Dick wrote:
"The thing to bear in mind in trying to arrive at some
workable definition -- private eye, noir, hardboiled, etc. --
is that, as entertaining as these discussions may be, in our
heart of hearts we really don't want these kinds of
categories. The books or movies or TV shows that most of us
prize are usually the ones that don't slavishly conform to
any established category. Or am I wrong?"
This brings out a mixed reaction in me. On the one hand, I
wholeheartedly agree, I do tend to greatly appreciate
genre-benders like Jack O'Connell and James Sallis (to name
but two that popped right into my head). However, I tend to
gravitate towards those who are stetching out from the same
genre, hardboiled, which means my reading is still defined by
that genre. For instance, Dick's own Sleeping Dogs (and
Laughing Dogs after it) offers a pretty traditional PI as one
of its poles, even as he opens the genre up by alternating
the PI's view with that of a second narrator with a decidedly
different background and perspective. So I guess my ideal
would strike a balance between repetition and
innovation.
In the words of Wilson Pickett, "First you harmonize, then
you customize."
Mark
-- # 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 : 22 Aug 2001 EDT