Okay, so he had hope. We all have hope. Point is, is it founded. Noir doesn't necessarily mean the absence of a moral code or hope based on one, only that such a code does not save us from ourselves or the pointlessness of our chosen tasks. Frank was a drifter. He drifted into his fate just as naturally as the wind. Cora was compulsively ambitious and dissatisfied. What was so bad about the Greek, except that she found him kind of hairy and sweaty? Cora was trouble waiting to happen.
Wasn't Huff an insurance salesman, his product etherial? He guaranteed people's lives. Do I recall that correctly? If so, Huff had "hope" in spades. Hell, he sold hope. It led him to murder. That's kind of a significant statement about the value of hope I think, but maybe I have it all wrong.
Mildred Pearce was a nice lady. There used to be a restaurant in Toronto named in her honour. Still, her ambition led to the neglect of her children in very elemental ways, leaving Mildred with one dead kid and one very live monster. Now you may think that's just Mildred, that you or I could achieve our ambitions (ambition is widely heralded) and not be compromised as Mildred was, or Huff or Macbeth for that matter, but I say that's just the kind of hopeful thinking that encourages people to embark on such ambitious endeavours despite their futility. That's why these stories are noir. The characters' single-minded dedication to financial and/or social success (prosperity) cannot transcend the human condition. Kids remain black-holes of attention. Treason leads to mayhem. The notion of guaranteeing life is itself perverse.
But do not be discouraged. When you're done with hope you can move on to prayer.
Best,
Kerry
----- Original Message -----
From: davezeltserman
To: rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:24 PM
Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: Noir -- Penzler, Kerry and MRT
Regardless of his moral code Walter Huff still had hope until the point where he committed murder, so did Frank & Cora. But once they committed the act, there's was nothing left for them except a slow spiral into the abyss, whether or not they might've kidded themselves otherwise.
I also didn't take Walter Huff's motivation as lust for Phylis, or even the money, but more the challenge of being able to pull off the murder.
--- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "gsp.schoo@..." <gsp.schoo@...> wrote:
>
> Huff was doomed from his first hard-on. Similarly Frank & Cora were doomed by lust. These weren't nice people with moral codes that they failed to adhere to. These were people who failed to transcend their own hormones. Double Indemnity and Postman are noir, absolutely. Now you may wish to describe their lust as fatal flaws, which they would be if these were tragedies, but if you remove the lust you don't have characters at all. That's how the stories are written. These people were screwed before they started screwing. At the beginning of the stories they were characters waiting for the opportunity to live their fates. I mean, what is Frank if not a complete fuck-up?
>
> As for Macbeth et al, I'm pretty sure those plays are called Shakespearean Tragedies, not Noirs. Not that we have to adhere to convention, but the characters had tragic flaws. Macbeth was a loyal slayer until he listened to the 3 sisters and his own wife. Madness ensued. Hamlet was a decent enough chap who had opportunities to resolve his situation, but couldn't bring himself to act. The tragedy of R&J was the Montagues & Capulets. At least, they are the ones admonished in the final scene. Of course R&J were in intemperate heat just like Frank & Cora, but they were young. It was the adults of the family who were supposed to keep things cool. Lear was an endearing enough guy except where his kids were concerned. Then he became an interfering old man, hoping he could buy his children's affection. Othello was a prince of a guy manipulated through his jealousy and lack of faith in his wife. All tragic flaws. Remove those flaws and we've got fine fellows though no stories.
>
> Look, you don't have to agree with me. I've a lifetime of being told I'm wrong. I consider that a tragedy, but you may think it noir. It's certainly not Shakespearean.
>
> Best,
> Kerry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: davezeltserman
> To: rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:36 PM
> Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: Noir -- Penzler, Kerry and MRT
>
>
>
> Kerry, let's look at what's considered great noir. Walter Huff in Double Indemnity crosses the line with murder, no turning back. Same with Frank and Cora in Postman Always Rings Twice. And every great noir from Jim Thompson from "Hell of a Woman" to "Savage Night". Seymour Shubin's great "Anyone's My Name" has the noir protagonist crossing the line, first betraying his future wife. I can't think of a single book that is thought of as great noir (at least by consensus of the group, and not by Jim!) that doesn't have the noir protagonist creating his own doom by crossing this moral line. OTOH, fiction that has a morally sound protagonist doomed by fate or chance falls strictly as tragedy (unless its satire, parody, etc.).
>
> --Dave
>
> --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "gsp.schoo@" <gsp.schoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I take exactly the opposite track, Dave. If a moral line is crossed it's tragedy. There's an implied lesson. But in noir there's no alternative, no opportunity for redemption. Lets take Romeo & Julliette. At the end, the Prince sums up the errors of everyone's ways that led to the fatalities, encouraging better behaviour in the future. Macbeth could have avoided his end had he been less ambitious, Hamlet if he'd been more decisive. Those are tragedies. But if you believe R&J's young love is doomed regardless because love will never transcend tribalism, that's noir.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kerry
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: davezeltserman
> > To: rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:51 AM
> > Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: Noir -- Penzler, Kerry and MRT
> >
> >
> >
> > It has to has to be more than just a character being screwed, the character's actions have to contribute to them being screwed. A moral line has to be crossed that there's no turning back from. Otherwise, instead of noir it's tragedy.
> >
> > --Dave
> >
> > --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Jack Bludis <buildsnburns@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure about the conflict between what Kerry Schooley says and what Jacques Debierue (MRT) says.
> > >
> > > I agree with Kerry that the screwed character of noir may have a moral core but it gets skewed, most often by money or the femme fatale. And yes, the PI novel is romantic fantasy.
> > >
> > > MrT says of the moral code, "... such codes are rarely personal but instead are largely societal." I've never heard that before, but it seems right on target. Chandler's entire description of the private-eye in his famous essay points directly to the judeo-christian ethic.
> > >
> > > Yes, just "Screwed" is shorthand for noir, but it does describe the protagonist of such fiction. The absolute evil protagonist is not noir at all, but something entirely different.
> > >
> > > Jack
> > >
> > > http://crimespace.ning.com/profile/JackBludis
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 13 Aug 2010 EDT