elements in the writing that I assume will be built up for the rest of the series to earn it’s reputation as one of the best of its kind.
June 5, 2022
[7/10]
Brain's in my stomach,
Heart's in my mouth,
Want to go north -
My feet point south.
I got the psychosomatic blues.
Doctor, doctor, doctor,
Analyse my brain.
Organize me, doctor.
Doctor ease my pain -
I got the psychosomatic blues.
A world-weary private detective sits down in a rundown bar with a whisky and a smoke in front of him, listening to a sultry, sexy singer play the blues on the piano. She may be involved in a crime he is currently investigating: the disappearance of a wealthy oil tycoon. The detective is not short of suspects and leads. Big Money attracts all sort of predators, like the smell of fresh kill in the savannah. Lew Archer's nominal employer is the tycoon's wife, although her motives may not be as altruistic as she wants to make them. The pilot of the magnate's private plane, his volatile young daughter Miranda, his recent spiritual guru Claude, his own personal astrologer - a former actress with connections to the criminal underworld, his lawyer that was once a friend of Archer in the State Attorney Office, even his striking farmhands: they all are potential suspects, and MacDonald weaves a complex and convincing plot that implicates all of them at one point or another in the inquiry. The cast is completed with some stock characters from the early noir novels : the brutish bodyguard that has been kicked in the head once too much, the smooth criminal with an English accent and the impeccable clothes, the hooker with the good heart, the arrogant local sheriff, and so on.
This familiarity with the characters and with the plot made me think for a while that the first Lew Archer novel is too much of a fanfic for the novels of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett (the name of the protagonist is actually inspired by The Maltese Falcon), but it turns out that I knew most of the plot from the movie version with Paul Newman and Lauren Bacall. I should give more credit in this case to the author for using the style established by those famous forerunners, and pushing it forward into a more solid and well constructed story, with better attempts to establish the criminal motivations and to study their psychology. From what I read, the next books in the Archer series develop into a more personal and accomplished style. I look forward to reading them.
Coming back to the debut Archer novel, the first thing I like is the sense of place and time : the fictional town of Santa Teresa in the California Hills in the aftermath of World War Two. A place of opulent mansions perched precariously on the sides of dry canyons, overlooking the ocean. MacDonald is not a bad hand at finding unusual similes, again reminding me of Chandler:
The light-blue haze in the lower canyon was like a thin smoke from slowly burning money. Even the sea looked precious through it, a solid wedge held in the canyon's mouth, bright blue and polished like a stone. Private property: color guaranteed fast; will not shrink egos. I had never seen the Pacific look so small.
Archer himself is a tough guy, a former policeman and war veteran, serving in the Intelligence Corps, doing now mostly divorce work ("I'm a jackal, you now!"). He's got the quick tongue and the fast repartee skills that seems to be a prerequisite for the job of gumshoe, but I would say he is not much of a guy for humour. Smart, solid, serious, cynical, yet also introspective and full of empathy for the situation of his suspects. He is also of the school of investigation where in the absence of a useful lead, he just goes in and tries to stir up the nest of vipers with a stick or with a right hook, an activity that sees him knocked on the head on multiple occasions. "I slid like a disappearing tail light down the dark mountainside of the world" he remarks as he looses consciousness for the third or fourth time. My favourite passage, and probably the most revealing one about his character, is a scene where he looks at himself in the mirror as he is trying to pump an alcoholic woman full of booze in order to extract information from her:
I tried smiling to encourage myself. I was a good Joe after all. Consorter with roughnecks, tarts, hard cases and easy marks; private eyes at the keyhole of illicit bedrooms; informer to jealousy, rat behind the walls, hired gun to anybody with fifty dollars a day; but a good Joe after all. The wrinkles formed at the corner of my eyes, the wings of my nose; the lips drew back from the teeth, but there was no smile. All I got was a lean famished look like a coyote sneer. The face had seen to many bars, too many rundown hotels and crummy love nests, too many courtrooms and prisons, post-mortems and police line-ups, too many nerve ends showing like tortured worms. If I found the face on a stranger, I wouldn't trust it.
Another thing I liked about Lew Archer is that he doesn't try to hog the limelight, he gives the other actors enough screen time to shine and develop. As a result of this, I feel there is a lot more to discover about his background and his preferences, as it should be with a long sequence of his novels to follow.
I am not going to discuss the ending, it was satisfactory, if not exactly surprising. But I am interested in the significance of the title. It appears in a conversation between Lew Archer and Miranda, the young daughter of the tycoon. On the surface, the discussion is about driving too fast, but I believe the underlying tone is being dissatisfied with yourself and with the direction your life is going. It's about chasing a dream. For some people, it is the illusion that money will solve all their problems and offer them happiness. By our own inner nature, we are probably destined never to reach the target, as soon as we get what we want, we probably yearn for something else, for something more.
- I've done a hundred and five on this road in the Caddie.
- And what's your reason?
- I do it when I'm bored. I pretend to myself I'm going to meet something - something utterly new. Something naked and bright, a moving target in the road.
Brain's in my stomach,
Heart's in my mouth,
Want to go north -
My feet point south.
I got the psychosomatic blues.
Doctor, doctor, doctor,
Analyse my brain.
Organize me, doctor.
Doctor ease my pain -
I got the psychosomatic blues.
A world-weary private detective sits down in a rundown bar with a whisky and a smoke in front of him, listening to a sultry, sexy singer play the blues on the piano. She may be involved in a crime he is currently investigating: the disappearance of a wealthy oil tycoon. The detective is not short of suspects and leads. Big Money attracts all sort of predators, like the smell of fresh kill in the savannah. Lew Archer's nominal employer is the tycoon's wife, although her motives may not be as altruistic as she wants to make them. The pilot of the magnate's private plane, his volatile young daughter Miranda, his recent spiritual guru Claude, his own personal astrologer - a former actress with connections to the criminal underworld, his lawyer that was once a friend of Archer in the State Attorney Office, even his striking farmhands: they all are potential suspects, and MacDonald weaves a complex and convincing plot that implicates all of them at one point or another in the inquiry. The cast is completed with some stock characters from the early noir novels : the brutish bodyguard that has been kicked in the head once too much, the smooth criminal with an English accent and the impeccable clothes, the hooker with the good heart, the arrogant local sheriff, and so on.
This familiarity with the characters and with the plot made me think for a while that the first Lew Archer novel is too much of a fanfic for the novels of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett (the name of the protagonist is actually inspired by The Maltese Falcon), but it turns out that I knew most of the plot from the movie version with Paul Newman and Lauren Bacall. I should give more credit in this case to the author for using the style established by those famous forerunners, and pushing it forward into a more solid and well constructed story, with better attempts to establish the criminal motivations and to study their psychology. From what I read, the next books in the Archer series develop into a more personal and accomplished style. I look forward to reading them.
Coming back to the debut Archer novel, the first thing I like is the sense of place and time : the fictional town of Santa Teresa in the California Hills in the aftermath of World War Two. A place of opulent mansions perched precariously on the sides of dry canyons, overlooking the ocean. MacDonald is not a bad hand at finding unusual similes, again reminding me of Chandler:
The light-blue haze in the lower canyon was like a thin smoke from slowly burning money. Even the sea looked precious through it, a solid wedge held in the canyon's mouth, bright blue and polished like a stone. Private property: color guaranteed fast; will not shrink egos. I had never seen the Pacific look so small.
