Doug Bassett said:
> 4. Although what you say about Brite, Barker, etc.
is
> true (that the scenarios these authors come up
have
> some things in common with hardboiled/noir
scenarios),
> I think that the florid, Gothic-styled language
these
> writers use sort of eliminates them from
consideration
> here.
I tend not to disagree with you on this. I think that noir is
generally characterized by a sparse, hardboiled style of
writing, with important exceptions, such as Cornell Woolrich.
On the other hand, if Woolrich is noir, and I don't think
that there is much disagreement that he is, then where does
that leave us?
>
> 5. Your point about Lovecraft and Woolrich
is
> excellent! I'd never thought of the two
together
> before, but you're right, there are many
similarities.
> I, however, draw different conclusions from
this.
> Rather than edging Lovecraft into the noir world,
I
> think it tends to edge Woolrich into the
fantasy
> world. Perhaps Woolrich is best appreciated as a
kind
> of surrealist? (I've noticed that many of
Woolrich's
> admirers -- Ray Bradbury comes to mind -- are
fantasy
> writers, not hardboiled writers.)
Ya know, Woolrich is really such an interesting wrench in the
gears here. His writing, as you mention, is very
sytlistically surrealist, yet he's not considered normally as
a fantasist type. And i"m not aware of any current hardboiled
or noir writer who writes in his style. Yet, we are all aware
of how important a figure he is in regard to the genre.
And, if anyone lived the life of noir, it sure as hell was
him!
Tribe
-- # 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 2b29 : 05 Feb 2000 EST