Miker,
Re your comment below:
> i'm leaning this way on the hardboiled, jack.
i've
> got a couple problems
> with the "colloquial" thing. although most
people's
> attitude is expressed
> thru talk, there are some who decidedly don't
fit
> the bill. i have a hard
> time seeing people like dudley smith (as
mario
> pointed out), arkady renko,
> or even doc mccoy, as being colloquial, but i
see
> all of them as being hb.
> they are a minority group of people who adhere
to
> teddy roosevelt's,
> "speak softly but carry a big stick"
philosophy.
>
> for now, i think my bottom line is that
for
> hardboiled, tough is good
> enough.
> i'm going to judge em by the way they act, not
by
> how they talk. so i'm
> not going to require hardboiled characters to
talk
> the talk, just walk the
> walk.
The problem with defining hard-boiled as simply tough with no
other qualifier is that it simply allows in too many
characters.
However you define "tough" (and, without trying to come up
with an absolutely authoritative definiton, let's agree that
it's a combination of qualities that MAY [but don't
necessarily] include [but aren't LIMITED to] physical
courage, moral courage, physical prowess, determination,
perseverance, and straightforwardness, to varying degrees
depending on the individual), there are going to be all sorts
of characters in crime fiction who don't fit.
Sherlock Holmes, to use the easiest example, is NOT
hard-boiled. That's not a knock. That's simply an objective
determination.
Not only is he not hard-boiled, but he and his ilk
(Poirot, Lord Peter, Philo Vance, etc.) were precisely what
the early hard-boiled writers were trying to differentiate
themselves from. I'm not sure when the
"Hammett/Chandler/Burnett" school came to be referred to as
"hard-boiled," but I strongly suspect that, as with film
noir, it was coined (or more correctly adopted, since the
term did exist though not as a term describing a particular
sub-genre of crime fiction) after the stories began to be
published. And when the term was adopted, it was meant to
describe something DIFFERENT from the classic
"Doyle/Queen/Christie" style of mystery. It follows then,
that anyone within that tradition, and Sherlock Holmes is the
greatest exemplar of that tradition, CAN'T be
hard-boiled.
Nevertheless, though Holmes is not hard-boiled, he is
certainly tough. He more than holds his own in a barroom
brawl in "The Solitary Cyclist." He bends steel in his bare
hands in "The Speckled Band." He goes toe-to-toe with the
most powerful man in European organized crime in "The Final
Problem." He single-hadnedly carries on a weeks-long stakeout
while hiding in a swamp in THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES. And
others far more familiar with the Canon than me will probably
be able to come up with other examples. Of course, Holmes
would never describe himself as tough. He'd probably say
"highly intelligent, skilled, and resolute," because "tough"
is simply too "common" a term. Which brings me back to
"colloquial."
I don't know what you think is meant by colloquial. God knows
I've tried to explain several times the last few days, but
let me suggest what it is not.
It is NOT necessarily mean unintelligent.
It is NOT necessarily semi-literate.
It is NOT necessarily ungrammatical.
It is NOT necessarily profane, obscene, or
scatological.
It is simply a common man's way of talking. Straightforward,
clear, and informal, at its core; not stiff, obfuscating, and
formal. I'm not personally familiar with Doc McCoy (though if
he's referred to as
"Doc" rather than "Doctor" that certainly indicates a
colloquial nature), but allow me to suggest that both Smith
and Renko talk the talk of common men.
Smith certainly uses grammar precisely and can throw around
six-dollar words, but he's also the kind of guy calls his
subordinates "Lad" and "Laddie" and who refers to a slain cop
"one of our own" rather than as
"a fellow police officer." His way of speaking is lyrical
rather than formal, in keeping with his Irish background
(shanty Irish though it is). He's colloquial, all right. He's
just not illiterate.
Renko's a tougher case, because, even though the books are
written in English, Martin Cruz Smith has to construct the
dialog so that it READS as though it's vaguely foreign, which
gives it a misleadingly formal appearance. But it's only an
appearance. I would suggest (and it's been years since I read
GORKY PARK and I've never read the sequels) that if we knew
Russian, and we could hear Renko speaking in Russian
(rather than an English that pretends to be translated
Russian but is really just plain English), we'd be hearing
colloquial Russian.
I think both characters qualify as hard-boiled using the
"tough/colloquial" test, but even if they don't, if you like
both characters what does it matter?
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com
-- # 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 : 28 Apr 2002 EDT