Archer himself is a tough guy, a former policeman and war veteran, serving in the Intelligence Corps, doing now mostly divorce work ("I'm a jackal, you now!"). He's got the quick tongue and the fast repartee skills that seems to be a prerequisite for the job of gumshoe, but I would say he is not much of a guy for humour. Smart, solid, serious, cynical, yet also introspective and full of empathy for the situation of his suspects. He is also of the school of investigation where in the absence of a useful lead, he just goes in and tries to stir up the nest of vipers with a stick or with a right hook, an activity that sees him knocked on the head on multiple occasions. "I slid like a disappearing tail light down the dark mountainside of the world" he remarks as he looses consciousness for the third or fourth time. My favourite passage, and probably the most revealing one about his character, is a scene where he looks at himself in the mirror as he is trying to pump an alcoholic woman full of booze in order to extract information from her:
I tried smiling to encourage myself. I was a good Joe after all. Consorter with roughnecks, tarts, hard cases and easy marks; private eyes at the keyhole of illicit bedrooms; informer to jealousy, rat behind the walls, hired gun to anybody with fifty dollars a day; but a good Joe after all. The wrinkles formed at the corner of my eyes, the wings of my nose; the lips drew back from the teeth, but there was no smile. All I got was a lean famished look like a coyote sneer. The face had seen to many bars, too many rundown hotels and crummy love nests, too many courtrooms and prisons, post-mortems and police line-ups, too many nerve ends showing like tortured worms. If I found the face on a stranger, I wouldn't trust it.
Another thing I liked about Lew Archer is that he doesn't try to hog the limelight, he gives the other actors enough screen time to shine and develop. As a result of this, I feel there is a lot more to discover about his background and his preferences, as it should be with a long sequence of his novels to follow.
I am not going to discuss the ending, it was satisfactory, if not exactly surprising. But I am interested in the significance of the title. It appears in a conversation between Lew Archer and Miranda, the young daughter of the tycoon. On the surface, the discussion is about driving too fast, but I believe the underlying tone is being dissatisfied with yourself and with the direction your life is going. It's about chasing a dream. For some people, it is the illusion that money will solve all their problems and offer them happiness. By our own inner nature, we are probably destined never to reach the target, as soon as we get what we want, we probably yearn for something else, for something more.
- I've done a hundred and five on this road in the Caddie.
- And what's your reason?
- I do it when I'm bored. I pretend to myself I'm going to meet something - something utterly new. Something naked and bright, a moving target in the road.
March 4, 2024
This is the first Lew Archer novel about a kidnapped millionaire which is not probably the best one among the eighteen Lew Archer novels. It is here that we meet Lew Archer, a hard-boiled private eye for the first time. We can't help sympathising with him - he is young, strong, honest and is a man of principles. He often gets beaten but he never gives up and this makes him very attractive.
The author's writing deserves to be mentioned - his language is laconic and expressive, the story is action-packed but deep down it discloses social problems that exist under the hot Californian sun. His characters are well-developed and have psychological depth and are interesting to follow.
'I had time to run, but I lacked the inclination. Three run-outs were too many in one day. I went to meet him and took the sucker punch. The scarred head rolled away easily. I tried with my right. He caught it on the forearm and moved in.
His dull eyes shifted. I had the funny feeling that they didn’t recognize me. One fist came into my stomach. I dropped my guard. The other came into my neck below the ear.
My legs were caught by the edge of the platform. I fell against the piano. Consciousness went out in jangling discord, swallowed by the giant shadow.
(...)
'At the bottom of a black box a futile little man was sitting with his back against something hard. Something equally hard was hitting him in the face. First on one side of the jaw, then on the other. Every time this happened his head bounced once against the hard surface behind him. This distressing sequence— the blow followed by the bounce—continued with monotonous regularity for a considerable period of time. Each time the fist approached his jaw the futile man snapped at it futilely with his aching teeth. His arms, however, hung peacefully at his sides. His legs were remarkably inert and distant.
A tall shadow appeared at the mouth of the alley, stood one-legged like a stork for an instant, then limped grotesquely toward us. Puddler was too absorbed in his work to notice. The shadow straightened up behind him and swung one arm high in the air. The arm came down with a dark object swinging at the end of it. It made a cheerful sound, like cracking walnuts, on the back of Puddler’s head. He knelt in front of me. I couldn’t read his soul in his eyes because only the whites were showing. I pushed him over backward.
Alan Taggert put his shoe on and squatted beside me. “We better get out of here. I didn’t hit him very hard.”
“Let me know when you’re going to hit him hard. I want to be present.”
My lips felt puffed. My legs were like remote and rebellious colonies of my body. I established mandates over them and got to my feet. It was just as well I couldn’t stand on one of them. I would have kicked the man on the pavement and regretted it later—several years later.'
The author's writing deserves to be mentioned - his language is laconic and expressive, the story is action-packed but deep down it discloses social problems that exist under the hot Californian sun. His characters are well-developed and have psychological depth and are interesting to follow.
'I had time to run, but I lacked the inclination. Three run-outs were too many in one day. I went to meet him and took the sucker punch. The scarred head rolled away easily. I tried with my right. He caught it on the forearm and moved in.
His dull eyes shifted. I had the funny feeling that they didn’t recognize me. One fist came into my stomach. I dropped my guard. The other came into my neck below the ear.
My legs were caught by the edge of the platform. I fell against the piano. Consciousness went out in jangling discord, swallowed by the giant shadow.
(...)
'At the bottom of a black box a futile little man was sitting with his back against something hard. Something equally hard was hitting him in the face. First on one side of the jaw, then on the other. Every time this happened his head bounced once against the hard surface behind him. This distressing sequence— the blow followed by the bounce—continued with monotonous regularity for a considerable period of time. Each time the fist approached his jaw the futile man snapped at it futilely with his aching teeth. His arms, however, hung peacefully at his sides. His legs were remarkably inert and distant.
A tall shadow appeared at the mouth of the alley, stood one-legged like a stork for an instant, then limped grotesquely toward us. Puddler was too absorbed in his work to notice. The shadow straightened up behind him and swung one arm high in the air. The arm came down with a dark object swinging at the end of it. It made a cheerful sound, like cracking walnuts, on the back of Puddler’s head. He knelt in front of me. I couldn’t read his soul in his eyes because only the whites were showing. I pushed him over backward.
Alan Taggert put his shoe on and squatted beside me. “We better get out of here. I didn’t hit him very hard.”
“Let me know when you’re going to hit him hard. I want to be present.”
My lips felt puffed. My legs were like remote and rebellious colonies of my body. I established mandates over them and got to my feet. It was just as well I couldn’t stand on one of them. I would have kicked the man on the pavement and regretted it later—several years later.'
August 9, 2018
I should have listened to the friendly doughnut who tried to warn me that starting a series from the beginning is completely unnecessary . . . at least in the case of the Lew Archer series.
This crime thriller about the search for a missing rich guy is fairly run-of-the-mill. Archer is a likable guy, but pretty undeveloped. Don't get me wrong - I'm thrilled that there's not a lot of backstory, but I don't think a personality is too much to ask. Still, there's a lot of promise here, and the writing is solid.
I have it onglazed good authority that the series gets much, much better.
I'll be taking The Galton Case for a spin in a couple of weeks, so we'll see Doughnut man, we'll see.
And a big thank you to
for sending me a copy.
This crime thriller about the search for a missing rich guy is fairly run-of-the-mill. Archer is a likable guy, but pretty undeveloped. Don't get me wrong - I'm thrilled that there's not a lot of backstory, but I don't think a personality is too much to ask. Still, there's a lot of promise here, and the writing is solid.
