Anthony,
Re your comments below:
> I'm still not buying your definition, it is
too
> simplistic . . .
That's its greatest asset. Hard-boiled crime fiction is
essentially simple and direct. All the definitions that try
to make it complicated not only miss the point but are too
exclusive.
> . . . and fails the
> Wizard of Oz test. If Dorothy Gale fits, then
it
> can't be hardboiled.
I could've been missing the point, but I think whoever
brought up Dorothy Gale was kidding. In any case, if you're
seriously worried about the terrible fate of Dorothy Gale's
being considered in the same breath as Sam Spade or Parker,
I'd like to remind you that THE WIZARD OF OZ wasn't a crime
novel, it was a fairy tale. We're talking about crime fiction
here.
> I'll take tough, but not colloquial as
definitive.
> While I agree that
> most hardboiled characters are colloquial in
their
> speech (a necessity
> of location and vocation), I don't feel that
it's
> definitive or that
> there's conclusive evidence that every
hardboiled
> character classic and
> otherwise is strictly blue-collar in origin
either.
I never said every hard-boiled character is blue-collar in
origin. I said they talked or expressed themselves in a
colloquial, "regular-guy" way. And it is definitive because
it was style, which is to say it was the language, more than
anything else, that set "hard-boiled" apart from what came
before.
> If you accept that the genre is evolutionary
in
> nature than it logically
> follows that it's devolutionary as well.
Thus
> Sherlock Holmes is
> hardboiled for his era and culture, while not
being
> hardboiled for ours
He wasn't hard-boiled in the crime fiction sense for the
simple reason that hard-boiled didn't exist. Hard-boiled
wasn't an evolution from Holmes, Poirot, Lord Peter, etc. to
Spade, the Op, Marlowe, etc. It was a reaction to (and to
some degree AGAINST) Holmes and the rest of the
traditionalists. To say that Holmes was "hard-boiled for his
era" is simply to misread the entire history of crime
fiction.
> ... but you can't judge any one fictional or
real
> within your own
> context, they won't fit. Just as Marlowe and
the
> other classic HB
> characters are not as hardboiled in today's world
as
> they were in their
> own.
Marlowe and the rest are tough enough and colloquial enough
for any world.
> There's a definition out there and tough is a
part
> of it and colloquial
> will have it's place, but the genres too big for
the
> small box you're
> trying to stuff it into.
I'm not trying to stuff it into a small box. I humbly submit
"tough and colloquial" is the simplest, MOST inclusive, LEAST
exclusive definition that's been offered. Making it more
complicated won't make it more inclusive. It will do just the
opposite. On the other hand, anything LESS complicated will
only serve to include obviously non-hard-boiled characters
like Sherlock Holmes and Lord Peter in the ranks.
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com
-- # 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 : 01 May 2002 EDT