First let me say that I admire Thompson's best work
(HELL'S ANGELS, FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, parts of
GREAT SHARK HUNT).
I don't think a book needs to be fiction to fall within the
hardboiled tradition. Much of Charles Bukowski's work is
either non-fiction or close to it, and I think he fits
squarely within the tradition. It might be interesting
sometime to put a non-fiction hardboiled book on the reading
list. And yeah, I agree, HELLS ANGELS is a hardboiled
book.
--- Bob Toomey <
btoomey@javanet.com> wrote:
> > Does anyone consider Hunter S. Thompson as
within
> the hard boiled tradition?
> Well, I suggested that Thompson's hilarious
"Fear
> and Loathing in Las
> Vagas" should be included in any list of
modern
> hardboiled books. If
> hardboiled is, as I keep contending, an
attitude,
> Thompson's stuff has
> attitude to spare.
But I don't agree with the above. FEAR AND LOATHING is a
great book, but I don't think it's a hardboiled book. I agree
that "hardboiled" is essentially an attitude or approach, or
better yet, a viewpoint. But I think it's more than simply
"being tough" or "having attitude". It's a specific kind of
toughness, a specific kind of attitude.
I've never tried to define "hardboiled" before, mainly
because all literary definitions necessarily fall short
(someone can always think of an exception). But I think you
can at least make rough literary definitions or outlines, and
I would say the
"hardboiled approach" usually involves the following:
-- A realistic presentation of the world. It can be a sf or
fantasy world, but it's got to be realistically presented.
(This opts out FEAR AND LOATHING and any other book that
deals with altered states of consciousness).
-- For lack of a better phrase, a "Hemingway-esque" style or
derived style. I can't see any way you fit Proust into the
tradition, for instance.
-- An interest in the underworld or underside of society. I
think this is an important part of it. You could write a hb
book about the upperclasses, but you'd have to present the
lower, too, and show some connection between the two. (This
would opt out tough-minded examinations of the upper crust
like Edith Wharton's HOUSE OF MIRTH or Louis Auchinschloss's
RECTOR OF JUSTIN).
-- Finally, a focus on an individual and how he/she makes
his/her way through this world. This would opt out
tough-minded books like James Jones's THIN RED LINE, in which
the protagonist is essentially a group of people, a unit. For
me, the hb attitude is one where the individual is
paramount.
Sorry this ran so long. And, of course, I'm positive this
isn't the final word on the subject -- it's just my thoughts,
such as they are. But I have been thinking about this for
awhile now.
One advantage of my rough definition is that it includes
books that seem to be hb, but don't fit easily into the
mystery genre (JUNKY, VALDEZ IS COMING, NEUROMANCER,
Bukowkski's work) but excludes books that are pi novels, but
seem (at least to me) to lack the right attitude (a lot of
later Parker, a lot of later Block, Marcia Muller's WOLF IN
THE SHADOWS, etc.) Rather than say that these later books are
necessarily "bad" books (though I think the Muller book is
awful)it might be more accurate to say that they're simply
not hardboiled books.
doug
===== Doug Bassett
dj_bassett@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
-- # 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 : 11 Apr 2000 EDT