Couldn't agree more. After all Kafka and Anne Frank and
dozens more weren't
even published in their lifetimes. The more interesting point
I agree with is
that lack of popularity does not confer artistic merit,
either. So many
people these days automatically dismiss any movie out of
Hollywood, preferring
indies instead (even, ironically, when those indies are made
by Miramax, which
is owned by Disney, for Pete's sake). Same with TV (The "Oh,
I only watch PBS
and Bravo and A&E" crowd who keep their tvs out of the
living room); same
with music (The "I only listen to alternative rock"
people--and what the heck
IS alternative about it?--who then turn against the band once
it reaches
platinum);etc.; etc.
For our purposes at rara-avis it would be wise to remember
that hardboiled
fiction started in relative obscurity, that, as Mark put it,
its authors had
periods of ups and downs both artistically and financially,
but that
popularity has nothing to do with our discussions of its high
points and low
lifes. Only when lack of popularity leads to inability to get
published does
it become an issue--and then we should shout about it--shout
about the good
writers who get remaindered, then see their works go out of
print or who can't
get published beyond one short story in Ellery Queen or
Alfred Hitchcock's.
Which then leads to the question, "What is good?" which is
what keeps this
thread going, no?
Reeves
#
# 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/.