I have to say that I agree with Juri: it's rash to try to
categorise fiction, even partly, according to what you
believe are the writer's motives. Believe me: writers usually
lie about their motives and intentions, even to themselves,
but especially when they are looking for publicity. When I
was young and silly ('sillier' if you like) I would have said
that I was practising my art. (I can't imagine Hammett daring
to say that.) Now that I take myself less seriously, I will
tell anybody that I do it for the money. I am probably lying,
at least in part, but you can't be sure and you would be
unwise to count on what I say in order to put my work into a
box. You do get led into comical speculation; for instance,
is somebody who was paid 3 cents a word more or less
hard-boiled than somebody who was paid 8 cents?
I believe that if I were really writing only for the money,
there are more profitable things to write. I have heard a
whisper that "romance" is the thing. Thanks. I have read
mysteries of one sort or another by well-known best-selling
crime writers without any desire to imitate the kind of thing
they do. I just don't see how any of this is very helpful in
defining categories.
As for
>But they were good at what they were
doing.
-- well, all real writers, hardboiled or highart, would like
to have that on their tombstones.
Marianne
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 01 Sep 2000 EDT