I have it on
I'll be taking The Galton Case for a spin in a couple of weeks, so we'll see Doughnut man, we'll see.
And a big thank you to
for sending me a copy.
July 14, 2018
I’m reading these Ross Macdonald's per Christopher’s post under The August 2018 Poll – Ross Macdonald in the Pulp Fiction Group
https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...
He suggested to Ross Macdonald newbies that maybe they start out with this novel.
So I did.
Thanks, Christopher!
I tried reading Macdonald’s “Lew Archer” short stories and novels chronologically in order of publication back in my late-teens/early-twenties. Don’t believe I ever got as far as The Moving Target before tossing it in.
To me in my head-up-my-ass youth, it was all a blatant cop of Chandler’s “Philip Marlowe” novellas and novels.
Yet, I continued to amass as many of the Black Lizard re-issues as I could come across.
Glad I did.
Richly rewarding read –even if it was spoiled by my having seen the Paul Newman movie HARPER a dozen times.
Great film with an adaptation of the Macdonald novel by the great William Goldman.
So …I knew who was pulling the strings of the caper somewhere around page 165 even if I haven’t seen the movie in about 18 years.
I realize I should have caught wind of the culprit much sooner but I’m not as smart as I once was.
This is a brilliant novel.
It’s as much of a Chandler rip-off as Howard Browne’s “Paul Pine” Chicago set novels or William Campbell Gault’s (Los Angeles) “Brock Callahan” novels.
By that I mean the main character is a private detective – in this case- working in Southern California.
Big deal here is that Archer is a kind of snooty, moralistic type. He thinks some folks need a good analyst more than they need their own private eye.
Kierkegaard is cited once.
Freud is alluded to at least twice.
Archer could give a reader a complex.
I can say one thing for Lew Archer …he can take a beating. In fact he might be a bit of a masochist. Oh yeah, “Archer”/Macdonald references Kraft-Ebbing at one point.
The book begins when Archer is hired by a bitter, aging, former beauty crippled in some kind of equestrian accident (i. e., a horse threw her) to find her alcoholic husband, a wildcatter done good now gone missing. Worth millions from his assorted oil wells, the husband astray for twenty-four hours is fond of giving away a fortune when he’s lubed up from the booze he consumes while on benders.
The wife hopes to catch her husband out on the town with another woman – in flagrante delicioso, preferably.
Naturally, Lew Archer don’t play no divorce cases but an old pal, formerly the D. A., now currently in private practice with one prominent client –the missing husband and his family, beseeches Archer to take the case as a favor.
And then there’s the missing man’s daughter, “Miranda”. That’s a whole other complication to the case.
So, Archer takes the case.
Lordy, lordy.
Lots of seediness ensues – enough to at least keep me intrigued. S/M joints, jazzbos, cocaine addicted hookers, and punch-drunk hoodlums all show up to dress up two-handfuls of chapters.
I loved this novel.
Even after remembering from watching the film adaptation who the wizard behind the curtain would turn out to be.
https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...
He suggested to Ross Macdonald newbies that maybe they start out with this novel.
So I did.
Thanks, Christopher!
I tried reading Macdonald’s “Lew Archer” short stories and novels chronologically in order of publication back in my late-teens/early-twenties. Don’t believe I ever got as far as The Moving Target before tossing it in.
To me in my head-up-my-ass youth, it was all a blatant cop of Chandler’s “Philip Marlowe” novellas and novels.
Yet, I continued to amass as many of the Black Lizard re-issues as I could come across.
Glad I did.
Richly rewarding read –even if it was spoiled by my having seen the Paul Newman movie HARPER a dozen times.
Great film with an adaptation of the Macdonald novel by the great William Goldman.
So …I knew who was pulling the strings of the caper somewhere around page 165 even if I haven’t seen the movie in about 18 years.
I realize I should have caught wind of the culprit much sooner but I’m not as smart as I once was.
This is a brilliant novel.
It’s as much of a Chandler rip-off as Howard Browne’s “Paul Pine” Chicago set novels or William Campbell Gault’s (Los Angeles) “Brock Callahan” novels.
By that I mean the main character is a private detective – in this case- working in Southern California.
“You don’t know the type like I do… I’ve seen the same thing happen to other boys, not to such an extreme degree, of course, but the same thing. They went out of high school into the army or the air corps and made good in a big way. They were officers and gentlemen with high pay, an even higher opinion of themselves, and all the success they needed to keep it blown up. War was their element, and when the war was finished, they were finished. They had to go back to boys’ jobs and take orders from middle-aged civilians. Handling pens and adding machines instead of flight sticks and machine guns. Some of them couldn’t take it and went bad. They thought the world was their oyster and couldn’t understand why it had been snatched away from them. They wanted to snatch it back. They wanted to be free and happy and successful without laying any foundation for freedom or happiness or success. And there’s the hangover.”
Big deal here is that Archer is a kind of snooty, moralistic type. He thinks some folks need a good analyst more than they need their own private eye.
Kierkegaard is cited once.
Freud is alluded to at least twice.
Archer could give a reader a complex.
I can say one thing for Lew Archer …he can take a beating. In fact he might be a bit of a masochist. Oh yeah, “Archer”/Macdonald references Kraft-Ebbing at one point.
The book begins when Archer is hired by a bitter, aging, former beauty crippled in some kind of equestrian accident (i. e., a horse threw her) to find her alcoholic husband, a wildcatter done good now gone missing. Worth millions from his assorted oil wells, the husband astray for twenty-four hours is fond of giving away a fortune when he’s lubed up from the booze he consumes while on benders.
The wife hopes to catch her husband out on the town with another woman – in flagrante delicioso, preferably.
Naturally, Lew Archer don’t play no divorce cases but an old pal, formerly the D. A., now currently in private practice with one prominent client –the missing husband and his family, beseeches Archer to take the case as a favor.
And then there’s the missing man’s daughter, “Miranda”. That’s a whole other complication to the case.
So, Archer takes the case.
Lordy, lordy.
“It smells like a snatch to me. Could be my nostrils are insensate. What does the hot sheet say?”
Lots of seediness ensues – enough to at least keep me intrigued. S/M joints, jazzbos, cocaine addicted hookers, and punch-drunk hoodlums all show up to dress up two-handfuls of chapters.
“I watched her white hands picking their way through the artificial boogie-woogie jungle. The music followed them like giant footsteps rustling in metallic undergrowth. You could see the shadow of the giant and hear his trip-hammer heart-beat. She was hot.”
I loved this novel.
Even after remembering from watching the film adaptation who the wizard behind the curtain would turn out to be.
April 8, 2011
Millionaire Ralph Sampson has been kidnapped and it's up to Lew Archer to find him. But what does the kidnapping have to do with an aging astrologer-actress, a piano player, and a holy man Sampson once gave a mountain to?
The Moving Target was a fast-paced noir thriller. Archer kept getting deeper and deeper into trouble. The love triangle between Miranda Sampson, Albert Graves, and Allen Taggart seemed to be needless at first but proved to be a very important plot element. One thing I really liked was that Archer wasn't a super-hero. He got his ass handed to him but kept on coming. Most of the killing was done by other people.
Things I didn't like? Archer gets knocked out way too many times. You'd think he'd be more careful after the first time. He's also kind of a stereotype noir detective. From what I hear, he breaks away from the Phillip Marlowe role in later books but I kept thinking of Marlowe while I was reading this.
The Moving Target is a good noir read. Just don't expect it to bring anything new to the table.
