I can't say that I'm at all surprised by this, Miker. After
all, "literary" these days seems to pretty much be a
watchword for "pretenious" and "dismissive of "non-literary"
fiction. Also, why would a "literary" author actually have
any sort of structure to a non-fiction piece he does?
Structure, plot, narrative flow, etc., are all currently
frowned upon by what passes for the smart set in "literary"
fiction.
All of this is a large part of why a friend of mine refers
(rightly, I think) to literary fiction as "just another
genre."
Happy New Year-
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Robison
To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 1:37 PM
Subject: RARA-AVIS: Dark Harvest article
I spent a few minutes reading Barry Hannah's
article
on noir in the southern literary magazine,
Oxford
something or other. I almost didn't finish it.
The
first four paragraphs were worthless. After that
he
decided to actually get down to the subject.
He
mentioned some great noir fiction classics, but
he
didn't shed any new light on the subject, or
even
frame it with any particular clarity. He spends
a
couple useless paragraphs describing several of
what
he considers unbelievable portrayals of murder
in
Hammett's Red Harvest. I do give him credit
for
mentioning Faulkner's Sanctuary.
I read a short and unmemorable novel by Hannah
here
recently. This article was of the same
caliber.
miker
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 11 Jan 2007 EST