Mark Sullivan (AnonymeInc@webtv.net)
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:35:08 -0400 (EDT)
A few clarifications on my manifesto:
First of all, I have not yet read Hannibal (I usually read
paperbacks, but with the price wars, it's gotten so cheap I
will probably get it and read it soon), so I was not
commenting directly on it, but I think the numerous
references to the ur-gothic romance Dracula, some good some
bad, lead me to expect it probably falls under my
theory.
That said, I think Peter is right, this shouldn't
automatically bar it from discussion. I think it's by arguing
over the things along the boundaries that we fix those
boundaries. Sure, talking about Hammett and Chandler help us
see what is at the core of hardboiled, but it is only through
looking at the borderline cases that we decide how far you
can go from the center and still be within the genre.
Finally, I certainly didn't mean to imply that the mere
presence of a serial killer rules a book out. As Peter again
rightly noted, Ellroy, Connelly and Jim Thompson, along with
others have written about them, as have Block and Lehane and
I don't any of their hardboiled creds are in question. And
though it's been quite a long time since I've read it, I
remember Red Dragon as kind of noir, focussing as much, if
not more, on the effect on the hunter of his looking into the
face of evil as that evil itself. Still, I think a separate,
distinct serial killer genre has developed and that genre has
more in common with cozies and, as Kevin added, gothic
romance than hardboiled and/or noir.
Mark
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 23 Jun 1999 - 09:36:14 EDT