The Moving Target was a fast-paced noir thriller. Archer kept getting deeper and deeper into trouble. The love triangle between Miranda Sampson, Albert Graves, and Allen Taggart seemed to be needless at first but proved to be a very important plot element. One thing I really liked was that Archer wasn't a super-hero. He got his ass handed to him but kept on coming. Most of the killing was done by other people.
Things I didn't like? Archer gets knocked out way too many times. You'd think he'd be more careful after the first time. He's also kind of a stereotype noir detective. From what I hear, he breaks away from the Phillip Marlowe role in later books but I kept thinking of Marlowe while I was reading this.
The Moving Target is a good noir read. Just don't expect it to bring anything new to the table.
June 5, 2022
My first Ross MacDonald Lew Archer book, and the first in the series. I knew that he was much honored by critics and fellow mystery writers alike. I think I had heard that he was something like the heir to Raymond Chandler as a committed "literary" writer, and I can see that., even in the first book This is a better, more cleanly constructed story than Chandler ever wrote (which we Chandler fans don't care about, really), and he has some well-crafted sentences--with the requisite noir plethora of similes--and Archer has a bit of Marlowe about him, but this pales in comparison to Chandler in all respects.
Like Chandler and Ellroy, he writes of LA/Hollywood crime--a touch of sleaze and corruption. But quite flat and forgettable. I won't say I wouldn't read any more MacDonald. as I know some of his books were made into movies, but I'm not all that encouraged.
Like Chandler and Ellroy, he writes of LA/Hollywood crime--a touch of sleaze and corruption. But quite flat and forgettable. I won't say I wouldn't read any more MacDonald. as I know some of his books were made into movies, but I'm not all that encouraged.
August 27, 2018
Πολύ καλό.
March 28, 2024
To πρώτο αστυνομικό μυθιστόρημα του ΜακΝτόναλντ όπου μας 'συστήνει' τον μυστηριώδη ντετέκτιβ, Λιού Άρτσερ (1949). Σε αυτό το βιβλίο, ο συγγραφέας, όμως, ακολουθεί διαφορετική πορεία στο 'ξεδίπλωμα' της πλοκής από τα μετέπειτα μυθιστορήματά του.
Το 1ο μέρος είναι αρκετά βραδυφλεγές με λίγα ψήγματα σασπένς, το οποίο όμως παραθέτει και 4 από τις 'πληγές' της αμερικάνικης κοινωνίας των τελών της δεκαετίας του '40: την απατηλή λάμψη του Χόλυγουντ, το φαινόμενο της λαθρομετανάστευσης από το Μεξικό προς τις Η.Π.Α., την αύξηση της χρήσης 'σκληρών' ναρκωτικών, και την εξάπλωση διάφορων παραθρησκευτικών αιρέσεων, οι οποίες είχαν σαν στόχο το οικονομικό συμφέρον. Και όλα αυτά ξεδιπλώνονται κάτω από τη συνεχόμενη απειλή του 'Μακαρθισμού', τον οποίον ο ΜακΝτόναλντ καταφέρνει να κατακεραυνώσει ειρωνικά μέσω κάποιων διαλόγων μεταξύ προσώπων της βιομηχανίας του Χόλυγουντ, τα οποία απειλούνταν με διαγραφή λόγω 'υποτιθέμενων' αντιαμερικάνικων πολιτικών πεποιθήσεων.
Το 2ο μέρος είναι πιο ουσιαστικό, γρήγορο και δυνατό οδηγώντας σε συνεχείς ανατροπές και σε μία δίκαιη λύση που δεν την περιμένει ο αναγνώστης. Πάντως, είναι το πιο άνισο μυθιστόρημα του ΜακΝτόναλντ, αν και από τα πιο ενδιαφέροντα λόγω των κοινωνικο-πολιτικών σχολίων που περιέχει.
Αξέχαστη ατάκα του βιβλίου από τον Λιού Άρτσερ όπου φαίνεται, ενδεχομένως, μια μισογυνική διάθεση από τη πλευρά του συγγραφέα: "To κακό είναι γυναικείο χαρακτηριστικό, ένα δηλητήριο που εκκρίνουν οι γυναίκες και το μεταδίδουν στους άντρες σαν αρρώστια" (δεν νομίζω ότι ισχύει στο 100% πλέον).
Συνολική βαθμολογία: 3,6/5 ή 7,2/10.
Βαθμολογία λόγω επιτυχημένης απόδοσης της 'νουάρ' ατμόσφαιρας της εποχής: 4,2/5 ή 8,4/10.
Y.Γ.: Στο τέλος του βιβλίου, υπάρχει ένα πολύ ενδιαφέρον 5σέλιδο αφιέρωμα της Χίλντας Παπαδημητρίου στην ιστορία του hard-boiled αστυνομικού μυθιστορήματος ως συγγραφικού είδους, και στον Ross McDonald.
Υ.Γ. 2: Το βιβλίο μεταφέρθηκε στον κινηματογράφο το 1966 με τον τίτλο 'Harper', ενώ ο Paul Newman ήταν εκείνος που υποδύθηκε τον ντιτέκτιβ Lew Archer, μετά την άρνηση του Frank Sinatra.
Το 1ο μέρος είναι αρκετά βραδυφλεγές με λίγα ψήγματα σασπένς, το οποίο όμως παραθέτει και 4 από τις 'πληγές' της αμερικάνικης κοινωνίας των τελών της δεκαετίας του '40: την απατηλή λάμψη του Χόλυγουντ, το φαινόμενο της λαθρομετανάστευσης από το Μεξικό προς τις Η.Π.Α., την αύξηση της χρήσης 'σκληρών' ναρκωτικών, και την εξάπλωση διάφορων παραθρησκευτικών αιρέσεων, οι οποίες είχαν σαν στόχο το οικονομικό συμφέρον. Και όλα αυτά ξεδιπλώνονται κάτω από τη συνεχόμενη απειλή του 'Μακαρθισμού', τον οποίον ο ΜακΝτόναλντ καταφέρνει να κατακεραυνώσει ειρωνικά μέσω κάποιων διαλόγων μεταξύ προσώπων της βιομηχανίας του Χόλυγουντ, τα οποία απειλούνταν με διαγραφή λόγω 'υποτιθέμενων' αντιαμερικάνικων πολιτικών πεποιθήσεων.
Το 2ο μέρος είναι πιο ουσιαστικό, γρήγορο και δυνατό οδηγώντας σε συνεχείς ανατροπές και σε μία δίκαιη λύση που δεν την περιμένει ο αναγνώστης. Πάντως, είναι το πιο άνισο μυθιστόρημα του ΜακΝτόναλντ, αν και από τα πιο ενδιαφέροντα λόγω των κοινωνικο-πολιτικών σχολίων που περιέχει.
Αξέχαστη ατάκα του βιβλίου από τον Λιού Άρτσερ όπου φαίνεται, ενδεχομένως, μια μισογυνική διάθεση από τη πλευρά του συγγραφέα: "To κακό είναι γυναικείο χαρακτηριστικό, ένα δηλητήριο που εκκρίνουν οι γυναίκες και το μεταδίδουν στους άντρες σαν αρρώστια" (δεν νομίζω ότι ισχύει στο 100% πλέον).
Συνολική βαθμολογία: 3,6/5 ή 7,2/10.
Βαθμολογία λόγω επιτυχημένης απόδοσης της 'νουάρ' ατμόσφαιρας της εποχής: 4,2/5 ή 8,4/10.
