The original question was, does a book with a politically
progressive viewpoint (or any political viewpoint), which
would, absent the political agenda, be classified as noir or
hard-boiled (however those are defined), automatically become
NOT noir or NOT hard-boiled because of the political
agenda.
So the question of how noir/hard-boiled is defined is really
beside the point, because, if the original premise is
correct, HOWEVER it's defined, it's automatically not noir
once the main purpose of the author becomes advocacy for a
particular political point.
And whether or not Thompson is political is beside the point,
because even if he is, if the premise is correct, the
conclusion could just as easily be that Thompson wasn't
hard-boiled/noir, after all.
My position, and, if I'm reading he responses correctly, the
group consensus is, advocating social reform does not render
a work that would otherwise be regarded as hard-boiled/noir
something OTHER than hard-boiled/noir.
Or am I misinterpreting the responses?
JIM DOHERTY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 26 Nov 2006 EST