[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Re : RARA-AVIS: Noir/Hardboiled
On Sat, 01 Feb 1997, "Ann P. Melvin" <ann.melvin@sympatico.ca>
[who is really David Skene-Melvin] wrote:
>
>LoLehmann@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Michael wrote :
>>
>> >>we tried to define terms like hardboiled and noir simply by
pinpointing
>> > >to their original use, and left their current meaning out of the
picture.
>>
>>
[LoLehmann@aol.com]
>>That said, I think that maybe, just maybe, we've done enough 'speculating
>> about meanings of terminology'. We came to the conclusion that
'hardboiled'
>> refers more to the style of writing, and 'noir' to the contents of the
story
>> (to make a long story short).
[snip]
>> Comments, anyone ?
What? Did I miss something? I don't think the collective work in this
thread can be accurately or reasonably summarised by the sentence:
>>We came to the conclusion that 'hardboiled'
>> refers more to the style of writing, and 'noir' to the contents of the
story
And then "Ann P. Melvin" <ann.melvin@sympatico.ca>
[who is really David Skene-Melvin] chimes in:
>
>Right On! Laurent is dead, (excuse the unintentional pun), right --
>"hardboiled" is the style and "noir" is the content. That is the
>symbiosis toward which I have been scrabbling in the dark. This is a
>true insight, and I, for one, am indebted. I can now look at the corpus
>of "hardboiled" and "noir" texts, both literary and cinematic,
>historical and contemporary, in a new light. It may, ultmately, prove to
>be only a false dawn, but, oh, how brightly doth it shine!
What is this? Irony, right?
-
# RARA-AVIS: To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis"
# to majordomo@icomm.ca
[Archives] | [RARA-AVIS]