Kerry,
Re your comments below:
> But the term is out there in the big world now.
We
> get to mess with it too.
A term's "being out there in the world" doesn't mean you get
to "mess with it." It means you get to use it.
> Maybe I missed something. Did either of us said
they
> were? I do recall, I
> think, that you had a different definition
for
> hardboil than you had for
> noir, but again, not mutually exclusive. Why do
you
> introduce these extra
> elements to debate?
When Miker said, "This is my problem with the famous Doherty
definition as 'dark and sinister.' It simply lets too many
cats in the door." you replied, "Such as all those dark &
sinister yarns in which good reassuringly triumphs over evil
at the end."
Now since good reassuringly triumps over evil in the end of a
lot of hard-boiled crime fiction, and since some on this list
have suggested that, if the hero wins, it's hard-boiled, but
if the hero loses, it's noir, I inferred that you were
excluding hard-boiled from noir.
> You've done this sort of circular argument
before.
> Tragedy is not the same
> as noir because all noir is not by
definition
> tragic. Not very compelling,
That's not a circular argument. If tragedy is not a defining
element of noir, as I've always maintained, then it follows
that noir can exist without tragic elements (as tragedy is
classically defined). In other words, noir doesn't have to be
about a protagonist who is destined to meet a bad end because
of a fatal flaw in his personality.
Now, since noir deals with crime, and crime requires a
victim, than certainly noir has, as you say, elements of
tragedy as the term is loosely (as opposed to literarily)
applied. So does all crime fiction, noir or non-noir. But
that's not the same as saying all noir is, by definition
tragic, when it's not. It wasn't when Duhamel coined the term
and it's not now.
> That's a pretty thin edge, the difference
between
> crime fiction and fiction
> with crime. I understand what you're getting at
and
> I can see where such a
> difference would be useful, but is there
a
> percentage or possibly a word
> count I can use as a reliable reference? I'd like
to
> have the distinction
> handy next time I'm held to account by
authority:
> "You see, mine is a life
> of crime officer, but not really a criminal
life."
I think it was clear that I was speaking of crime fiction as
a separate, distinct literary genre. As a literary genre it
dates from the mid-19th Century. That parts of the Bible,
Greco-Roman mythology, Shakespeare, etc., contain elements
that are now recognized, in rerospect, as the elements that
Poe merged into crime fiction when he wrote "The Murders in
the Rue Morgue" just means that stories deal with conflict,
and always have, and conflict often means a bad guy doing bad
things (things you might call crimes, if you were so
inclined) and a good guy opposing him.
> Sure, that's why we overlooked it. But jeez,
we're
> trying to settle this
> noir definition thing for all eternity now.
It's
> gone way beyond our little
> circle. You'd be surprised how often I'm asked
in
> bookstores for a
> definition of noir.
Then just tell them that it's a crime story with a dark and
sinister atmosphere. Period.
Or, if you can't abide that definition, then tell them
whatever YOU think the definition is.
What's the big deal? If someone asks you a question, answer
it, in or out of a bookstore.
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better
spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
-- # Plain ASCII text only, please. Anything else won't show up. # 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 : 26 Feb 2004 EST