Y.Γ.: Στο τέλος του βιβλίου, υπάρχει ένα πολύ ενδιαφέρον 5σέλιδο αφιέρωμα της Χίλντας Παπαδημητρίου στην ιστορία του hard-boiled αστυνομικού μυθιστορήματος ως συγγραφικού είδους, και στον Ross McDonald.
Υ.Γ. 2: Το βιβλίο μεταφέρθηκε στον κινηματογράφο το 1966 με τον τίτλο 'Harper', ενώ ο Paul Newman ήταν εκείνος που υποδύθηκε τον ντιτέκτιβ Lew Archer, μετά την άρνηση του Frank Sinatra.
December 29, 2015
3.5, really. A shaky start, but really took off near the halfway mark. A sturdy emulation of Chandler's style with flashes of more racial/societal sympathies than you'll find in Marlowe's embittered worldview. But, more importantly, my edition has a 5-star cover that asks the hard question, Why is there a target wedged in a pair of ass cheeks? You will not find the answer between the covers.
August 19, 2018
The accusations of "warmed-over Raymond Chandler" are deserved, but it turns out that warmed-over Raymond Chandler is still pretty good. Take the socialite wife client, amoral wealthy victim, flirtatious daughter, and all the usual tough guys and fallen women, stir well and add some intrigue. The plot is pretty obvious at times but it never ruins the enjoyment of a good post-WWII southern California detective story, the first of many featuring Lew Archer. The movie version is "Harper" with Paul Newman and Lauren Bacall.
February 22, 2019
A very good "noir" novel from 1949, later made into the movie "Harper" with Paul Newman. The first Archer novel is the definition of the "hard boiled PI" genre. Harper is hired to find a millionaire who has gone missing and quickly decides he has been kidnapped. Fighting double cross after double cross Archer solves the crime, to almost no ones satisfaction. Highly recommended.
May 12, 2023
09/2020
From 1949
The first book in the Lew Archer series
Lew is 35 here (he says he's five years younger than a 40 year old).
The mystery is not bad. Not as violent as Blue City, his earlier standalone novel.
The term "Moving Target" actually refers to an ephemeral goal you're always trying to attain.
From 1949
The first book in the Lew Archer series
Lew is 35 here (he says he's five years younger than a 40 year old).
The mystery is not bad. Not as violent as Blue City, his earlier standalone novel.
The term "Moving Target" actually refers to an ephemeral goal you're always trying to attain.
October 30, 2020
"I liked that. It was good." - Jason Koivu
What a hell of a review...but it's the first that came to mind as I finished The Moving Target by Ross Macdonald. A very solid piece of detective fiction. I have/had lived in the LA and Santa Barbara area for a few years, so the setting was familiar. I don't know if that familiarity made an improvement in my overall opinion, but it probably does. After all, nostalgia is a helluva drug.
I'd been meaning to read Macdonald for years now. I've read a few of the early genre writers and I've read a buttload of more modern stuff, but I haven't read much from the middle period. I liked the Archer character. I can see enjoying the journey through a series with someone like that.
What a hell of a review...but it's the first that came to mind as I finished The Moving Target by Ross Macdonald. A very solid piece of detective fiction. I have/had lived in the LA and Santa Barbara area for a few years, so the setting was familiar. I don't know if that familiarity made an improvement in my overall opinion, but it probably does. After all, nostalgia is a helluva drug.
I'd been meaning to read Macdonald for years now. I've read a few of the early genre writers and I've read a buttload of more modern stuff, but I haven't read much from the middle period. I liked the Archer character. I can see enjoying the journey through a series with someone like that.
![Profile Image for Ed [Redacted].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1429513592i%2F3968676.jpg&w=128&q=75)
March 27, 2012
Sparse, crisp, raw, muscular prose. In his first Lew Archer novel, MacDonald shows himself the equal of Hammett, Chandler, Thompson, Cain or anyone else who wrote in the noir/hardboiled style. MacDonald doesnt have quite the same flair to his writing as Hammett or Chandler, at least not in this first offering, and his plots are not as twisted. I suspect, though, I may end up with MacDonald on the top of my list by the time I am finished with his body of work.
September 16, 2024
The Moving Target (1949) was the first of MacDonald’s long-running Lew Archer series, introducing the world to this new private eye character. His client is Mrs. Sampson, a wheelchair-bound who presided over an upscale estate. Her husband, Ralph, has disappeared, after some business in Las Vegas, he had flow into Los Angeles and vanished except for a strange request for $100,000 in cash to parlay some investment. Ralph had previously given away a hunting lodge to a “Los Angeles holy man with a long gray beard” and Mrs. Sampson wanted to know if he was with a woman and giving away the store to her. The pilot tells Archer that Ralph could be “hell on wheels” and was drinking a quart and a pint a day, giving him delusions of grandeur.
The story is set in Santa Teresa, which appears to be a sort-of stand-in for Santa Barbara where the estates are in the hills and a mile of slums near the sea where the black and brown children are playing in the dust. Unusual for such a private eye novel, we get a sense from Archer that the well-to-do here are taking advantage of cheap Mexican labor, many of whom are illegally smuggled over the border and that some of the land had been cheated from Japanese during the internment that had taken place at the time of World War 2.
Archer also is uncomfortable here among the rich and the games they play. Miranda Sampson, the daughter, uses Archer to stir up trouble with her suitor. It makes him angry. “It was like the inside of a sick brain, with no eyes to see out of, nothing to look at but the upside-down reflection of itself.” But we soon learn that Archer himself is more morose than happy. He looks at his face in the mirror behind a bar and sees that he was getting thin and predatory-looking and that his eyes “were like tiny stone wedges hammered between the lids.” When Miranda asks him candidly what he is running from, he tells her he likes a little danger controlled by him to give him a sense of power.
Archer is philosophical for a private eye, even here. He explains that evil is not so simple, that everyone has it in them, and whether it comes out depends on a number of things like environment, opportunity, economic pressure, bad luck, or a wrong friend. He also tells us that he was a former Long Beach police officer, but was fired because he did not like the dirty politics.
Archer quickly realizes that Ralph has been snatched and that the question is whether he is even still living. Archer figures out who the group of snatchers was and how they’ve turned on each other, but he also sees how shallow and empty people often are. A great scene is when he confronts one suspect who just married who tells Archer they were married in the courthouse and Archer replies that they will probably spend their wedding night there because the jail’s in the same building.
In the end, though, Archer surmises that there may be places money is not that important, but Santa Teresa isn’t one of them. Here, money is the lifeblood of the town and, if you don’t have it, you’re only half alive. But, he also says, you can’t blame money for what it does to people because the evil is in people and the money is only the peg they had it on. “‘They go wild for money when they’ve lost their other values.'”
What makes MacDonald such a good writer is that, even though the Moving Target is the first novel of the series, he gives Archer a backstory and a philosophy about life and about guilt and about innocence that gives form and meaning to the work he does.
The story is set in Santa Teresa, which appears to be a sort-of stand-in for Santa Barbara where the estates are in the hills and a mile of slums near the sea where the black and brown children are playing in the dust. Unusual for such a private eye novel, we get a sense from Archer that the well-to-do here are taking advantage of cheap Mexican labor, many of whom are illegally smuggled over the border and that some of the land had been cheated from Japanese during the internment that had taken place at the time of World War 2.
Archer also is uncomfortable here among the rich and the games they play. Miranda Sampson, the daughter, uses Archer to stir up trouble with her suitor. It makes him angry. “It was like the inside of a sick brain, with no eyes to see out of, nothing to look at but the upside-down reflection of itself.” But we soon learn that Archer himself is more morose than happy. He looks at his face in the mirror behind a bar and sees that he was getting thin and predatory-looking and that his eyes “were like tiny stone wedges hammered between the lids.” When Miranda asks him candidly what he is running from, he tells her he likes a little danger controlled by him to give him a sense of power.
