Mario Taboada wrote:
About Harrington: in my opinion, he tells ultranoir stories
but he has his own voice -- and is a far better writer than
Thompson and Goodis. I would say he's about as good as Cain
and Willeford. Whether he can match the latter's inimitable
personality is a different matter. Willefordiana should
probably be considered as a genre, all by itself, just like
Faulkneriana, Calviniana or Borgiana.
************ Another writer that I would compare to
Harrington is Charles Williams. Paul Duncan notes in his NOIR
FICTION that the tough guy detectives that are in control
aren't even close to being noir. Duncan says that a noir
protagonist isn't just teetering on the edge of the abyss;
he's powerless, out of control, and swimming in it. Your
comment about Hammett being too tough to be called noir
parallels this.
The Charles Williams I've read (HOT SPOT and RIVER GIRL) both
involve a strong, tough guy who appears to have the ability
to manipulate his environment, but yet fails miserably in his
attempt, proving himself to be as powerless as some
whimpering Woolrich character. Williams and Harrington both
are superb at making the reader feel the tension and
desperation, and they both understand and appreciate
irony.
I recall you mentioned neo-noir or some such term in your
review of Dave Zeltserman's book. Would you call Harrington
neo-noir? Can you enlighten me a bit about how you differen-
tiate between noir and neo-noir, besides the publish date? I
think you mentioned an irony of style before, but could you
be more specific? I understand that an irony of style
involves taking a basic style and tweaking it in an unusual
manner, thus invoking irony.
miker
-- # 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 : 23 Jun 2003 EDT