Jack,
Re your comments below:
"Maybe settled for Jim, but I still say the definition of
noir is 'screwed.' The old Gothic novels were dark and
sinister, so are the modern erotic vampire novels ... Noir,
nah."
"Noir," in the context that we're discussing it here, refers
to the specific genre of crime fiction, not supernatural
horror fiction, and not gothic fiction that predates the
mystery. However, I'll certainly grant that the dark,
sinister atmosphere of gothic literature influences, to one
degree or another, modern noir crime fiction.
As for your proposed defintion, in any piece of crime
fiction, even in the coziest whodunit featuring the dearest,
most grandmotherly "little old lady" sleuth, SOMEONE is
always screwed. Someone, perhaps a comparatively minor
character in many cases, but someone, is the victim of a
crime, usually of a murder. And being murdered is as screwed
as you can get. So, given one interpretation, your definition
is too broad.
On the other hand, if you mean that the PROTAGONIST must be
screwed, then, conversely, your definition is much too
narrow. Many books published under the SERIE NOIRE imprint,
many films listed in Silver & Ward's FILM NOIR, many
authors profiled in THE BIG BOOK OF NOIR, fall outside of
those tight parameters.
I'm not waving the flag for "dark and sinister" because I
WANT noir to mean that. I am, as I've said in the past,
looking at the books, films, and authors, commonly referred
to as "noir," from virtually the beginning of that term's
being coined to describe a particular kind of mystery, and
trying to discern the common elements.
Many of the novels and films deemed "noir," not by me but by
others, and not recently but from the beginning of the term's
coinage, do, as you observe, feature
"screwed" protagonists, but as many, or more, feature
ultimately triumphant protagonists. So "screwed" simply can't
be a correct definition because too many within the class
under consideration, too many that have always commonly been
counted as being under the umbrella of "noir," are excluded
by it.
However, what they all DO seem to have in common, to one
degree or another, are certain atmospheric qualities, certain
tones, that I have called "dark and sinister." Think of a
better way of describing those atmospheric qualities, and
I'll jump on your bandwagon.
"The definition of hardboiled is 'tough.' Makes no difference
if it's colloquial. No way Chandler was colloquial ... I know
Jim will argue this too. But being literate doesn't exclude a
character or a book from being hardboiled."
You're arguing from a false premise. You're assuming that
"literate" and "colloquial" are mutually exclusive terms, and
they aren't. Mark Twain proves that. Ernest Hemingway proves
that.
To say that style isn't an integral element of
"hard-boiled" is simply to miss the obvious. The very term
"hard-boiled" is a colloquial metaphor, for crying out
loud.
If one needs only to be tough, consider who must be included
under "hard-boled's" big tent. Sherlock Holmes routinely
faces down the worst criminal elements in London. Hercule
Poirot was a legendary figure in European law enforcement
circles before retiring and going private. Lord Peter Wimsey
is a combat veteran. To include these characters, worthy
though they are, tough though they are, within the rubric of
"hard-boiled" is to render the term meaningless. The
hard-boiled writers of the original pulps, even the worst of
them (and as KBS has recently observed, a lot of them could
be pretty bad) were reacting to, and to some degree against,
just the kind of mystery Holmes, Poirot, and Wimsey appeared
in.
Hence, style is, and must be, an integral part of the recipe.
Conan Doyle, Christie, and Sayers wrote in a more formal
style than writers like Daly, Hammett, and Gardner. And the
style is what drew the British-educated Chandler to the
form.
"Hammett," Chandler wrote, "gave murder back to the people
who commit it . . . AND HE MADE THEM TALK AND THINK IN THE
LANGUAGE THEY CUSTOMARILY USED FOR THESE PURPOSES (emphasis
mine)."
Years later, another British-educated American driven to
write hard-boiled mysteries, Ross Macdonald, would also talk
about the literary possibilities of colloquial language. I
don't have the exact quote handy, but the gist was something
like:
"Democracy is as much a language as it is a philosophy. Phil
Marlowe and Lew Archer can go anywhere, at least once, and
talk to anybody."
Colloquial expression, then, is the great equalizer that sets
the hard-boiled mystery apart from its traditional, "cozy,"
and more class-conscious predecessor.
As for whether or not Chandler himself was colloquial, he was
certainly TRYING to be. If you think he was unsuccessful,
well, that's a personal opinion, but there's not a doubt that
Chandler was certainly attempting to write in a colloquial
style.
Indeed, fascinated as he was with the literary possibilities
of American colloquial language, Chandler actually went to
the length of compiling his own dictionary of American slang
just to be sure he was using it accurately in his work. How
you can say a writer who went to such lengths to be
colloquial, who was attracted to the form precisely BECAUSE
of its colloquialism, isn't colloquial at all, and then use
that puzzling assertion as proof that the hard-boiled mystery
has nothing to do with a colloquial style, mystifies me no
end.
"The settlement, as Jim calls it, was that we just got tired
of discussing it."
Nah, you just didn't want to admit that I was right all
along.
JIM DOHERTY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added
security of spyware protection.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07 Jul 2007 EDT