>Certainly, if we use Marlowe and Spade and Archer as
bench-marks, the
>answer is obvious.
>Which is probably why taxonomists keep reclassifying
things so
>frequently.
Well, if we use that criteria, Archer and Marlowe aren't
hardboiled,
either. In fact, they're both guilty of wandering into some
pretty
sentimental, to the point of schmaltzy, areas, particularly
in the later
books. Certainly, Marlowe's "air full of music" stuff and
Archer's poetic
flights about "blue hammers" are far more sentimental than
anything
Kinsey's spouted so far...
Yet, part of their appeal (even Millhone's) is that very
vulnerability,
combined with their toughness, that schism between heart and
brain that
makes them real, or at least human...weren't we just talking
about this a
few weeks ago, about that heart of mush that lies under the
rough exterior
of so much hardboiled fiction?
But where'd you get that definition, anyway? (and did anyone
else wonder
why he was talking about guys that stuff dead animals...I've
got to read
more carefully...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Smith
Web & Graphic Design
New e-mail address! mailto:colba.net
#
# 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/.