On Sat, 01 Feb 1997, "Ann P. Melvin" <ann.melvin@sympatico.ca> [who is really David Skene-Melvin] wrote: > >LoLehmann@aol.com wrote: >> >> Michael wrote : >> >> >>we tried to define terms like hardboiled and noir simply by pinpointing >> > >to their original use, and left their current meaning out of the picture. >> >> [LoLehmann@aol.com] >>That said, I think that maybe, just maybe, we've done enough 'speculating >> about meanings of terminology'. We came to the conclusion that 'hardboiled' >> refers more to the style of writing, and 'noir' to the contents of the story >> (to make a long story short). [snip] >> Comments, anyone ? What? Did I miss something? I don't think the collective work in this thread can be accurately or reasonably summarised by the sentence: >>We came to the conclusion that 'hardboiled' >> refers more to the style of writing, and 'noir' to the contents of the story And then "Ann P. Melvin" <ann.melvin@sympatico.ca> [who is really David Skene-Melvin] chimes in: > >Right On! Laurent is dead, (excuse the unintentional pun), right -- >"hardboiled" is the style and "noir" is the content. That is the >symbiosis toward which I have been scrabbling in the dark. This is a >true insight, and I, for one, am indebted. I can now look at the corpus >of "hardboiled" and "noir" texts, both literary and cinematic, >historical and contemporary, in a new light. It may, ultmately, prove to >be only a false dawn, but, oh, how brightly doth it shine! What is this? Irony, right? - # RARA-AVIS: To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" # to majordomo@icomm.ca