My apologies this is a bit late for the discussion, but it
took me a while to sort out how to send it successfully from
my new email address. So belatedly, here are my thoughts on
the gender disagreement:
I'm creeping out of lurkdom to say I think the crux of the
disagreement about females and hard-boiled mysteries lies in
assumptions not about gender, but rather about that perennial
thread: what is the definition of
"hard-boiled." Jim seemed to be taking for granted that the
typical Golden Age hard-boiled protagonist, almost invariably
a tough guy prone to physical violence and sexual prowess,
defines the genre.
I, on the other hand, find that I really dislike most of the
work from that era, probably for the very reasons of sexism
(and to me, shallowness of character) given. I do, however,
like most of the hard-boiled fiction authored in the last two
or three decades. To me the definition of hard-boiled has to
do with a tough, realistic and often cynical attitude, with a
recognition that evil and violence exist in the world. Using
violence themselves is only one, and not the most important,
method hard-boiled protagonists use to survive on the mean
streets. I not only find it believable that a woman would
have a hard-boiled approach to life, I know many who do, only
a few of whom are authors or protagonists of hard-boiled
mysteries.
Yes, the traditional hard-boiled private detective may
reflect a male fantasy, but that character is only one of
many facets of hard-boiled literature as it exists
today.
Just a thought...
Teri
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 28 Aug 2001 EDT