Jay,
Re your question below:
"I assume that novelists who can be called noir, like Cain,
McCoy, Algren, Dahlberg, Fante, or Benjamin Appel are not
social reformers or proletarian novelists inciting to social
change, and that social reformers like James T Farrell, John
Dos Passos or Michael Gold, however much they deal with evil,
the criminal underclass, and political corruption, cannot be
considered noir or hardboiled. Does this distinction make
sense?"
No, it doesn't.
Hard-boiled is about attitude and style, not politics.
Noir is about tone and atmosphere, not politics.
If it's tough and colloquial, it's hard-boiled.
If it's dark and sinister, it's noir.
If it's tough and colloquial, AND dark and sinister, it's
hard-boiled AND noir.
If it's any of those things, and the writer has a political
ax to grind, either right-wing or left-wing, then it's
hard-boiled, or noir, or hard-boiled AND noir, with either a
right-wing ax to grind, or a left-wing ax to grind.
In other words, that the writer may be considered a social
reformer, or may consider himself a social reformer, doesn't
enter into the equation.
JIM DOHERTY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo!
Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Nov 2006 EST