I'm still not buying your definition, it is too simplistic
and fails the Wizard of Oz test. If Dorothy Gale fits, then
it can't be hardboiled. I'll take tough, but not colloquial
as definitive. While I agree that most hardboiled characters
are colloquial in their speech (a necessity of location and
vocation), I don't feel that it's definitive or that there's
conclusive evidence that every hardboiled character classic
and otherwise is strictly blue-collar in origin either.
If you accept that the genre is evolutionary in nature than
it logically follows that it's devolutionary as well. Thus
Sherlock Holmes is hardboiled for his era and culture, while
not being hardboiled for ours
... but you can't judge any one fictional or real within your
own context, they won't fit. Just as Marlowe and the other
classic HB characters are not as hardboiled in today's world
as they were in their own.
There's a definition out there and tough is a part of it and
colloquial will have it's place, but the genres too big for
the small box you're trying to stuff it into.
-- Anthony Dauer Alexandria, Virginia
2nd Annual Country Noir Issue ...
http://www.adau.net/judas_ezine/
... submit by 4 May 2002
-----Original Message----- From: JIM DOHERTY Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 7:49 PM
They're both roughly the same quality and both are necessary subsidiaries of "tough," and, consequently, don't need to be added.
-- # 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 May 2002 EDT