Mark,
Re your comments below:
> Only if you believe that words cannot evolve, as
you
> clearly believe. I
> believe they can, and do.
The Humpty-Dumpty rule. "When I use a word it means precisely
what I want it to mean. No more, no less."
Here's the thing, Mark. When Lewis Carroll put those words
into Humpty-Dumpty's mouth, he meant it to be a DEBUNKING of
that attitude.
Language is already imprecise enough a means of
communication. Saying that words "evolve" only serves to make
it even more imprecise.
> Also, you said no film past 1964 can be noir
because
> after that year,
> any filmmaker who attempted it was self-conscious
in
> his or her attempt
> to make a noir film. So you are locking the
word
> down to a very
> specific meaning, bound not just by style, but
also
> by time and
> production values (AND adding self-consciouness
to
> the definition).
> Well, let's go to the extreme and look at
David
> Lynch's Blue Velvet or
> Twin Peaks, both of which are filled with
> self-conscious reference to
> classic noir films. Are you actually saying
they
> are not dark and
> sinister, even though they were not filmed in B
& W
> pre-1964? If "dark
> and sinister" are the only requirements, how
can
> they not be?
I've already said that the definition of "noir" and the
question of whether or not any putative film noirs made after
1964 are truly noir, are separate questions. One can agree
with the definition but disagree with the assertion that no
post-'64 film qualifies. One can disagree with the
definition, but agree that no post-'64 film qualfies. One can
disagree with both assertions. One can agree with both
assertions.
I'll be happy to debate either one of these assertions, but
let's make it one at a time.
I've explained why I don't think any post-'64 film truly
qualifies, giving my reasons. You don't agree? Fine. But the
question has nothing to do with the my definition.
> And if self-consciousness is a deal-breaker,
why
> does it not apply to
> modern writers, who are just as aware of
their
> writing noir books as
> filmmakers became after the French
retroactivity
> declared a cannon of
> films noir?
I explained that, too. You've really got to READ my posts
before you respond to them.
What I said then, and am again saying now, is that, unlike
film, prose fiction that meets the definition of noir
continued to be produced. There wasn't a period where noir
crime fiction completely disappeared, then was rediscovered
in retrospect, leading to a whole group of novelists trying
to self-consciously reproduce the effects of a style of
crime-writing that had largely disappeared for the better
part of a generation.
Now you may not agree that this makes any difference, and you
may have an argument that knocks that position flat. If you
do, present it, but at least deal with the argument rather
than simply asking the same question as if I never answered
it.
> Are you really saying that Pelecanos,
> Max Allan Collins,
> Lawrence Block, Jason Starr, Robert B Parker,
etc.,
> are not awarely
> writing noir? Parker wrote a dissertation on it
and
> Pelecanos was
> inspired to try it after taking a college course
on
> noir writing. So
> why isn't self-consciousness a deal-breaker
for
> writers?
Again, since "noir" didn't die out in prose fiction, whatever
was produced by latter-day noir writers could NOT be an
attempt to recapture a lost style, as was the case in
film.
And, again, none of this has anything to do with the validity
of the definition. It's a separate, distinct, question.
> And if "noir" is just a brandname and
marketing
> tool, as it was for
> Duhamel, then can't it evolve through marketing,
and
> the buying public?
> The closest analogy I can think of is with punk
rock
> and new wave. A
> bunch of bands in a handful of local scenes
started
> crudely playing a
> particular type of back to basics music in
the
> mid-'70s. At first, any
> band who played particular clubs -- 100
Club
> (London), 9:30 (DC), CBGB
> (NYC), Rat (Boston), etc (fill in your city's
club
> or clubs here) -- was
> labeled punk. This led to a very
disparate
> collection of bands --
> Pistols, Clash, Ramones, Dead Boys, "one
chord
> wonders," to use the
> Adverts exaggerated label, but also
Stranglers,
> Suicide, Blondie,
> Television, Talking Heads, Cars and Police,
some
> with very accomplished
> musicians who did not stick to 2 minute-two
chord
> songs. At first, all
> of these bands were labeled punk (as were many
pub
> rock, even metal
> bands like Motorhead), as much due to proximity
as
> any musical
> commonality. However, the marketers at Sire
were
> afraid that the term
> punk might be offputting to consumers, so
they
> coined the term "new wave
> rock and roll" and, on a promo double
single,
> applied it to several
> bands they had recently signed, whose first albms
ey
> were marketing --
> Dead Boys, Talking Heads, Saints (their first
album
> in the US, at least)
> and Richard Hell. (I guess they were okay with
the
> Ramones being called
> punk.) In 1977, these bands had more in common
than
> they later would,
> but even then they were pretty different from
each
> other, both in
> subject matter and in instrumentation, as well
as
> locale, even
> nationality. So if we look at the commonalities
of
> Seymour Stein's
> marketers' term, all we have is guitar
based
> (although TH and the Saints
> both had prominent keyboards),
male-fronted,
> relatively, for the time,
> low production value rock and roll. Not
very
> helpful. But then critics
> came along and wrestled the terms from marketers
and
> started drawing
> very fine distinctions between punk and new wave,
in
> retrospect -- for
> instance, the Ramones were punk, but the Cars
were
> new wave. I, for
> one, found those distinctions very useful, both
for
> classification and
> consumption.
>
> And that's how I think of hardboiled and noir.
The
> latter, in
> particular, may have started as a marketing
term,
> meant to be very
> inclusive, but through use by critics, writers
and
> readers, the terms
> have taken on more distinctions and become
more
> tightly defined (though
> obviously far from unanimously). And I, for
one,
> find that very useful,
> both for discussion and for deciding what new
books
> to buy from today's
> marketers.
By that logic, since moany publishers use "noir" as a synonym
for "hard-boiled," believing that
"hard-boiled" is passe, but "noir," with its evocation of
European intellectualism, sells, it follows that
"hard-boiled" and "noir" are interchangeable. Is that what
you think, or do you think that those who use the two terms
as interchageable marketing ploys are misusing them?
> By the way, although I'm not sure, I'd hazard
a
> guess that all of
> Duhamel's original noir writers were male. So if
we
> are using that
> original roster to define any and all common
noir
> traits to be used for
> all time, why isn't that one of them?
Primarily because the guess you're hazarding is wrong.
Gertrude Walker and Elizabeth Sanxay Holding were among
the early writers on the Serie Noir list.
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo!
- Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
-- # 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 May 2004 EDT