Jim wrote:
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?
************* I agree with you, Jim. Whether a book
advocates
"social reform" or not has nothing to do with whether it is
noir or hardboiled.
I think the question comes into play because a common theme
in noir is the inevitable doom of the protagonist. If "social
reform" is suggested as a solution, the doom is not so
inevitable. The ambiguity is worth noting, and even noir
writers can't seem to figure out what they are saying.
Sallis, in his nonfiction book about three noir writers,
declares the doom of the protagonist on one page and his hope
for salvation through "social reform" on another. Let them
eat cake. And have it, too.
miker
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call
rates. http://voice.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 26 Nov 2006 EST