RARA-AVIS: RARA-AVIS, Re: Rafferty

MARK SULLIVAN (ANONYMEINC@webtv.net)
Sun, 7 Jun 1998 23:23:17 -0400 (EDT) Concerning Rafferty
Part 1: The State of the Art

I finally read the Rafferty article. I must say that I agree with him
about the moribund state of the hardboiled private eye novel. Sure,
there are a number of series I keep up with, but it is generally a
ritual offering diminished returns. It is much like the state of blues
music, or rock 'n' roll for that matter. There are still plenty of
people toiling away within the genres, but it is largely an archival
pursuit. Each of these genres has very well-defined rules and
expectations which must be met by any practitioners. Even when a new
rising star comes along, they are judged by how well they measure up to
the masters. The highest compliment is always a positive comparison
with one of those forebears, such as, "They reminded me of the first
time I read Chandler." You used to see this on the book jacket of
every new private eye writer--"In the tradition of Hammett, Chandler and
MacDonald." Perhaps it's a comment on just how much the genre has
fallen that I cannot remember the last time I saw that on a jacket.
Instead they are damned with faint praise as they are compared to
Parker's Spencer.

Years ago, John Cawelti wrote an article called, "Chinatown and Generic
Transformation in Recent American Films." Cawelti discussed how genres
change when they endure past their native time, into an era not quite as
sympathetic toward their ethos. He broke the transformations into four
catagories: burlesque, nostalgia, demythologizing and, finally, the
affirmation of the myth for its own sake. This last can probably best
be described by a quote from a newpaperman in the film "The Man Who Shot
Liberty Valance." He said, "When the legend becomes fact, print the
legend."

Obviously, there are few that lie wholly within just one of these
categories (we could probably have some fun debating who belongs where).
Most use a bit of each. Still, I think far too many of the current
private eye writers have chosen the last approach, that of propping up
an empty myth. The hollow core at the center of this stance becomes
more evident with each new book in one of their series.

Personally, I think a far more interesting, and possibly more
productive, tack lies in the demythologizing school. It is only by
questioning the myth that it can be determined which parts of it are
outmoded and which are still useful. It is only then that it can begin
to evolve into a mythos more suited to our times. Many the most fit
survive.

To be continued,
Mark

#
# 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/.