Mark Sullivan wrote:
> I read very little horror (although a few of the
descriptions in this
> debate have me intrigued), so I can't comment on the
specific examples,
> but the gist seems to be that horror is romantic,
hardboiled is not.
>
> Then I guess we should stop discussing Chandler.
What could possibly be
> more romantic than the image of the tarnished knight
walking down those
> mean streets?
Yeah, it's about as romantic as it gets. That's why I rate
Hammett higher than Chandler -- but Chandler is still number
two on my list. Hammett is less sentimental and, by my
lights, more hardboiled. But even Hammett succumbed, most
obviously in THE DAIN CURSE, where the Op became so soft that
Hammett abandoned him. And THE GLASS KEY is pretty
sentimental -- it's about a deep male friendship -- but this
is concealed by the highly objective style in which it's
written. Sam Spade is just as much a knight as Marlowe, but
he isn't so obviously wearing a chastity belt and his heart
on his sleeve. So -- attitude.
For purposes of discussion, I've staked out a fairly extreme
position on issues that probably don't really matter, like
trying to define what is or isn't hardboiled. This same
problem existed years ago in science fiction, and Damon
Knight resolved it, though not to everybody's satisfaction,
by saying "Science fiction is what I'm pointing at." In other
words, it's SF if we agree it's SF. So too with hardboiled --
it's hardboiled if we agree it's hardboiled. Thus I feel free
to include non-fiction like Hunter Thompson's FEAR AND
LOATHING IN LAS VAGAS or a movie like Hawks' HIS GIRL FRIDAY,
and exclude novels like King's A BAG OF BONES or Lillian
Braun's THE CAT WHO CAME TO BREAKFAST.
BobT
-- # 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 2b29 : 09 Feb 2000 EST