a.n.smith (ansmith@netdoor.com)
Tue, 30 Nov 1999 09:04:15 -0600
To suggest that something is "truly hardboiled" kind of locks
in the style so permanently that it implies formula, to me,
at least. The best hardboiled writers are not the copycats
who had the swagger, the cliches, the mood, the tough-guy
street lingo. No, the best ones push the edges of the genre
and force it to accept new ideas and change.
What sort of badge is "hardboiled"? I always liked the fact
that Hammett's characters had a shifty moral make-up to them.
Made them more real. Chandler, while a wonder with the
language and supporting characters, made Marlowe into too
much of a saint. Too cut and dry. I like that Jim Thompson
focused on the criminals rather than the PIs. I liked that
Pelecanos and Ellroy created characters that can't be defined
so easily, characters who grow and change from book to book,
and not always in the direction of "bettering
themselves."
The recent Atlantic article, while right-on in some aspects,
was a bit harsh on Ian Rankin's John Rebus, who seems to me
absolutely hardboiled. So he questions his motives sometimes,
has a drinking problem that he faced up to
(and he's off the wagon again in DEAD SOULS), has
questionable policing methods. Good! That confusion is
hardboiled. The cold, hard facts about this unfair world, and
writing about that world and characters who have no choice
but to face the dark areas of it, *that's* hardboiled in my
eyes.
I can see through language and pretense and wardrobe and
setting. But I can't see through something that makes my gut
feel cold.
Neil Smith
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 30 Nov 1999 - 10:06:25 EST