Archer is philosophical for a private eye, even here. He explains that evil is not so simple, that everyone has it in them, and whether it comes out depends on a number of things like environment, opportunity, economic pressure, bad luck, or a wrong friend. He also tells us that he was a former Long Beach police officer, but was fired because he did not like the dirty politics.
Archer quickly realizes that Ralph has been snatched and that the question is whether he is even still living. Archer figures out who the group of snatchers was and how they’ve turned on each other, but he also sees how shallow and empty people often are. A great scene is when he confronts one suspect who just married who tells Archer they were married in the courthouse and Archer replies that they will probably spend their wedding night there because the jail’s in the same building.
In the end, though, Archer surmises that there may be places money is not that important, but Santa Teresa isn’t one of them. Here, money is the lifeblood of the town and, if you don’t have it, you’re only half alive. But, he also says, you can’t blame money for what it does to people because the evil is in people and the money is only the peg they had it on. “‘They go wild for money when they’ve lost their other values.'”
What makes MacDonald such a good writer is that, even though the Moving Target is the first novel of the series, he gives Archer a backstory and a philosophy about life and about guilt and about innocence that gives form and meaning to the work he does.
June 1, 2021
Years ago, I read the second in this series, so it was a blast from the past to finally read the first book! Macdonald expertly captures late 1940's L.A. and Southern California. The L.A. Noire and other film noir soundtracks perfectly complemented its ambience. This novel propels the reader into the criminal underworld and reality of this era, where no one should be trusted. Macdonald brings to life these characters using the slang of the era, which often verged on the obscure. He also relies on many other cultural references and real locales. Like the other Archer novels, this book exhibits the quintessential hard-boiled detective that previously populated the books of Dashiell Hammet and Raymond Chandler among others. One negative is the occasional tawdry character description. These occurrences kept it from reaching 5-star status.
July 22, 2014
The Moving Target is the second Ross Macdonald book I’ve read this summer (Instant Enemy was the other). I still don’t know much of Mr. Macdonald outside of his brief bio and cool, lean cop-meets-journalist-meets insurance salesman jacket picture, but I want to learn more. His The Moving Target is the rare book that both validates and transcends its genre.
Macdonald’s (anti)hero, Lew Archer, is a private detective with all the expected private detective characteristics (few friends, shady history, bad habits) but the author combines insightful self-loathing with a relentless moral compass and creates a tough, exhausted hybrid detective. For example, when Archer is trying to get a woman drunk so he can pump her for information he says:
I tried smiling to encourage myself. I was a good Joe after all. Consorter with roughnecks, tarts, hard cases and easy marks; private eye at the keyhole of illicit bedrooms; informer to jealousy, rat behind the walls, hired gun to anybody with fifty dollars a day; but a good Joe after all. The wrinkles formed at the corners of my eyes, the wings of my nose; the lips drew back from the teeth, but there was no smile. All I got was a lean famished look like a coyote’s sneer. The face had seen too many bars, too many rundown hotels and crummy love nests, too many courtrooms and prisons, post-mortems and police lineups, too many nerve ends showing like tortured worms. If I found the face on a stranger, I wouldn’t trust it.
Archer’s inner life blends well with the storyline. He’s called in to search for Mr. Sampson, a millionaire businessman with an invalid wife, a spitfire daughter, and questionable associates. In the process Archer encounters a hippy/religious compound, a fading jazz pianist, and an old friend fallen for the lost man’s daughter. The title refers to the satisfaction for which bored, desperate people, whether affluent or just fucked up, strive. Archer doesn’t exclude himself from the mix. This is no superhero story. The detective makes mistakes. His foes kick his ass silly. He gets up. He keeps going.
As far as I’m concerned Macdonald is two for two. He’s got the genre down and adds new elements to energize the conventions. The Moving Target is part of a three book “Archer in Hollywood” arc. I don’t think I’ll dive into the next (The Way Some People Die) just yet, as when I’ve tried that in the past with authors (esp. Ellroy and Murakami) the boundaries between books blur and I can’t keep the material straight. I feel pretty good about knowing Macdonald’s catalog is up for exploration, however, and I get the sense he bats a high average. The Moving Target raises the crime/mystery game while embracing the best of the category.
Macdonald’s (anti)hero, Lew Archer, is a private detective with all the expected private detective characteristics (few friends, shady history, bad habits) but the author combines insightful self-loathing with a relentless moral compass and creates a tough, exhausted hybrid detective. For example, when Archer is trying to get a woman drunk so he can pump her for information he says:
I tried smiling to encourage myself. I was a good Joe after all. Consorter with roughnecks, tarts, hard cases and easy marks; private eye at the keyhole of illicit bedrooms; informer to jealousy, rat behind the walls, hired gun to anybody with fifty dollars a day; but a good Joe after all. The wrinkles formed at the corners of my eyes, the wings of my nose; the lips drew back from the teeth, but there was no smile. All I got was a lean famished look like a coyote’s sneer. The face had seen too many bars, too many rundown hotels and crummy love nests, too many courtrooms and prisons, post-mortems and police lineups, too many nerve ends showing like tortured worms. If I found the face on a stranger, I wouldn’t trust it.
Archer’s inner life blends well with the storyline. He’s called in to search for Mr. Sampson, a millionaire businessman with an invalid wife, a spitfire daughter, and questionable associates. In the process Archer encounters a hippy/religious compound, a fading jazz pianist, and an old friend fallen for the lost man’s daughter. The title refers to the satisfaction for which bored, desperate people, whether affluent or just fucked up, strive. Archer doesn’t exclude himself from the mix. This is no superhero story. The detective makes mistakes. His foes kick his ass silly. He gets up. He keeps going.
As far as I’m concerned Macdonald is two for two. He’s got the genre down and adds new elements to energize the conventions. The Moving Target is part of a three book “Archer in Hollywood” arc. I don’t think I’ll dive into the next (The Way Some People Die) just yet, as when I’ve tried that in the past with authors (esp. Ellroy and Murakami) the boundaries between books blur and I can’t keep the material straight. I feel pretty good about knowing Macdonald’s catalog is up for exploration, however, and I get the sense he bats a high average. The Moving Target raises the crime/mystery game while embracing the best of the category.
September 10, 2012
Ross Macdonald, where have you been all my life? This year I finally ran out of Dashell Hammett and Raymond Chandler novels to read so I had to strike off into the noir wilderness to find someone new. Well I didn't have to look long.
"The Moving Target" is superb. The dialogue is snappy, bitting and can pack a punch. A slightly less sad version of the world that Chandler created. And, I'll go ahead and say it, better than the majority of what Hammett wrote. Better characters, better settings, better storytelling.
Some great quotes:
"The face in the leather folder was fat, with thin gray hair and a troubled mouth. The thick nose tried to be bold and succeeded in being obstinate. The smile that folded the puffed eyelids and creased the sagging cheeks was fixed and forced. I'd seen such smiles in mortuaries on the false face of death. It reminded me that I was going to grow old and die."
"They went out of high school into the Army or the Air Corps and made good in a big way. They were officers and gentlemen with high pay, an even higher opinion of themselves, and all the success they needed to keep it blown up. War was their element, and when the war was finished, they were finished. They had to go back to boys' jobs and take orders from middle-aged civilians. Handling pens and adding machines instead of flight sticks and machine guns. Some of them couldn't take it and went bad. They thought the world was their oyster and couldn't understand why it had been snatched away from them. They wanted to snatch it back. They wanted to be free and happy and successful without laying any foundation for freedom or happiness or success. And there's the hangover."
