Tim Wohlforth wrote:
> Brian raises some interesting points in his reply to
me on
> existentialism and hardboiled - specifically
Hammett. He claims that Sam
> Spade, or for that matter, the Continental Op does
what he does because
> "it's the right thing to do".
Actually, what I said was that Spade did what he did because
*he* thought it was the "right thing to do." The Op I
mentioned in passing in reference to your mentioning his rant
about nailing the Russian countess in "The Gutting of
Couffignal," by saying that he does the same thing in "The
Girl With The Silver Eyes," a sequel of sorts to "The House
on Turk Street."
> Right equals moral.
I didn't put it *quite* that way, but if it makes you feel
better to boil it down for the sake of this discussion, sure.
That's why they call it
"personal morality," as opposed to "public morality," which I
explained in my previous post, and which you've ignored in
this reply, Tim.
> So he acts in a moral way and therefore is not an
existentialist. Wrong on
> two counts.
The only thing "wrong" about this statement is the assumption
that it's an accurate summation of what I said. It's not. I
never said that Spade wasn't an existentialist. If anything
his rampant, overt, over-the-top existentialism baits the
trap perfectly so that the reader is rightly surprised that
he doesn't let Brigid go at the end.
And *WHY* doesn't he do it? WHY does he nail her? Because
it's what he thinks he's *supposed* to do. Regardless of what
the cops say, or Gutman says, or Brigid says, or Iva, or
Effie. It's at least in part about intent, same as with
committing a crime.
THAT is personal morality. Call it a "personal code," call it
Barney the dinosaur, for all I care, it is the very
definition of the term. Spade puts his own personal morality
before public convention (or, if you prefer,
"public morality"), and does what he thinks he's supposed to
do, because he's supposed to do it.
(extended definition of determinism deleted in the interest
of brevity)
> Let's look again at Spade in the Maltese Falcon. He
is screwing his
> partner's wife.
Well, he *was*. Apparently he no longer is by the beginning
of the novel, hence her jealousy.
> His partner is a sleaseball. Spade does not claim to
be
> above the shady deal. He acts NOT to do the "right
thing" but because of
> what he is, created by the choices he has made so
far in life -- a
> private investigator. Someone kills your partner,
you do something. As
> simple as that.
You're making my point for me. Substitute "Spade" for "you"
and "your" and you're part way there. Also, bear in mind that
your ad reductio description of Spade's actions does nothing
so much as reduce him to a wind-up toy. Point him in the
direction you want, wind him up, watch him nail Brigid for
icing his partner, regardless of any internal or external
conflict involved. If the main character in your book is
little more than the sum total of his experiences, you're in
for one dull ride. Of course, Spade is far more than that,
which is what makes THE MALTESE FALCON such a terrific
book.
By the way, being an existentialist doesn't make a person any
more or less moral, per se. It merely removes the external
impetus for being moral, for choosing as one chooses. It puts
the focus on the individual and leaves them at the center of
their moral universe, wherein they exercise ultimate free
will. If you're an existentialist of the same stripe as most
of the protagonists in Hemingway's fiction, for example,
being an existentialist means that you do what you do without
the necessity (or in some cases, the luxury) of making
excuses about it.
> Or the Continental Op in Couffignal. "I'm a
detective because I like
> the work. ...It's the only sport I know anything
about, and I can't
> imagine a pleasanter future than twenty-some years
more of it." Or when
> she offers herself to him, he responds: "I'm a man
hunter and you're
> something that has been running in front of me.
There's nothing human
> about it. You might just as well expect a hound to
play tiddlywinks
> with the fox he's caught."
>
> When it comes to the right thing, how do you explain
the last two lines
> of Couffignal: "You ought to have known I'd do it!
... Didn't I steal a
> crutch from a cripple?"
I have no idea why you keep trying to crack me over the head
with the crutch the Op stole from the cripple. Here's the
entirety of what you and I had previously said about the
Op:
Tim:
"Hammett develops the same view in a lengthy rant on why he
is about to shoot a beautiful woman in The Gutting of
Couffignal."
Brian:
"Don't forget that he did the same thing in "The Girl With
The Silver Eyes," a sort of sequel to "The House on Turk
Street." When Chandler is faced with a similar dilemma in
"The Little Sister," he has Marlowe punt."
That's it. That's all. Nowhere do I say the Op is
moral/immoral/amoral/existentialist/nihilist/Republican/Democrat/Communist/Fascist/evangelist.
I simply pointed out that he had done the same thing in "The
Girl With The Silver Eyes." The debatable moral
relativism/existentialism of the Continental Op, Nick
Charles, or Ned Beaumont, I'll leave for another thread. I
was addressing your statements about the character of Sam
Spade from THE MALTESE FALCON, period. Let's leave the focus
there, ok?
> I am not saying all hardboiled fiction is
existential. However, I do
> feel the label fits the best of Hammett and Hammett
is the best of the
> best. I doubt if Hammett wrote consciously as an
existentialist. That's
> a European thing to do (No Exit- Sartre, The
Stranger - Camus). And
> Hammett is about as American as a writer can
be.
And as such had a personal morality streak a mile wide. The
man was in many ways a cipher. He left his wife and kids when
he took sick with tuberculosis. He also volunteered for
military service in both World Wars. He was a serial
womanizer, never faithful to any woman with whom he was
personally involved, including, but not limited to Lillian
Hellman. He went to jail rather than rat out people he knew
to have been members of the American Communist Party.
Complicated? Sure. Unconsciously existentialist? Perhaps.
Immoral on some questions, decidedly. Moral on others? You
bet. So devoted to his own code of personal morality that he
was willing to do a tough stint in jail at great cost to his
personal health and financial status over it, regardless of
what the law stated? Absolutely.
And we agree on the statement "Hammett is the best of the
best." I love Chandler and MacDonald, Cornell Woolrich,
Chester Himes, et. al., but for me, Dashiell Hammett's stuff
is genuinely a cut above.
Brian Thornton
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> Has someone you know been
affected by illness or disease? Network for Good is THE place
to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rkgkPB/UOnJAA/Zx0JAA/kqIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 16 May 2005 EDT