Jack Bludis wrote:
> The noir protagonist can't win. The noir
> protagonist is a loser or destined to lose.
He
> knows it, even as he fights the odds. He
is
> screwed by fate, life experience, or just
plane
> something inside her or him that makes a
loser.
************************** Yup. That's what I'm thinking.
There has been some discussion about whether noir requires an
ending involving significant defeat for the protagonist.
Although I am loathe to admit the existence of such a
significant restriction, most of my experience leads me
towards it. This means that McGivern's BIG HEAT is not noir.
Maybe so. Just cuz the movie came out noir doesn't
necessarily make the novel noir.
There are a couple exceptions that I can think of concerning
noir novels that don't involve crushing defeat for the
protagonist in the end. I thought that Ellroy's BLACK DAHLIA
was definitely noir, and what's-his-name's HE DIED WITH HIS
EYES OPEN was too. In both these cases, the doom and gloom,
the sweat, fear, and desperation were heavy enough to carry
it through a somewhat upbeat ending.
One thing that Jim has brought up helps to explain the above
ambiguity and at the same time muddies the water, and that is
a distinction between noir atmosphere and noir content, the
atmosphere being the dark and sinister part and the doom plot
being the content.
miker
-- # Plain ASCII text only, please. Anything else won't show up. # 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 : 14 Dec 2003 EST