Reed Andrus <randrus@home.com> wrote:
> Interesting. By that definition, John Camp's FOOL'S
RUN and THE EMPRESS
> FILES qualify. For want of another description, the
protagonist (and
> those he employs) are professional vengeance
handlers. They contract out
> to defeat corrupt town leaders, or big business
powermongers.
>
> Here's another one: John Clarkson's excellent AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL. The
> hero is Jack Devlin, head of international security
for some
> world-spanning conglomerate who returns home when his
only relative is
> beaten near to death in a bar. As he investigates, he
runs up against a
> powerful gang of thugs who have some police in their
hip pocket. A minor
> investigation escalates into an all-out
war.
It's difficult to comment on these specific titles as I
haven't read
'em, so while I'm wary (are you setting me up here?) the
plots as you
describe them are commensurate with what I would describe as
the key
features of hb.
> Does the fact that the corrupt institution is
basically criminal fall
> into the hb category?
Yes, I think it's safe to say this.
> So the theme of wrongfully imprisoned guy (or the guy
who takes the fall
> for a corrupt friend), who returns for retribution is
what ... noir or
> hard boiled?
I think it could be either or both. It would depend upon what
other
elements are present.
> And what about ambience? Can't a hardboiled novel
also be gloomy.
Indeed it could---I think that there is no easy dividing line
between
the two.
HB can have 'noirish' elements; noir can demonstrate hb
qualities.
Perhaps it's best to think of these categories as two
extremes in an
ideal sense (ie, just for the purpose of distinguishing them)
but in a
practical sense, there is a considerable overlap.
Here's a crude ascii diagram that will probably get mangled
and not show
what I mean at all:
(Also, it's so crude that the dimensions are not meant to be
relative or
anything)
+-----------------------+=======================#
| #===============|-------+ #
|hb # mostly overlapping | noir #
| #===============|-------+ #
+-----------------------+=======================#
James Rogers <jetan@ionet.net> wrote:
> Since I don't think anyone on here has ever
succesfully defined
> "hard-boiled", I doubt that we are going to make much
progress in arriving
> at a satisfactory distinction from "noir"
either.
That's right---in fact I think I posted almost the same
comment a couple
of days ago.
> But I believe when the expression "roman noir" first
started to be
> tossed around, it just referred generally to "that
kind of stuff",
> whether it was the Chandler flavor or the McGivern
flavor.
Yes, I think you're right, but here you're also imposing a
distinction,
between 'the Chandler flavour' (ie hb) and 'the McGivern
flavour' (ie
noir). However, it is a distinction that is hard to maintain:
the two
flip in and out like a necker cube. We *know* there's a
difference, but
it's difficult to keep the two distinct.
jross@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Julie Ross), or was it Jacques?,
wrote:
> I've always understood these terms to be used
interchageably. The only
> difference that ever pops into my head is
"hard-boiled" being used more
> often as an attribute of style, and "noir" as used as
a description of tone
> or mood, i.e. "roman noir" or black (dark) novel. I
don't really feel
> uncomfortable substituting one for the
other.
I think they are used interchangable, but I don't think they
really are
synonymous. The style:tone distinction is interesting, but
one which I
think would be as difficult to maintain in practice (ie while
reading)
as any other way of distinguishing between the two.
I would be uncomfortable in seeing the terms used
interchangably.
Hammett's _Red Harvest_ for example, is quite a different
kettle of fish
from Woolrich's _I Married a Dead Man_
Apologies to all for so lengthy a post,
ED
-- +-----------------------------------------------+ | <http://www.ejmd.mcmail.com> | | |
# # 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/.