Classic whodunit story but what a fun ride. This is the first of 18 books in the "Lew Archer" series that began in the late 40's and went on through the late 70's. I look forward to reading them all.
"The Moving Target" is superb. The dialogue is snappy, bitting and can pack a punch. A slightly less sad version of the world that Chandler created. And, I'll go ahead and say it, better than the majority of what Hammett wrote. Better characters, better settings, better storytelling.
Some great quotes:
"The face in the leather folder was fat, with thin gray hair and a troubled mouth. The thick nose tried to be bold and succeeded in being obstinate. The smile that folded the puffed eyelids and creased the sagging cheeks was fixed and forced. I'd seen such smiles in mortuaries on the false face of death. It reminded me that I was going to grow old and die."
"They went out of high school into the Army or the Air Corps and made good in a big way. They were officers and gentlemen with high pay, an even higher opinion of themselves, and all the success they needed to keep it blown up. War was their element, and when the war was finished, they were finished. They had to go back to boys' jobs and take orders from middle-aged civilians. Handling pens and adding machines instead of flight sticks and machine guns. Some of them couldn't take it and went bad. They thought the world was their oyster and couldn't understand why it had been snatched away from them. They wanted to snatch it back. They wanted to be free and happy and successful without laying any foundation for freedom or happiness or success. And there's the hangover."
Classic whodunit story but what a fun ride. This is the first of 18 books in the "Lew Archer" series that began in the late 40's and went on through the late 70's. I look forward to reading them all.
April 21, 2014
Three and a half, maybe four stars? I couldn't decide, I liked the writing but suppose I like more heart and less description of breasts, I certainly enjoy Chandler more(who he is so clearly drawing from). The one-liners had me laughing through the book though...and I loved this early description of the canyons up north of L.A.
Now being familiar with these horrible places, I enjoyed that immensely. Also this:
But then there's
And there's a whole lot, and I mean a whole lot, about breasts doing things, like pressing angrily against shirts and nipples like eyes, and half promising and half threatening things and taking all kinds of independant actions that as an owner of breasts I am rather bewildered by:
I just can't take that seriously, always a trouble I have with noir, but maybe I just don't understand the treacherousness and evil of my own anatomy.
The light-blue haze in the lower canyon was like a thin smoke from slowly burning money. Even the sea looked precious through it, a solid wedge held in the canyon's mouth, bright blue and polished like a stone. Private property: colour guaranteed fast: will not shrink egos. I had never seen the Pacific look so small.
Now being familiar with these horrible places, I enjoyed that immensely. Also this:
He gave her a hurt look. She was looking at Taggert. Taggert was looking nowhere in particular. It was a triangle, but not an equilateral one.
But then there's
It seemed to me then that evil was a female quality, a poison that women secreted and transmitted to men like disease.
And there's a whole lot, and I mean a whole lot, about breasts doing things, like pressing angrily against shirts and nipples like eyes, and half promising and half threatening things and taking all kinds of independant actions that as an owner of breasts I am rather bewildered by:
...her small sweatered breasts, pointed like weapons, were half impatient promise, half gradual threat.
I just can't take that seriously, always a trouble I have with noir, but maybe I just don't understand the treacherousness and evil of my own anatomy.
August 1, 2011
The first Lew Archer novel.
Archer is hired by a woman to find her millionaire husband, who has been missing for a couple of days. He'd wandered off, drunk, when the chauffeur went to bring the limo around at the airport. He had a habit of doing such and the last time he'd given away a mountain with a hunting lodge to weird old religious freak. See, he was into astrology and such. The wife wanted him found before he did something else stupid.
Not having much luck, a letter arrives, in the millionaire's handwriting it's confirmed, wanting the wife to get together a $100,000 for a business deal. No bills larger than a hundred, no marked bills, don't call the police(potentially an illegal deal), have the money ready when he comes for it or an agent sent.
The whole thing smells of a kidnapping.
Archer knows he doesn't have a lot of time because the millionaire will likely be killed as soon as the agent picks the money up.
Nicely plotted tale.
Add in a twenty year old daughter who wants one man who doesn't want her, a man twice her age who does, Archer who enjoys the kiss she gives him to make the one she wants jealous but otherwise believes her too young(he's fifteen years older), and a sheriff that doesn't like Archer interfering(is there any other kind in a PI novel).
Originally published in 1949, the novel was made into the Paul Newman film HARPER in 1966.
Archer is hired by a woman to find her millionaire husband, who has been missing for a couple of days. He'd wandered off, drunk, when the chauffeur went to bring the limo around at the airport. He had a habit of doing such and the last time he'd given away a mountain with a hunting lodge to weird old religious freak. See, he was into astrology and such. The wife wanted him found before he did something else stupid.
Not having much luck, a letter arrives, in the millionaire's handwriting it's confirmed, wanting the wife to get together a $100,000 for a business deal. No bills larger than a hundred, no marked bills, don't call the police(potentially an illegal deal), have the money ready when he comes for it or an agent sent.
The whole thing smells of a kidnapping.
Archer knows he doesn't have a lot of time because the millionaire will likely be killed as soon as the agent picks the money up.
Nicely plotted tale.
Add in a twenty year old daughter who wants one man who doesn't want her, a man twice her age who does, Archer who enjoys the kiss she gives him to make the one she wants jealous but otherwise believes her too young(he's fifteen years older), and a sheriff that doesn't like Archer interfering(is there any other kind in a PI novel).
Originally published in 1949, the novel was made into the Paul Newman film HARPER in 1966.
September 1, 2021
3 Stars. I really must read this one again. I need to understand the fuss. Have I missed something? "The Moving Target" didn't impress. Good, but I expected more. The writing wasn't as clear, nor did it flow as easy, as Dashiell Hammett's Continental Op short stories, and Lew Archer didn't shine as Philip Marlowe does under Raymond Chandler. Yet there is something about private investigator Archer that's appealing, his self-deprecating humour, his determination, and his calm acceptance of the unusual which is so easy to find in southern California. I will read the next one, "The Drowning Pool." Both were made into movies in the 1970s with Paul Newman. Archer's specialty is divorce but here he wanders into a serious crime, or is it several? He's called to the home of Ralph Sampson by his wife. Sampson has disappeared and kidnapping may be on the agenda. It soon appears that someone close to the millionaire may be responsible; is it his wife who states, "I intend to outlive my husband?" Or the friendly private pilot interested in the flighty daughter, Miranda? Or the strange cult figure on a nearby mountain top? Yes, I will return to Lew Archer. (August 2021)
April 9, 2018
Αμερική λίγο μετά την μεγάλη οικονομική κρίση και την Ποτοαπαγόρευση.
Ένα βιβλίο που όχι απλά ασχολείται με το έγκλημα, αλλά γεννιέται μέσα στη πηγή του εγκλήματος.
Δεν είχα ξανά διαβάσει έργο του συγκεκριμένου συγγραφέα, αλλά ψάχνοντας μερικές πληροφορίες για την ζωή του διαπίστωσα ποσό πολύ απεικονίζει τον ψυχισμό του μέσα στα κείμενα.
Αν και το θέμα του βιβλίου είναι σχετικά σύνηθες- εκατομμυριούχος που εξαφανίζεται και όλοι γύρω του έχουν έναν καλό λόγο να είναι ύποπτοι- κερδίζει σε δράση και η αφήγηση είναι κάθε άλλο παρά βαρετή!
