> At 05:32 PM 25/11/2002 -0800, you wrote
>
> >Let me quote Kerry Schooley from a few days ago
for you then:
> >
> >"Something like 150 million killed in the past
century. Yet we prosper and
> >keep counting. I can't think of another author
who so effectively catches
> >these amoral, hysterical times. I don't care if
he (Ellroy) is an asshole."
> >
> >Sounds like someone describing Ellroy as either
transcendent or literary,
> >to me. Of course you could split hairs and say
that you don't see either
> >of those words in what is said, but I was
responding to the entirety of
> >the post from which I cut and pasted the above
statement.
>
> It's flattering to be quoted, but you might stop
attributing your
> subsequent misinterpretations to me, then using me
as straw-dog in your
> circular arguments.
First of all, my argument is hardly circular. Secondly, I did
not "use you as a straw-dog". I responded to what you said,
and when someone else basically said, "I haven't seen anyone
say what you're responding to" (I believe it was John Lau), I
quoted you. I'm glad you're flattered, because your post was
a good and provocative one, hence my response.
> I can only guess at what you mean by "literary",
other than that as a
> negative attribute for genre fiction.
Then your guess is either wrong, or. to use your own words, a
"misinterpretation". Your choice. "Genre fiction" is, of
course a loaded term, but as you are no doubt aware, it is
also a trade term in the publishing industry. Some agents
handle genre (thriller, P.I., romance, western, and even
children's) fiction, others do not. Ditto for publishing
houses. I used it as such, with hardly a thought that someone
would consider my statements about it derogatory, which is
preposterous. But since you did, let me be crystal clear on
this point: if I looked down on this genre, I would hardly
have read as many of the authors within as I have, and I
certainly wouldn't be subscribed to this list.
That said, it is what it is, and although you might think
that genre fiction is literary fiction, it's not. That's not
my take on it, as there are hb/noir authors out there who I
think deal with existential questions far better than some of
the supposedly "existentialist" authors in the "literary"
canon. Rather, it is the take of the industry. Are they
right? Who cares? They're not in business for their health
anymore than those you cite below are. That is, however, the
industry standard, and that was what I was referring to.
Lastly, if you really have an issue with someone contending
that Ellroy is NOT literary, you might consider taking it up
with the guy who wrote: "I don't think anyone here has
referred to Ellroy as either transcendent OR literary," now
that you've called me on it.
>But hardboil or noir is unquestionably a literary
form.
Reference my last. Or better yet, go to a writer's conference
and try to sell a hb/noir work to any agent who has
themselves listed with that conference as representing only
those authors who write "literary fiction" and see how far
you get. Come to think of it, you're Canadian, why not apply
for admission to the University of British Columbia's
Master's of Fine Arts in Creative Writing program (as I did
just last year). They'll want about seventy pages of any
novel you happen to be working on, and if you send them a
mystery, as *I* did, they will, in all liklihood, send you a
very polite letter thanking you for your interest, but they
only consider works of a "literary, and not a genre fiction"
nature.
So there you have it. I didn't come up with the definition, I
only employed it, and it was neither a snide aside, nor
pronounced with even the slightest curl to my lip. I will
further address your veiled accusation that I'm some sort of
literary snob by saying that you're half right. I won't waste
my time on something that doesn't hold my attention (I'm
reminded of Mark Twain's definition of a "classic", here: "a
book which people praise and don't read"), no matter how many
people think it's "important". For my money, I'd rather read
William R. Cox (thanks again to Bill Crider, who sent me a
copy of "Hell To Pay") than William Burroughs any day.
>Ellroy does not transcend the genre. He doesn't need
to. From Hammett to
>Chandler to MacDonald to Mosley and Ellroy the genre
has always been about the
>individual, as everyman, trying to find and maintain
moral values in an amoral
>and corrupt world. As for whether this is one of the
"great themes of the
>twentieth century", I don't encounter it much beyond
our genre. That's why I
>like hardboiled fiction.
Read Proust, but only if you're up for a real challenge (I
never really have been, I've struggled with Proust). Hell,
read Camus, for that matter. "The Stranger" is something you
might enjoy immensely.
Also, I find it interesting that you mention Hammett,
Chandler, (I'm assuming Ross) MacDonald, and Mosely, all of
whom are favorites of mine (although I didn't really care
much for "Gone Fishin'"). They never bore me (with either
their charaterization or their style), which is pretty much
my sole criterion for judging whether a book is "good".
> It does seem to me that your objection is to the
amount of profanity and
> the universal corruption depicted in Ellroy's
books.
...and to his overly "terse" style, and to his complete
inability to write a believable female character.
>Not enough recognition of the good people in this
world who do things for
>entirely altruistic reasons.
This sentence confuses me. What did you mean here?
> I'll not debate the state of the world with you, but
I do think
> that this is not an idea consistent with this genre;
that what's needed for
> the world to be right are more positive role models.
Or maybe more sit-com
> Fonzies, tough guys with hearts of gold. Spade and
Marlow were lone
> knights, but their motivation was anything but
altruism. The dick works for
> money, by definition.
Interesting that you make that statement, in light of the
fact that with the exception of Ellroy, all of the authors
you cited above employ central characters who operate from
their own "code" (another aspect of this sub-genre of the
mystery story you seem to have overlooked in your decidedly
comprehensive and informative examination of its aspects
above). I'm not arguing for more "moral" characters, per se.
After all, I like Stark's Parker
(another guy who lives by his own "code", and is far more
ruthless than most Ellroy's tatterdemalion main characters. I
have said over and over again what I dislike about Ellroy,
and to reduce my statements regarding his style, et. al.,
strikes me as disingenuous.
> As for the profanity, you're not the first to
determine merit by counting
> the number of bad words used, but it seems a
superficial meter at best.
Don't go putting words in my mouth, Kerry, it's committing
the sin (creating a straw man) of which you accused me above.
I didn't count his profane words, and tally them up on my
"worthiness" meter (If I did, I never would have bothered
with "Motherless Brooklyn", for example), and to tar me with
the "moralist censor" brush is pretty silly.
After all, if I were counting "naughty words", I wouldn't
have read *anything* that I myself have written with intent
to publish.
Thanks for your response.:) I enjoyed it, and even learned a
little.
Brian
-- # 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 : 27 Nov 2002 EST