At 10:47 AM 27/02/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>If you start from a premise, then what
follows
>logically from that premise must, if the premise
is
>correct, be the result. You may disagree with
my
>premise (of course, you'll be wrong if you do, but
you
>can disagree, just the same), but disagreeing with
my
>premise, that "noir" is not synonomous with
"tragic"
>(in the literary sense), is not the same as
saying
>that my argument is circular.
You gotta pay attention to your "if"s. That's what the debate
is about. If you use your "if"s to prove your "if"s, then
your argument is circular.
>The difference is I never said your argument
was
>circular. I said your premise was flawed. The
reason
>I said your premise was flawed isw because it WAS,
in
>fact, flawed.
No, it was me said such an argument by me would be circular.
We've gotten to the "is to - is not" stage, and there's
definitely something circular about that. Something jugular
about it too.
>So let me get this straight. Duhamel, who
first
>coined the term, got the term wrong? He was the
first
>one to use it, in fact he INVENTED it as a term
for
>describing a particular kind of mystery, but he got
it
>wrong?
Yep. And Coke says it's the real thing, but I don't take that
as a useful definition of cola. But I'm not going to join
their e-mail list to argue the point.
>And "dark and sinister" is too broad? That's
the
>first time that particular criticism has been
leveled
>against it in awhile. Recently, the more
common
>criticism has been that it's far too
restrictive.
Thanks. Mom said I was one of a kind too.
>If it is broad, that's why it serves as a
good
>definition. It not only includes the
"classicly
>tragic" type of crime fiction you've been
talking
>about, but any other crime fiction that is imbued
with
>a dark and sinister atmosphere.
>
>It's simple, easy to remember, and applies to most
(I
>would maintain ALL) of the crime stories
generally
>regarded as coming under the "noir" umbrella.
It
>includes the ever-triumphant Mike Hammer as well
as
>Cain's murderous but sympathetic protagonists.
Just
>as it did when Duhamel first coined it as a
marketing
>tool.
And it includes everything else in the crime writing genre
too, and a lot of stuff outside it. Where's the value?
>I think you missed my point here. What I said
was
>that, prior to Poe, there were certainly stories
with
>bad guys doing bad things (i.e. "committing
crimes")
>that good guys opposed. For that matter, crimes
(or
>acts that most readers would commonly understand to
be
>crime) still occur in stories that are not,
strictly
>speaking, crime stories, per se, such as westerns
and
>science fiction.
>
>After Poe, as crime fiction gradually comes to
be
>recognized as a separate, distinct genre, it takes
on
>what you call "a specific set of conflicts." I
was
>only drawing an historical distinction between
stories
>with crimes (acts which identified the villain
and
>created conflict so that the story could
move
>forward), and crime stories (stories that fall
within
>a distinct, identifiable literary genre
post-Poe).
It's a matter of chronology? Okay, we're cool.
>Actually it's not. Presuming that I'm right
and
>you're wrong (always a safe presumption),
you're
>giving them incorrect information, when, if you
just
>told them that it's a crime story that has a dark
and
>sinister atmosphere, and that's really all there is
to
>it, you'd be giving them correct
information.
Saying noir is crime story with a dark and sinister
atmosphere is redundant.
>And I rarely find the weather a
sufficiently
>interesting topic (though the Chicago winter this
year
>was a real bitch).
Sorry to hear that. Of course, as a guy who can't get the
definition of noir straight, you deserve it.
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