Oops, I guess I am the perpetrator. I began by asking if
anyone would
be willing to discuss this, and several people responded that
they
would.
If this is not the appropriate forum, I'll be happy to take
it
elsewhere. I'm a new comer to the list and in spite of
reading
through the archives, I admit I really don't know the culture
of it
yet.
I disagree with several of your statements,
however.(Although, I
certainly respect your knowledge and experience).
As the tone of one's voice is only implied in print, please
let me
make it clear I'm offering a friendly this as a friendly
discussion
not an argument.
Obviously, since I introduced the subject, I find it
interesting.
I'm not an academic. I don't have a Ph D. In fact, my college
career
was, shall we say, rather undistinguished. I've spent most of
my life
as a photojournalist, a world about as far from the academy
as I
could find.
I also write crime fiction. I like a good story with
believable
characters written from a tough point of view, and so
on.
My interest in this, isn't as academic as you may think.
My
first book had a criminal narrator. The one I'm working on
now has a
shifting perspective shared by four people trying to steal
the
same money.
Most writers are going to have their own approach to things
like
this. For me, the book I'm working on now requires a
farily complex scheme for identifying the moral framework of
the
conflict.
The issue that I raised, to me at least, is one way of
examining what
feeds a number of different writers's sense of what the basic
moral
conflict in their stories is about - not just good vs. evil,
but what
they think is good and what evil and why.
Anyway, you may think you hear the thundering feet of angels
dancing
on the head of a pin, but what's happening for me, at least,
is that
I'm on page 240 of a novel, and looking for as many
different
perspectives to examine some of the issues as possible.
I'm sure many writers who's work I admire used very
different
approaches. I'm happy with mine as they may be with
their's.
I've already gotten a lot of help here. Thanks.
On 31 Jul 97 at 22:21, Dan Sontup wrote:
> Funny, but back when I was writing pulp stories, many
of them
> hard-boiled, and also reading this genre and enjoying
movies of this
> type, as well as knowing a couple of the writers
featured in the
> book we had under discussion before the unfortuate
hard disk crash
> -- way back then, I don't recall any of us talking
about these
> stories in terms of Marxist philosophy or any other
weighty social
> implications. A rousing good action-packed yarn with
believable
> characters and a hard edge to the narration was what
was most on our
> minds then. When and where did all this PhD jargon
about the
> hard-boiled genre get started, and why is it being
perpetuated now
> -- and by whom? C'mon, guys, give us a break! Do we
really need
> all this academic poking and probing and philosphical
exploration?
> Why not just enjoy the stories as such?
>
> Best wishes to all -- Dan
>
> #
> # 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/.