At 02:26 PM 26/02/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>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.
I think I may have the answer to this, and that Humpty Dumpty
stuff.
I have a copy of the CANADIAN Oxford Dictionary, which
implies that there are other versions. Even within the Canuck
version there are references to usages that vary from region
to region. Soon my dictionary will be out of date, which
implies there will be new words, and some new definitions to
old words, and some definitions that have fallen into disuse.
As I understand it, most English language dictionaries are
created by experts who try to find the initial use of a word,
or a new use of an existing word, and then see if that usage
has gained acceptance in the language of defined
communities.
And I have heard that French language dictionaries, the
official ones at least, are compiled by selected experts who
debate the appropriate use of words relative to historic
records, keeping the official version of the language pure. I
think the government comes into it somewhere too, dark and
sinister as such speculation may be.
Now, since we are debating the English usage of a French word
"noir" it follows therefore that...ugh, merde!
>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.
"...in the end of a LOT of hard-boiled crime fiction," but
not all of it. I suspect not even in most of it, but why
quibble? Some stories are hardboiled and noir. The terms are
not mutually exclusive.
>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).
Another lap around the track. It must be a circular argument.
My head is spinning. Point is, the trip is not sufficient to
remove the "If" from the beginning of your second sentence.
Nor is the "as I've always maintained."
> 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.
Well, I'd say it does. I'd argue it again, but that just puts
me on the same track as you, going in the opposite
direction.
>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.
Of course I'd agree with you that, loosely applied, the term
"tragedy" is useless within the context of crime fiction. But
literarily applied, as you put it, it is not. So we agree
that not all crime fiction has a protagonist that is
tragically flawed.
> 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.
Then that's what makes Duhamel's definition of noir of little
value when we try to understand what makes noir different
from other crime fiction. He used the term as a brand for
marketing his books. Fine, but as an able salesman, he could
be relied upon to broaden the meaning of the brand to
encompass the products he chose to sell.
Similarly "dark and sinister" is too broad. We may reasonably
say that any story that involves crime, especially murder,
employs dark and sinister atmospherics. Even Miss Marple
dealt with dark goings on in her little village. But Miss M
was a good soul in a positive environment that would be
restored to good when the crime was solved. Sam Spade, on the
other hand, was uncertain of his values, which made his need
to enforce them that much stronger, and I'm not sure the
world was a better place when he was done. I doubt even that
Spade was any better off. There is a difference between these
two protagonists, and it is more than the fact that one was
hardboiled (employing a colloquial style, I think you said)
and the other not.
>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.
No, I'm sorry, it means something more specific than
conflict. In crime-writing the bad guy has come into a
specific set of conflicts: those that involve the encoded
rules set down by the collective society in which he lives.
Literature and life have many other types of conflicts, but
the defining conflicts in crime-writing are criminal.
Within that category are another group of stories that have
something else in common, such as not-so-good guys as
protagonists, or maybe sometimes nice guys as protagonists
who can't handle the conflict, can't redeem themselves or
make the world a better place. That, as I tell the folks at
the bookstore, is noir. According to moi.
It's okay that we'd tell them different things. I hope some
day to enjoy the pleasure of meeting you as others on
RARA-AVIS have. Maybe we should talk about the weather?
Best Kerry
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
-- # 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 : 27 Feb 2004 EST