Αυθεντικό “hard-boiled» έργο που περιγράφει τα θύματα, τους θύτες και γενικά πραγματικούς ανθρώπους που παλεύουν καθημερινά για μία καθόλου δεδομένη επιβίωση.
Ένα βιβλίο που όχι απλά ασχολείται με το έγκλημα, αλλά γεννιέται μέσα στη πηγή του εγκλήματος.
Δεν είχα ξανά διαβάσει έργο του συγκεκριμένου συγγραφέα, αλλά ψάχνοντας μερικές πληροφορίες για την ζωή του διαπίστωσα ποσό πολύ απεικονίζει τον ψυχισμό του μέσα στα κείμενα.
Αν και το θέμα του βιβλίου είναι σχετικά σύνηθες- εκατομμυριούχος που εξαφανίζεται και όλοι γύρω του έχουν έναν καλό λόγο να είναι ύποπτοι- κερδίζει σε δράση και η αφήγηση είναι κάθε άλλο παρά βαρετή!
Αυθεντικό “hard-boiled» έργο που περιγράφει τα θύματα, τους θύτες και γενικά πραγματικούς ανθρώπους που παλεύουν καθημερινά για μία καθόλου δεδομένη επιβίωση.
March 25, 2022
The Moving Target (Lew Archer#1) by Ross Macdonald.
This hard boiled detective story was written in 1949. 1949 when a a cup of coffee was a dime and Lew Archer was the man on the beat. His beat. A private eye working on this score for a wealthy woman looking for her missing husband. Was Lew being hired for love of a husband or his money? Following Lew at his every step in every direction and loving it.
This was R.M. at the start of his series and breaking track records among the best in detective mysteries. Loved it and it was so worth while going back in time.
This hard boiled detective story was written in 1949. 1949 when a a cup of coffee was a dime and Lew Archer was the man on the beat. His beat. A private eye working on this score for a wealthy woman looking for her missing husband. Was Lew being hired for love of a husband or his money? Following Lew at his every step in every direction and loving it.
This was R.M. at the start of his series and breaking track records among the best in detective mysteries. Loved it and it was so worth while going back in time.
February 13, 2013
The first of Grandmaster MacDonald's Lew Archer series is pretty much what you would expect from a talented young writer trying to emulate Chandler and Hammett. It's better written than most that followed but it's also derivative and obvious. A solid start but he gets better with age and experience.
April 23, 2018
El primer libro de Lew Archer comienza con un caso sencillo, que se enreda y se mete en cosas mucho más complicadas. Cada vez que Archer entra a un lugar preguntando algo, alguien con un secreto turbio cree que está tras de él y decide incluirlo en sus problemas. Es un trabajo duro el de los detectives privados de California a finales de los años '40. Y siempre detrás de todo está el dinero.
May 30, 2019
A paint-by-the-numbers noir thriller that does nothing to differentiate itself from the host of other such novels. It's certainly not bad, but it doesn't really give you a reason to choose it over any other novel of its genre.
February 19, 2024
The first book in the Lew Archer series. A fine start to the long running series. When the character was turned into movie material he became Harper played by Paul Newman in 2 movies.
March 23, 2016
I’d never read any Ross MacDonald, but a recent article in The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/01/ross-macdonald-crime-novelstext piqued my interest.
Once upon a time he was apparently ranked as part of ‘The Holy Trinity’ of crime writers alongside Hammett and Chandler. Having now read his first Lew Archer novel I’m not sure I’d place him as high as Chandler, but I was mightily impressed with what I found and wonder how I managed to miss him until now.
Archer is hired to find a missing millionaire, and spends the novel cracking wise with various suspects and digging up old secrets. So far, so very noir. However MacDonald’s sharp prose style and great descriptions elevate it above the norm, while his evident interest in the psychological means that the characters have a more solid sense of motivation than is sometimes the case.
I will definitely hunt down some other Lew Archers.
I saw the film version of this yesterday – entitled ‘Harper’ – and I have to say I quite enjoyed it.
There’s something interesting in watching the Technicolor detective tales of the sixties (see also James Garner’s ‘Marlowe’. They lack the grit and hardness of the black & white films of the forties and fifties, but have none of the disaffectedness which crept through in the seventies. As such we get to watch murder and skulduggery take place amidst happy, good looking and carefree people.
Paul Newman gives a charming and relaxed performance. More of a character than the cipher of the book, he does a good job as a man who knows he’s slightly out of time and is amused at the fact. He does breeze through a lot of the film, but knows how to hit the serious moments. The weary ending is particularly memorable.
The rest of the cast splits between solid screen presences (Lauren Bacall, Janet Leigh, Shelley Winters) and the good looking but insubstantial (Robert Wagner, Pamela Tiffin). Even though Bacall does get a few good moments of raising her eyebrows and being bitchy (which she could surely do in her sleep), the fact that the supporting characters are differing degrees of cardboard cut-out is the film’s main flaw. It’s hard to care what happens to any of them.
Undoubtedly though the film is good looking and fast paced and an enjoyable sunny romp of a detective thriller. And that is both its charm and its problem, as while enjoyable sunny romps are good they’re not necessarily what you want from a thriller.
(Why was the character’s name changed from Archer? Apparently Newman thought films beginning with H were luckier. And from the star of ‘The Hustler’ and ‘Hud’, that kind of thinking does make some sense.)
Once upon a time he was apparently ranked as part of ‘The Holy Trinity’ of crime writers alongside Hammett and Chandler. Having now read his first Lew Archer novel I’m not sure I’d place him as high as Chandler, but I was mightily impressed with what I found and wonder how I managed to miss him until now.
Archer is hired to find a missing millionaire, and spends the novel cracking wise with various suspects and digging up old secrets. So far, so very noir. However MacDonald’s sharp prose style and great descriptions elevate it above the norm, while his evident interest in the psychological means that the characters have a more solid sense of motivation than is sometimes the case.
I will definitely hunt down some other Lew Archers.
I saw the film version of this yesterday – entitled ‘Harper’ – and I have to say I quite enjoyed it.
There’s something interesting in watching the Technicolor detective tales of the sixties (see also James Garner’s ‘Marlowe’. They lack the grit and hardness of the black & white films of the forties and fifties, but have none of the disaffectedness which crept through in the seventies. As such we get to watch murder and skulduggery take place amidst happy, good looking and carefree people.
Paul Newman gives a charming and relaxed performance. More of a character than the cipher of the book, he does a good job as a man who knows he’s slightly out of time and is amused at the fact. He does breeze through a lot of the film, but knows how to hit the serious moments. The weary ending is particularly memorable.
The rest of the cast splits between solid screen presences (Lauren Bacall, Janet Leigh, Shelley Winters) and the good looking but insubstantial (Robert Wagner, Pamela Tiffin). Even though Bacall does get a few good moments of raising her eyebrows and being bitchy (which she could surely do in her sleep), the fact that the supporting characters are differing degrees of cardboard cut-out is the film’s main flaw. It’s hard to care what happens to any of them.
Undoubtedly though the film is good looking and fast paced and an enjoyable sunny romp of a detective thriller. And that is both its charm and its problem, as while enjoyable sunny romps are good they’re not necessarily what you want from a thriller.
(Why was the character’s name changed from Archer? Apparently Newman thought films beginning with H were luckier. And from the star of ‘The Hustler’ and ‘Hud’, that kind of thinking does make some sense.)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 549 reviews