However, the point I wish to make here is that the whole
raison d'etre
of the female 'hard boiled' character is surely to *critique*
the
masculinist/macho values of this style?
The liberal-feminist agenda is well represented by those
middle-of-the
road writers--eg Sara Paretsky, Amanda Cross, Sarah Dunant,
Joan Smith,
who write 'from a woman's perspective' for an audience that
wants to
consume such material. More radical views are explored in the
lesbian
take on the private eye novel, which tend to be witty
and
self-reflexive: eg Mary Wings, Barbara Wilson, Deborah
Powell, which
simultaneously explore and critique patriarchy and
crime/detective
fiction.
That these female characters have extended networks of
relationships,
family backgrounds, feelings, love-lives, incompetences,
etc., is
central to the writing, regardless of whether it is writing
for/from a
mainstream/middle-of-the-road/liberal point-of-view, or
for/from a
position which is sexually/politically more radical. If they
were
*simply* dickless dicks, there would be *no difference*
between them and
the genre/style they critique. The very difference is the
point.
Eddie Duggan
#
# 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/.