When I use the term class consciousness, I'm speaking more of
a
perception hard-boiled writers may have had which contributed
to the
definition of the genre.
I agree that much of the Marxist analysis was just plain
silly. My
reaction to it wasn't political as much as aesthetic, in that
it
tends toward cartoonish representations of class stereotypes
that I
don't find enlightening in either politics or fiction.
I think the immediate break down that came to mind was very
similar
to Etienne's. (Again I'm talking about the views of the
writers.)
Here's a rough breakdown. I hope it will spur some thoughts
in minds
more systematic than mine.
1. Writers who had a sense of class consciousness that could
be
called Marxist in that it represented a general concept of
class
struggle.
2. Writers who had a sense of class consciousness which
didn't
include any sense of class struggle, but which had a some
political
orientation. This would include writers who recognized
the "system" and the place of power within it, may have seen
it as
corrupt, but didn't have any "One size fits all" solution to
the
woes of the world.
3. Writers who had what could better be called a sense of
class
awareness, but had no seeming political orientation. I
describe this
as being a sense of class which may not be very common in the
US, but
is more common in societies where class distinctions are more
openly
acknowledged.
Why do I even think this is important in relation to
hard-boiled
fiction? (I can hear this being asked as I type.)
Well, it's because I'm convinced that it had a lot to do with
the
formulation of the basic mythical struggle that's at the root
of
Hard-Boiled and helped define it's conventions.
W.H. Auden in "The Guilty Vicarage" suggested the British
detective
story is based on the myth of the return of moral equilibrium
to a
morally stable world.
It goes like this. A murder occurs. The authorities
send
Inspector So-and-So of the yard in to solve the problem. If
he is
lucky, he gets the advice of a Peer or clever elderly lady.
As a
result, the scoundrel is caught and sternly punished.
Moral
equilibrium is restored.
The Hard-Boiled universe, on the other hand doesn't see
much
equilibrium or morality. It takes a tough sucker to fight his
way
through the crime bosses, the big money and the cops looking
to get
their palms greased.
It's the anglo-saxon myth of a moral universe turned
into
existential hell. The hero is charged to seek moral
equilibrium, even
though he knows it will dissolve soon after it is achieved,
or prove
illusory. (I'm exaggerating for effect, but I think you run
the
danger of becoming soft-boiled if you think things are too
swell).
As such the form lends itself to many anti-authoritarian
aspects of
US culture that I personally find very positive. (I know this
pegs me
as one of the loonies, but what the hey, you would have
caught on
eventually anyway).
The genre wasn't developed in a vacuum. They were
very political times back then, and I know some of the
originals
stars of Hard-Boiled were influenced by the political
climate.
The best example would be would be my main man, Samuel
Dashiell
Hammet, who not only achieved great popularity and fame, but
spawned
an army of imitators.
The political basis of Hammet's point of view may not have
survived, I
think it likely that it also contributed to the conventions
of the
genre.
One of my favorite examples would be the way Ross MacDonald
(Kenneth
Millar) used the whodunit for his Lew Archer books. I think
they
are brilliant, pointed and critical novels of
observation.
I've got more to say, but I'm also trying to finish a novel
about bad
women and cars with a curse of death, so I better get back
to
writer's round up at Hardboiled ranch...
More later,
Fred Willard
On 31 Jul 97 at 23:49, Etienne Borgers wrote:
<snip>
> Back to hard-boiled, I feel that speaking of class
consciousness, in
> the Marxist way, is a wrong approach. Most of the
time, HB fiction
> uses individualistic heroes and personal actions to
solve crisis of
> morality, justice or ethics. IMO they are not
motivated by a way to
> defend their class, but by more broader values they
feel necessary
> for survival. I should say their approach is
certainly more close to
> an Anarchist point of view than a Marxist one (
Anarchist is a word
> to be taken here in its political sense, coming from
the
> anti-authority political movements of the late 19th
and early 20th
> Century in Europe; Marxists seeing Anarchists as
worse enemies than
> capitalists).
>
> If we leave the Marxist notion of class and check the
American
> society, besides the evident classes created by power
and money
> that HB novels denounce when they are corrupted,
there is a class
> of American citizens by which HB novels were used as
a 'class'
> action: the Black Americans.
> Most of their authors, even in HB, were making with
their works a
> kind of
> statement against the White supremacy they felt in
the society they
> lived in. This could be, I think, a segment of HB
literature to
> explore for "class consciousness" . Donald Goines,
Iceberg Slim, and
> even Chester Himes, could certainly be proofs of that
point of view.
> There are certainly other Black American authors that
could be taken
> as examples.
>
> E.Borgers
>
> #
> # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
> # The web pages for the list are at
> # http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.
------------------------------
Fred Willard
fwillard@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~fwillard
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.