Is Michael truly noir?
Not by the way I define noir. And by the way, an extensive
discussion of a definition for noir came up a few years
ago.
To my way of thinking, Noir involves more than plot line and
character arc - although those are certainly important
elements and cannot be excluded in any definition - it is
more a 'feeling'. The city or other setting becomes as much a
character in the book as do the protagonist and antagonist.
Chandler's LA is almost palpable and greatly lends to the
noir "feel" that is so prevalent - yet often so indefinable.
On the other hand, even with the right emphasis on setting, a
novel can still not be noir.
Take, for example, the alphabet series by Sue Grafton. You
have a PI, you have a city that is a major character in her
books (her Santa Teresa is a fictional Santa Barbara) and yet
I don't think anyone calls her work - noir.
I don't think Robert B. Parker's Spenser series -although he
does an excellent job, in most cases, of keeping the paradigm
established by Chandler and Hammett - represent noir
either.
On the other hand, I think Loren Estleman does. Again, my
opinion.
I like Michael's work, though I must admit I haven't read a
lot of it. I enjoyed The Closers and Blood Work, though this
wasn't a Bosch novel.
But I think if you compare his writing with novels that most
people would agree are noir, you will find some stark
discrepancies.
Brandt
www.brandtdodson.com <http://www.brandtdodson.com/>
_____
Is Michael truly noir? Any thoughts?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 05 Mar 2008 EST