Frank sed (regarding Haut's Pulp Culture):
> It's a matter of taste and opinion of course but I
was disappointed
> by the book. To me it was just one more example that
a too
> ideological approach can destroy the most
interesting field of
> research.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, that "an ideological
approach can destroy...", but hell, all cultural artifacts
are the product of one ideology or another. Now, Haut has a
tendency to stretch things without really providing any
support for what he's saying, but it's one of the few
critical studies on hard-boiled that makes that attempt, so I
credit him for at least making an effort in developing some
literature on the ideological basis for pulp.
> Egg-heady? I am not sure. My impression was that
Haut often
> takes the easy way out when he is dealing with
authors he
> dislikes.
> E.g. to classify Spillane seriously as a "fascist"
(page 12) seems
> to be more a triteness (hope that this is the word I
am looking for)
> than a serious approach to me.
It is trite to the extent that terms like "fascist" and
"communist" are passe. However, if one attempts to determine
the ideological viewpoint from where a writer is coming from,
it seems to me that Spillane is indeed coming from at us from
a "fascist" viewpoint.
On the other hand, I think Spillane is a hoot. So go
figure.
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 : 18 Mar 2000 EST