I guess what I'm getting at is this:
Hard-boiled has found its way into "post-modern"
fiction (for lack of a better term)
and other genres. In fact, I found a book
of essays once called _The Doomed Detective_
that investigated the link between post-modernism
and hard-boiled detective fiction.
I recently picked up _The Crime Lover's Casebook_
edited by Jerome Charyn. In it, Charyn includes
the meat and potatoes of hard-boiled fiction
such as Vacchs, Gores, Paretsky, Ellroy,
Grafton, Block, and Moseley.
He also includes those we might consider
more post-modern or noir than hard-boiled:
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Jorge Luis Borges,
Don DeLillo, Angela Carter, and Italo Calvino.
William Gibson, the cyberpunk
god, has a real hard-boiled foundation.
fiction and film is that it has some connection
to hard-boiled great ones of the past (Hammett and
Chandler).
Blade Runner is an obvious example, as is Johnny
Mnemonic,
originally a short story by Gibson.
The original inspiration for Blade Runner was
_Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_.
It's a story about a bounty hunter hunting down
renegade
androids and bears a striking resemblance to _The Maltese
Falcon_.
In fact, Stephen King, the megalomaniac of commercial
fiction,
lists Jim Thompson, prophet of the hard-boiled
cultists,
as one of his biggest influences (Jim Thompson, as far
as I'm concerned, should be included in every American
Literature anthology). For those of the more
traditional hard-boiled readers among
you, what is your take on this? Does style, form,
and genre keep you away from authors that play
loose with the form a bit, or is it more
the general "noir" mood that attracts you.
Probably a bit of both, huh?
I gather that we have two strands
here: "hard-boiled" and "noir." "Noir" seems to be
the bastard, post-industrial, stepchild
of gothic romance. "Hard-boiled" seems particular
to a type of post-war, commercial, detective fiction.
It gets a little ridiculous to categorize after a
while.
We could divide P.I. fiction from hard-boiled
since P.I. fiction is not necessarily hard-boiled.
Nor is hard-boiled necessarily noir.
Hard-boiled seems to appeal to a blue-collar or
white-collar
middle class, no-nonsense audience (again my father
is a perfect example, as he has no college background),
where noir seems to appeal to hipster kids and
literature professors around
the brie and wine table at cocktail parties.
But, again, regardless of class, education,
social background, or publishing conventions,
we all enjoy a great read. it is defining the
details of that "great read" that brings argument.
Chandler and Hammett seem to be the key meeting
ground here. They have reached a huge popular audience
as well as the literati. Thompson, Goodis,
Willeford and the like are more cultish among both
"commercial" and "literary" groups.
Mind you, I place my feet, or at least my toes,
in both of these camps.
Anyhow, it has been fascinating to hear your ideas
and definitions on this subject. Like anything of
quality,
hard-boiled or noir fiction is still mysterious
enough to explode, implode, and rewrite our definitions
at every turn.
Ten-four good buddies,
Rhino B. Ugly
"1 June. Wrote nothing.
2 June. Wrote almost nothing."
--Franz Kafka, Diaries 1912
Rhino Benedetti
Angstified Geek
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.