Doug,
Re your comments below:
> Even granting you this point -- and your
> qualification
> wasn't immediately apparent to me, anyway --
does
> AND
> THEN THERE WERE NONE/TEN LITTLE INDIANS
qualify?
No
> How about THE RETURN OF DR. FU MANCHU?
Noir but not hard-boiled
> THE CROOKED HINGE?
Haven't read it.
> THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES?
Noir but not hard-boiled.
> THE SPY THAT CAME IN FROM THE COLD?
Haven't read it. However, THE SPY _WHO_ CAME IN FROM THE COLD
is noir and marginally hard-boiled, and the movie version may
be a candidate for the last official film noir. In fact I
recall a reading a review (I think it was by short story ace
Edward D. Hoch) in which he complained that the B&W
photography made an already dark story seem TOO dark.
> Or Joe R. Lansdale's classic short
> story "Night They Missed the Horror
Show"?
Haven't read it. But the Lansdale stuff I have read qualifies
as noir and some of it is hard-boiled.
> They're all crime stories, they all have a dark
and
> sinister atmosphere (at least I think so); are
they
> all noirs?
See above.
> I personally think that it's a lot harder to
define
> "noir" or "hardboiled" than, say "police
procedural"
> or "spy story". Those latter two are
structural
> definitions, they describe the plot. The first
two
> are
> stylistic definitions. You could have a
noirish
> police
> procedural, or a hardboiled one, or one
that's
> neither. They're approaches to subject matter,
it
> seems to me, and it's a lot harder to quantify
that
> kind of thing.
I don't disagree that there can be a lot of
cross-pollination. Ellroy's cop novels are noir. Nan
Hamilton's are not. But they're both LA-set police
procedurals.
Nor, by defining noir or hard-boiled, do I mean to suggest
that there aren't gradations within the parameters. For
example, most would probably agree that Mike Hammer is more
hard-boiled than the Continental Op who, in turn, is more
hard-boiled than Phil Marlowe. But that's not the same as
saying that Hammer's hard-boiled and the Op's not, or that
the Op's hard-boiled and Marlowe's not.
Even within a author's work, even within a given series,
there can be gradations. Chandler's "Red Wind" is more noir
that "Trouble Is My Business," and FAREWELL, MY LOVELY more
noir than THE HIGH WINDOW.
Finally, it's possible, as I've said several times, to agree
on a definition, but not agree on whether or not a given
work, or a given character, fits that definition.
Many who like the "tough/colloquial" definition think that
James Bond fits. I don't. Disagreeing on that point doesn't
make the definition any less valid.
> It's tempting to be a hardass, keep it
simple,
> in/out.
> If you can quantify a spy story, why not noir?
I
> understand completely, for in the past I
often
> thought
> this way myself. But I was an idiot. Sometimes
the
> straightforward thing just doesn't work:
there's
> just
> too many counterexamples, and there'll always be
a
> smartass who'll share them. Is somebody who's
just
> finished Goodis's DOWN THERE and wants
something
> similar really going to get that from FALLING
ANGEL,
> a
> book where it's revealed the hero sold his soul
to
> the
> devil and the investigation was a way for Satan
to
> collect?
Yes, but that has nothing to do with what is meant by
"hard-boiled" and "noir." Those terms are just descriptions
of a type of story. They're not guarantees that a given
reader is going to like everything that fits those
parameters.
That you like Chandler doesn't mean you'll like, say, Robert
Leslie Bellem. Nevertheless, it doesn't follow that Marlowe
and Turner are NOT both hard-boiled private eyes.
Similarly, liking, say, James M. Cain, doesn't mean you'll
like Patricia Highsmith, though they explore a lot of
similarly noir-ish themes.
All of that depends on the individual writer, the individual
reader, the individual book, the particular mood the reader's
in when he picks up that book, and a whole host of other
things that have nothing to with whether or not a given book
is hard-boiled or noir or both or neither.
Those are all questions of a given reader's taste, a given
writer's talent, a given book's effectiveness, and other
things having nothing to with the whether or not the proposed
definitions are valid.
If you want a definition of hard-boiled or noir that
guarantees that a reader will enjoy all books falling within
a particular classification, I'm sorry, there's just no such
thing. That's something every reader is going to have to
decide on a book-by-book basis.
> That doesn't mean you can't define noir
or
> hardboiled,
> I just think it pays to be nuanced about it.
List
> the
> criteria that generally distinguishes noir
fiction
> (forboding atmosphere, realism, crime
story,
> downbeat
> ending, weak or insufficient protagonist,
paranoia
> or
> defeatism, etc.), list authors or books that
easily
> fit (Woolrich, Goodis, Cain, Kersh's NIGHT AND
THE
> CITY, etc.), note the marginal cases
(Lansdale,
> maybe), note the ones that seem not to fit
(FU
> MANCHU
> series), and then fight it out on an
individual
> author
> and book basis. When you're done, the sum total
of
> the
> works in the "easily fit" and "maybe fit"
catagory
> should give you a picture of noir
fiction.
That's essentially what I did. And I discovered that the
criteria that generally distinguishes noir is a dark and
sinister atmosphere. Not weak protagonists. Not downbeat
endings. Not defeatism. Just a dark and sinister atmosphere.
Further I discovered that not only Goodis, Cain, Kersh, and
Woolrich, but Spillane, Chandler, Hammett, and, yes, Sax
Rohmer, all easily fit the parameters.
So now you're down to the individual books, just like I said
you'd be, and just like you admitted you'd be.
> . . . you were talking in
> another post about how the SERE NOIRE
guys
> classified
> noir writers. Do you think that Chandler
fits?
I've said so several times during this discussion. I grant
you the title of my e-book on Chandler (RAYMOND CHANDLER -
MASTER OF AMERICAN NOIR) was imposed on me by my publisher
(or more correctly employer, since it was work-for-hire) but
I didn't object. I think it was a prefectly appropriate
title. And the SERIE NOIR guys must've thought so, too, or
else why publish him under that imprint?
> Whatever that French guy did, does it seem right
to
> you? Is he noir in the way THEY SHOOT HORSES,
DON'T
> THEY? is noir? I don't think so.
Maybe not, but that comes down, as I suggested before to
gradations within noir, not whether or not they're both
noir.
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo!
- Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
-- # 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 : 15 May 2004 EDT