From: <
Z0MB0Y@aol.com> (edited)
> These were not a bunch of existentialists sitting
around in a cafe,
> expounding on their philosophies. They were the
fictional equivalent
> of newspapermen, which many of them were. Don't get
me wrong, a hell
> of a lot of them were very intelligent, and their
personal
> philosophies came out in their work. But they were
pragmatic writers
> who understood the medium. I think to understand the
H-B writer, you
> have to realize they were writing for a market, and
for a living. I
> wouldn't reduce it to a formula, but as far as
getting published, they
> knew what sold.
I think this turns us back to Hammett being essentially a
pulp writer best understood in the context of his time and
his market, a point I'd agree with. I was disappointed to
discover Hammett wasn't a newspaperman. I also agree you've
probably correctly pegged the prevailing philosophy of the
time: American Pragmatism. :-) The only point I disagree with
is NOT reducing it to formula. You're far too kind. Most pulp
writing was exactly that: formula, often imposed by the
editor.
Greg Swan
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10 Feb 2000 EST