At 03:24 PM 02/10/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>On what basis do you disagree with it, other than
the
>"Lewis Carroll" basis of "When I use a word, it
means
>precisely what I want it to mean, no more no
less?"
Ho, and you accuse ME of sophistry? I recall you making
exactly the above argument many times, for your definition of
noir.
>Apparently, original usage doesn't matter.
>Apparently, COMMON usage doesn't matter. If
it
>doesn't mean what you want it to mean, you'll
simply
>use it the way you want to, anyway. Have I got
that
>right?
You've done well with your original usage argument, but I'm
afraid you'll have to provide more evidence for COMMON usage
than your say-so. Certainly there is a commercial usage, but
marketers are just as likely to use the word incorrectly as
anyone else- especially since they've the well recognized
motivation to try to sell more product to more people by
describing the product as broadly as possible. Have you never
purchased something only to discover it does not live up to
its advertising, Jim? Man, have I got some stuff to sell
you!
And why discount other opinions on RA (not just my own)
including some noir authors who suggest they had more than
atmospherics in mind when they wrote the books? These are
people who read and study the subject, actively looking for
what makes this particular genre work for them. Why discount
their definitions too?
If the term is still used substantially the same way
>as it was originally used, and it is, that pretty
much
>IS the end of the discussion. Does "movie,"
for
>example, mean mean only films that have live actors
in
>it, thus eliminating animation? Of course not,
and
>for anyone to say that those who include cartoons
in
>the broader rubric are wrong, just because
s/he
>doesn't think including cartoons is
particularly
>useful for his/her purposes doesn't "extend
the
>discussion," it simply uses the word
incorrectly.
I don't think you've quite got the argument here Jim. The
analogy would be to extend the use of the word "movie" to
mean anything that moves. Given that the world hurtles
through space, there's little useful distinction in that.
It's only useful when we answer "compared to what?"
In fact, the word "animation," though similar to "movie" is
commonly used to make a distinction between two types of
similar arts, one based upon the photography of animated
beings and another based upon the animation of inanimate
drawings or models through the use of photography.
All joking aside, there ARE dark moments in Anne of Green
Gables. Why isn't it, by your definition, considered noir in
common parlance?
If you use "mystery" when you mean "whodunit" or
>"puzzle," you imply that any story in which
the
>villain is known to the audience from the first is
NOT
>a mystery,
Quite the reverse. If you say "mystery" you will include
stories in which the question is not only who did the crime,
but how the crime came about, how it was solved or possibly
some other bit of information revealed in the telling. Use of
the word "whodunit" implies a subcategory of mystery that to
the exclusion of these other questions, at least as the
story's main purpose.
>Simlarly, if you use "noir" when you really
mean
>"screwed," you exclude PI novels like Spillane's
ONE
>LONELY NIGHT, procedurals like Goodis's OF
MISSING
>PERSONS, gangster novels like Stark's THE
OUTFIT,
>romantic suspensers like Vera Caspary's LAURA , and
a
>whole lot of other crime fiction that fits
the
>parameters of the term as most people understand
it.
Not necessarily. Spillane's world of vigilante justice
implies a chaotic world to me, one in which a commonly
accepted standard of civilization (the justice system) is
doomed. It has been a long time since I read The Outfit so
please forgive me if I've got it wrong, but wasn't that about
how one man could humble a large, powerful organization? Who
wasn't doomed in that scenario? The mob that was vulnerable
to guerilla tactics or the thief whose purpose was
necessarily diverted to that risky activity?
>You may WANT "noir" to mean something more
restictive,
>you may find it more useful if it meant something
more
>restrictive, but it's incorrect usage, bad
>communication, and it confuses the issue.
>
>Use "private eye" if you mean private eye,
not
>"hard-boiled."
Well, thanks for the permission.
> Use "whodunit" or "puzzle" if you mean
>whodunit/puzzle, not "mystery."
We covered this.
> And use "screwed" or
>"modern tragedy" or "nihilistic" or else come up
with
>some similar term to describe what you mean.
"Noir"
>already means something more generic.
So generic it is without meaning. Therefore we've felt the
need to fit a meaning to an admittedly old word.
Speaking or original words, by your argument "noir" would be
French for
"black" and that's the end of it. That's what it meant
originally, and that's still common parlance in France and
the many places in the world that use the language. Anybody
who came along and used the word to describe a category of
literature would be simply be wrong because more people, even
those describing the colour of automobiles or clothing, use
the word to mean the equivalent of black than for any other
purpose. Who are you to change it?
>Sure it does, but, as you very well know, it's
a
>question of treatment and degree. A comic romp
by
>Donald Westlake treats the dark subject matter
much
>more lightly than a brooding PI novel by Tucker Coe
or
>a gangster novel by Richard Stark, and, waht's
more,
>that's obvious to anyone who's the least
bit
>perceptive.
Okay, talk to me like I'm an unperceptive six year old,
because I just don't see where you're setting the cut-off.
Tell me the required degree. What is the necessary treatment.
Because that's all I've been telling you Jim. The degree or
required treatment is one at which it becomes apparent that
efforts to transcend the human condition are doomed. You got
another one, lay it out.
> To suggest that "dark" is simply too
>broad because it necessarily encompasses all
of
>western literature is mere sophistry.
To fail to define the degree or treatment is simply to fail
to make your point.
>Of course there will be disagreements at the
frontiers
>over whether a given piece of work meets
the
>defintions. That's why, for example, some
people
>regard James Bond or Batman as hard-boiled and
I
>don't. Or why some might insist that the
gothic
>suspense PBO's that were so popular in the '60's
and
>'70's are noir (because they usually have
dark,
>sinister atmospherics) while others would not
(because
>they lack the grittiness most expect from noir
fiction
>due to its close association with
hard-boiled).
Okay, I've accepted there'll be disagreements. But where is
your frontier? And don't just repeat the old argument. Tell
me at what point dark atmospherics become noir, please.
>These are issues that can be dealt with on a case
by
>case basis, but they have nothing to do with
the
>broader definition.
Oh yes they do. You can't argue (discuss?) the case by case
application if you have no idea of the definition. That's
precisely what you've been saying about meaning and language,
Jim.
>Well, it may be useless. I won't argue about
that.
>You know best whether a term is useful to you or
not.
>But saying the definition's useless is not the
same
>thing as saying that it's incorrect. If a
broad
>definition of noir is useless to you, that's not
my
>fault, and not my problem.
If I accepted that it would mean you have no idea what you're
talking about, and I don't accept that. I believe you (and I
mean you specifically Jim) can set useful parameters for the
meaning of noir.
> The term means what it
>means.
Where have I heard that before? Wait a minute: "...the
'Lewis Carroll' basis of 'When I use a word, it means
precisely what I want it to mean, no more no less'?"
Wasn't that supposed to describe MY thought process,
Jim?
Best, Kerry
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite
Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kqIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Oct 2005 EDT