jess wrote:
>This is a different definition of "golden age" than
the one I'm used to,
obviously. A "golden age" is a time when >things were
better, and I really don't believe that
>Ellroy--or most of us, for that matter--think that
things were better
during the 1940s.
>If you mean "golden age" in terms of publishing,
sure. But that isn't the
context in which the original poster >alleged Ellroy's
affection for the 1940s and 1950s.
Depends what you mean by "things." "Things" were better, I
think, writing-wise. And while I'm sure not many people have
some burning desire to return to and live in the middle of
the 20th century, I do think the whole impulse to read
hardboiled fiction today is permeated with nostalgia. I think
the aesthetic of earlier times, the brands of masculinity,
the pre-electronic hands-on-ness of the time ... some combo
of these things
*is* appealing to lots of readers, I think. Not all of them,
not for me anyway, but writers and film makers simply would
not keep returning to the 30s-50s if there weren't something
in them that held appeal for people. In Ellroy and Mosley,
Chinatown and LA Confidential, desire for some
"original" hardboiled moment is everywhere in contemporary hb
culture. Not good, not bad, necessarily, just there.
mds
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 02 Sep 2000 EDT