As a regular reader and mostly lurker, I have enjoyed the
suggestions of good reading material and found great books
from many of the contributors; I consider this the main value
of being on this list.
However, while I enjoy some of the discussions of
definitions of things like "noir" and "hardboiled", I found
that many of them recently have degenerated into somewhat
disrespectful disagreements and caustic barbs. Perhaps
off-list communications would be the proper forum to continue
some of these debates, especially if the back and forth goes
beyond more than two exchanges. I don't know if anyone else
feels the same way, but I find myself deleting a lot of
messages if it appears the jist is an ongoing argument.
Thanks for listening.
Pat Lee
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, William Ahearn
<williamahearn@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- jacquesdebierue <jacquesdebierue@...>
wrote:
>
> Therefore, the degree
> > of "screwedness"
> > of the protagonist cannot be a determinant
factor
> > for calling a work
> > of art "noir".
> >
> Fine. It's not my definition. It's Jack's. All I
was
> referring to was Sam Spade. He's not screwed.
That's
> all. That's it. I was not creating an
over-arching
> definition covering the slave eaten by crocs on
the
> ancient shore of the Nile all the way up to
Ken
> Bruen's last wet dream. You have a noir
definition
> that you're happy with? I'm so tickled for you. All
I
> was responding to was Sam Spade. Even though I
think
> you're wrong and you un-define by muddying the
water.
> But I no longer care . . .
>
> William
>
> Essays and Ramblings
> <http://www.williamahearn.com>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
______________
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! -
their life, your
story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
> http://sims.yahoo.com/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Oct 2007 EDT