> As for Haruki Murakami, I certainly wouldn't argue
him as hardboiled
> either, although, as Doug notes, he does clearly
worship Chandler,
Look, it's a literary game, taking all these authors and
asking "Are they hardboiled? Somewhat?" And I end up not
caring.
I have people to talk to about literary writers and criticism
all day. That's why I work at a university, why I work for a
literary magazine. And of course, any label can be applied if
you rationalize enough (Shakespeare as Noir?) with critical
theory.
But not here.
I go back to my question: Does everything have to be
hard-boiled? Can't we leave some literature alone and not try
to push it into the category? Boring. There's enough
tough-as-nails, break-a-tooth writing to talk about without
pushing Isherwood's BERLIN STORIES into the hardboiled
world.
-- # 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 : 20 Apr 2000 EDT