>And the exaltation of
>pure intellect puts his stories squarely in
the
>"classic tradition" of mystery fiction. It was
Holmes
>and, to an even greater degree, his ilk (Philo
Vance,
>Hercule Poirot, Roderick Alleyn, etc., etc. etc.)
that
>the original hardboiled writers were reacting
to.
>They weren't following the Holmes tradition.
They
>were breaking away from it.
I do think this is right.
Surely, surely Holmes illustrates something of the difference
between noir and hardboiled? I've always thought of him as
the product of a new 19th century pipular fascination with
science + a nice old-fashioned love of the Gothic.
But anyway I keep asking myself, reading this discussion,
whether it's POSSIBLE to have hard-boiled without having
previously had (1) cowboy and
(2) Hemingway?
Marianne
-- # 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 : 08 Sep 2001 EDT