>
> In a message dated 4/23/02 1:50:10 PM,
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com writes:
>
> << The way the character
> expresses himself, verbally or non-verbally, is
an
> essential component. >>
>
> you've made your point very well, Jim. I simply
don't share it.
Just to put in my 2c worth (AUS 4c) I have to say that I'm
not big on definitions (even if they may be a necessary
evil), the main reason being that no matter how good a
definition is, someone can blow cannon sized holes through it
- witness Jim D's definitions of HB & noir, which I
thought were as succinct & as useful as any others I've
seen, if not more so and yet look at the way the debate about
these definitions refuses to die. I remember when similar
debates were going on about definitions of, and demarcation
between, fantasy & SF. I remember someone or other coming
up with "SF is what I point to on the bookshelf when I say
SF" - no doubt out of exasperation. I know that that
"definition" is completely useless as an academic tool but to
me it works fine on the personal level. I'm not too fussed
whether a book is technically Hb or noir or neither - I do
use these labels as a rough guide on hunting up literature
that might appeal to my tastes as I suspect many people on
this list do. These literary labels that we use are
artificial at the best of times and with HB/noir it's even
moreso the case - witness the wide selection of material
covered in the recent character vote. Are/were Highsmith,
Hammett, Alan Moore, Ian Fleming, Willeford et al really
working in the same genre or is it just that we perceive
certain similarities in outlook and hence lump these writers
together and then try to build a theoretical framework that
covers this diversity of writers?
Rene
-- # 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 : 23 Apr 2002 EDT