For many of us, noir was just convenient. We needed a term to
distinguish writers like Jim Thompson, David Goodis, Charles
Williams, Gil Brewer, Harry Whittington, Day Keene, Wade
Miller, Bruno Fischer, Lionel White, Peter Rabe, John
McPartland, and Dan J. Marlowe from writers who wrote private
eye fiction. It was all hard- boiled, but it was not all the
same. We probably did hijack the term -- scraped off the
"roman" and tacked on the "fiction." At the time, back in the
1980's, I guess we probably didn't think anyone would notice.
Sorry, Jim, my bad.
Take care,
George the Librarian
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, JIM DOHERTY
<jimdohertyjr@y...> wrote:
>
> Kerry,
>
> Re your comments below:
>
> > Ho, and you accuse ME of sophistry? I recall
you
> > making exactly the above
> > argument many times, for your definition of
noir.
>
> I've given reasons historical and practical for why
I
> think the definition of noir is broader than
you.
> You've given nothing except, "This is what I
think."
>
> Which argument is based on logic and which
on
> sophistry?
>
> "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?'"
>
> No, I've gotten the argument just fine. I'm using
a
> word more broadly than you do. I'm using it in
the
> way it was originally used, just as "movie"
was
> originally used as a shortened term for
"moving
> picture."
>
> You're using the word "noir" more narrowly. And
I'm
> arguing that your narrow use of that word is just
as
> wrong as a narrow use of "movie" that eliminate
an
> entire class of the form, such as animated
cartoons.
> Now do YOU get the analogy?
>
> > All joking aside, there ARE dark moments in
Anne of
> > Green Gables. Why isn't
> > it, by your definition, considered noir in
common
> > parlance?
>
> And that's an argument you mount after saying
"all
> joking aside?" Well, I don't include ANNE OF
GREEN
> GABLES because, first of all, it's not a mystery,
and
> noir, in the context of this list, is about
mystery
> (crime, suspense, call it what you will 'cause I
don't
> want to start another word war) fiction.
>
> > 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.
>
> Again, you miss the point, and, I think
deliberately.
> If you use a word that is meant to be used broadly
in
> a narrow context, you MISuse the word. "Mystery,"
as
> it is commonly used, has a broad meaning. But
there
> are some people who use it narrowly to mean
ONLY
> whodunits and, when confronted by another kind
of
> mystery, will say, "That's not a mystery. That's
a
> thriller." or "That's a procedural" or
"That's
> criminal protagonist."
>
> Similarly, noir, as it is commonly used, and as it
was
> originally coined, has a broad meaning. But
some
> people, including yourself, use it narrowly, and
are
> just as wrong.
>
> > 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?
>
> If you're going to admit that Spillane,
and
> particularly ONE LONELY NIGHT, is noir, than
you've
> essentially admitted that you've lost the
argument.
> You might not like Mike Hammer, and you
might
> disapprove of his tactics, but he's clearly the
hero,
> he vanquishes the villains, he rescues the damsel,
and
> he analyzes the clues correctly so that he can
reveal
> the hitherto unknown identity of the main bad buy.
He
> triumphs not only over the villains, but over
the
> chaotic environment in which he operates.
>
> Everything you say noir isn't, heroic,
triumphant,
> with solutions the protagonist can reach by logic,
ONE
> LONELY NIGHT is.
>
> Similarly, I might not approve of Parker or
his
> methods, but, in THE OUTFIT, we're clearly supposed
to
> root for him over the forces of monlithic
Organized
> Crime. Again, like Hammer, Parker sets out to
achieve
> a goal, and he achieves it. I have a hard
time
> describing him as a hero, but he's clearly
a
> triumphant protagonist, the main thing you say a
noir
> protagonist is NOT.
>
> But, as far as MOST people are concerned, they
are
> both noir because they both, and particularly
ONE
> LONELY NIGHT, have the dark, sinister
atmospherics
> that mark noir fiction.
>
> > 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?
>
> More sophistry. Everyone on this list, including
you,
> knows that words can have more than one
meaning
> depending on the context. Usually the second
meaning
> is related, in a figurative way, to the
original
> meaning.
>
> But since you're pretending NOT to know that, I'll
use
> two examples.
>
> "Hard-boiled" literally means to cook
something,
> usually an egg, in boiling water long enough to
make
> it hard and tough. Because an egg that is
hard-boiled
> becomes tougher, "hard-boiled" has also become
a
> colloquialism for "tough." Ultimately, in the
context
> of crime fiction, it has come to be used as a
modifier
> for a type of mystery denoted by a tough attitude
and
> a colloquial style.
>
> Similarly, "mystery" itself, means
something
> unexplained or not understood. In its
original
> religious context, it meant a supernatural truth
that
> COULDN'T be explained or understood in mortal
human
> terms. Its original meaning, and, I suspect, its
use
> in so many of the earliest titles in the genre,
has
> led to its being used, figuritively, as the
generic
> word for fiction involved with crime.
>
> Which brings us to "noir," literally, as you
point
> out, the color black. And the dark,
sinister
> connotations of that color ("It was a black
night."
> "The villain was wearing a black hat." Etc.) have
led
> it to be used as the modifier for a type of
mystery
> denoted by its particular use of dark,
sinister
> atmospherics.
>
> > 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.
>
> No it's not, for the simple reason that there are
too
> many examples of mysteries, in a variety of
mediums,
> that are generally classified, not by me but
by
> others, as noir, that don't have the themes you
say
> are the defining characteristics.
>
> "To fail to define the degree or treatment is
simply
> to fail to make your point."
