[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

RARA-AVIS: Re:What is hardboiled? (long) 

> So, I wonder if this could be used as a point of differentiation
> between hardboiled and crime novels.  I'd be interested to hear of
> any evidence pro or con.  I've seen some lists that try to define
> what it is that makes a film noir - has anyone seen anything like
> that for hardboiled fiction?  Maybe we could try to iron one out as
> we go. Anyway, it's nice to have a list where I can talk about this
> kind of thing. :)

It seems to me that it's a case of apples & oranges, depending on 
what you mean by hardboiled. Based on the examples cited: Spade, 
Hammer, Archer, etc. I take it that you equate hardboiled fiction 
with detective fiction.

I tend to view crime fiction as a genre, detective fiction as a 
sub-genre of that and hardboiled as a style not necessarily 
associated with either. The works of James M. Cain & Jim Thompson 
are as hardboiled as it gets and I associate neither author with 
detectiive fiction. While the majority of fiction written in the 
hardboiled style is in fact crime/detective fiction, I would imagine 
that's because those genres are naturally suited to the style. I've 
never viewed Cain's "Mildred Pierce" as crime fiction, but it most 
certainly written in the hardboiled style.

A definition of the style would, I think, be pretty subjective.
For example, one could say from Chandler's work that it's an attitude 
of cynicism tempered by cautious optimism. Chandler's dark clouds are 
never *completely* dark, his may be an amoral world, but it's the 
moral few that succeed in it. Chandler spoke of this theme in his 
"Simple Art of Murder" essay, stating his belief that all great art 
must have a "quality of redemption", I don't necessarily agree with 
that, but it is consistent throughout his work. Then take Jim 
Thompson, relentlessly downbeat and hopeless. So hardboiled as to be 
pessimism in it purist form. His world is completely amoral and no 
"quality of redemption" is to be found.

This said, I still find Chandler's characters no less hard boiled 
than Thompson's, just hard in a different way. It's as if they walk 
two different sides of the same mean streets. Chandler's Marlowe is 
hard in the sense that while he recognized the chaos and corruption 
that surrounded him, he refused to succumb to it. He reached his ends 
on his terms, and made others conform to him. He was hardened against 
the negative world around him, and overcame through sheer force of 
will(and sometimes force of lead:-))

Thompson's characters OTOH, were hard in the sense that they were 
participants in the corruption of their worlds, they were hardened 
against any kind of positve emotion, thinking only of themselves and 
usually, but not always leading to their own destruction and that of 
those around them.

Smack in the middle of this we find James M. Cain. His characters 
were IMO the most complex and closest to reality. They were neither 
knights in shining armor as Chandler envisioned Marlowe, nor soulless 
contemptible beasts as Thompson painted his. Cain's characters were 
average everyday people with consiences, who unfortunately succumed 
to their baser desires.  Walter Huff, the insurance salesman of 
"Double Indemnity", isn't a murderous type of guy, it takes half the 
book for him to rationalize his actions befor commiting them and the 
rest of the book agonizing over the guilt before confessing and 
joining Phyllis, who despite the fact that she is the murderous type, 
is still clearly conscious of her guilt in the books double suicide 
finale. Similar circumstances engulf Frank Chambers and Cora 
Papadakis in "The Postman Always Rings Twice". Alone neither of these 
people has murderous intent, but by giving in to their lust and greed 
they're able to rationalize that killing Nick is the thing to do. 
Both are racked with guilt and fear almost immediately after the 
commission fo the act and it is this "softness" that proves to be 
their undoing. It's this same "softness" that allows them some 
self-forgiveness at the end. There are no truly "hard" characters in 
Cain's works, these are soft willed people in a "hard" world that 
eventually devours them.

Three equally hardboiled authors, three distinct outlooks:

Chandler - A man hardened against his environment.
Thompson - Hard people creating a hard environment.
Cain - Weak people destroyed by a hard environment.

I guess the only common thread is the hard world all of these tales 
take place in. 

Of course, I could be missing the point entirely too:-)

Bill "Not the comedian" Murray
bmurray@voicenet.com
Visit "Hard Boiled" at http://www.voicenet.com/~bmurray/index.html

Guinness is good for you! It give you strength!
-
# RARA-AVIS:  To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis"
# to majordomo@icomm.ca
Follow-Ups:

[Archives] | [RARA-AVIS]