Except, of course, that dark and sinister atmospherics, while
often employed in noir, are not the defining characteristic
of noir.
Kerry
At 10:38 AM 24/11/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>Jay,
>
>Re your question below:
>
>"I assume that novelists who can
>be called noir, like Cain, McCoy, Algren,
Dahlberg,
>Fante, or Benjamin Appel are not social reformers
or
>proletarian novelists inciting to social change,
and
>that social reformers like James T Farrell, John
Dos
>Passos or Michael Gold, however much they deal
with
>evil, the criminal underclass, and
political
>corruption, cannot be considered noir or
hardboiled.
>Does this distinction make sense?"
>
>No, it doesn't.
>
>Hard-boiled is about attitude and style, not
politics.
>Noir is about tone and atmosphere, not
politics.
>
>If it's tough and colloquial, it's
hard-boiled.
>
>If it's dark and sinister, it's noir.
>
>If it's tough and colloquial, AND dark and
sinister,
>it's hard-boiled AND noir.
>
>If it's any of those things, and the writer has
a
>political ax to grind, either right-wing or
left-wing,
>then it's hard-boiled, or noir, or hard-boiled
AND
>noir, with either a right-wing ax to grind, or
a
>left-wing ax to grind.
>
>In other words, that the writer may be considered
a
>social reformer, or may consider himself a
social
>reformer, doesn't enter into the equation.
>
>JIM DOHERTY
>
>__________________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
beta.
><http://new.mail.yahoo.com>http://new.mail.yahoo.com
>
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Nov 2006 EST