A quick followup to Jim's comments on "noir". He mentions the
original, "homemade" noirs such as McCoy and then the
globalized or Walmart version ᠬa Camus -- to which one could
add Sartre, Onetti and quite a few others.
One problem facing both writer and reader of 21st century
noir is that a) we know and love the homemade version but
can't examine it too closely without realizing that it lacks
finesse and is consummable b) we know the Walmart version
(extending to Tarantino, ouch), which does not change the
ingredients but puts a theory or lid on the whole thing, as
well as nostalgia (ouch) -- this can kill our appetite but
still we can't forget the name-brand c) Good storytelling is
rare and we pick up what we can, even with flaws d) We wish
one could write noir without a) or b) as referents, and at
the same time satisfy (c) and have some readers. Perhaps it
can be done, but how?
Any definition of noir has to go back to the Greek myths.
Despair is old, as are the expressions of it. Can one say
that McCoy, Cain and Goodis created something new? Something
as large as a genre? I don't think so. Has Kafka's influence
been acknowledged? Dostoevsky's?
On the other hand, if we broaden the search, noir is just a
type of story and hardboiled is a type of character and they
are found everywhere...
Anyone want to put of new definitions?
Best, and belated greetings to Jim Sallis, one of my
favorite, er, noir and/or hardboiled authors.
MrT
-- # 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 : 23 Feb 2004 EST