>
> Why? I'm not a surveyor. Look at the books on
the
> Serie Noire list. Look at the movies
generally
> identified as noir. Figure out an average level,
find
> a level that's a bit lower than that average,
and
> that's probably the borderline. I do know that
it
> doesn't HAVE to be so dark that the protagonist
is
> always, as in Jack's definition "screwed." And
I
> know, because you've already admitted it, that
stories
> that have heroes who triumph over adversity can
easily
> make the cut.
>
> "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."
>
> See above.
>
> "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."
>
> Sure you can. Two people can agree that, for
example,
> "hard-boiled" means "tough and colloquial," and
still
> disagree about whether or not a particular
character
> fits the parameters. That's why a lot of people
on
> this list say James Bond is hard-boiled, but I
don't.
>
> For me, he's a bit too polished, a bit too precise,
a
> bit too much the upper-class British genteleman.
But
> I can easily recognize that it's a close
call,
> particularly since he's the most famous example of
a
> mystery sub-genre, the spy story, that is
generally
> regarded as being well within the province
of
> "hard-boiled." For that reason, I've never
objected
> to Bond's being discussed on this list on the basis
of
> his being "not hard-boiled," and have never
even
> brought it up except when asked.
>
> Similarly, I have a hard time regarding P.D.
James's
> Adam Dalgliesh as hard-boiled (though very often
his
> stories are quite clearly noir) for many of the
same
> reasons. He's too overtly cultured, too precise
in
> the use of language, too much the upper-class
British
> gentleman. But, again, it's a close call,
> particularly since he, like Bond, is in a
mystery
> sub-genre, the police procedural, widely regarded
as
> well within the purview of "hard-boiled." Again,
if
> someone wants to discuss him, I'll raise
no
> objections.
>
> In the same way, if someone calls a story or
novel
> "noir" that doesn't seem, to my eye, to meet
the
> requirements, that doesn't seem QUITE dark
and
> sinister enough to qualify, I doubt if I'll raise
an
> objection. I'd rather be too inclusive than
too
> exclusive.
>
> In your entire long post, you've only managed to
raise
> two cogent arguments. The first:
>
> > 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!
>
> Yeah, but it was marketers that COINED the term,
and
> you've already said that you accepted my
"original
> usage" point, or at least admitted that it
was
> convincing. But on to common usage.
>
> What examples could I offer that you couldn't
claim
> were "merely anecdotal?" It's not like I can take
a
> poll of the nation, or the world, at
large.
>
> Nevertheless, I'll offer one piece of evidence that
I
> regard as very solid. THE BIG BOOK OF NOIR is a
1998
> anthology of articles and essays about noir fiction
in
> a variety of mediums, with contributions by
present
> and former Rara-Avians like Bill Crider,
Robert
> Skinner, Ed Gorman, Ettienne Borgers, and Dick
Lochte,
> as well as non-Rara-Avis members like Max
Allan
> Collins, Gary Lovisi, Stephen King, et
al.
>
> Sticking strictly to the section on prose
fiction
> (there are separate sections on movies, comics,
and
> TV/radio, which also prove my point, but we'll
stick
> to prose), we have whole chapters about
Harry
> Whittington, Mickey Spillane, Donald Hamilton, John
D.
> MacDonald, Ross Macdonald, Charles Williams,
Patricia
> Highsmith, et al. Other chapters include
shorter
> entries on Patricia Cornwell, Leigh Brackett,
Evan
> Hunter, James Reasoner, Joe Lansdale, Bill
Pronzini,
> James Ellroy, W.R. Burnett, William P.
McGivern,
> Dorothy B. Hughes, and Dean Koontz.
>
> That's pretty damned broad! And this isn't a bunch
of
> "bottom-line" publishers looking to gull
the
> unsuspecting public. This is a group of
respected
> experts in the field who all use "noir" in a
much
> wider context than you insist it has. And, at
the
> risk of repeating myself yet again, I'd venture
to
> suggest that about the only thing all of
these
> authors' works have in common is a dark,
sinister
> atmosphere. There may be a few who don't even
have
> that, to my eye, but they evidently did to
whoever
> wrote about them for this book.
>
> > 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?
>
> For the same reason I reject the notion that
"mystery"
> only means "whodunit." Because it's not what
the
> people who coined the term meant, and it's not
how
> it's commonly used now.
>
> Which brings me to what really frosts me about
this
> narrow use of the term.
>
> When someone says, "That's not a mystery that's
a
> thriller," there's an unspoken addendum. "What
I'm
> choosing to call mysteries are superior to
thrillers,
> and that is why I'm choosing to deliberatley
exclude
> thrillers when I use the word."
>
> When I hear someone wax on about the profound
insights
> into the meaninglessness of life that noir fiction
so
> expertly depicts, or how Hammett can't be noir
because
> his character are too tough, or Chandler can't be
noir
> because Marlowe's too heroic, and noir is
ultimately
> about characters marching reluctantly to their
doom,
> what I'm hearing is, "What I'm calling noir is
more
> important and deep than the mere entertainments
most
> people mean when they use the term, so I'll use it
in
> a narrow sense that specifically excludes the stuff
I
> regard as inferior."
>
> That kind of elitism does, I admit, push a hot
button
> for me. And if I sounded too passionate in the
course
> of this thread, that's why.
>
> But I've said everything I have to say on the
subject,
> and I've said it all before, which is the reason
that,
> until this recent thread, I've stayed out of
the
> discussions, for the better part of a year, every
time
> it, or the "hard-boiled" argument came
up.
>
> I'm simply tired of repeating myself. And, I
suspect,
> most of you are tired of hearing me repeat
myself.
>
> So, Kerry, if you're not convinced, I leave you to
the
> satisfaction of having the last word. I'm
retiring
> from the field.
>
> JIM DOHERTY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice
2005
> http://mail.yahoo.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 : 11 Oct 2005 EDT