Doug,
Re your comments below:
> *In practice* the term "noir" has come to mean,
for
> crime fans, the Cornell Woolrich/David Goodis
style
> of
> story. If you want to replace the meaning of
the
> word
> as it's commonly understood, go to it, but
the
> burden's on you to show that your definition
is
> better.
You see, there's where you're wrong. In practice,
"noir" has been applied much more widely. Long before I came
along, it was routinely applied to Chandler and Hammett as
well as to Woolrich and Goodis. THE BIG BOOK OF NOIR had
whole chapters devoted Matt Helm, Jack Webb, a Le Carre-esque
spy movie called THE KREMLIN LETTER, and a chapter on "radio
noir" mentions of the kiddie show THE SHADOW. Silver &
Ward's FILM NOIR included entires on every single one of the
'40's Chandler adaptations, on spy movies like BERLIN
EXPRESS, on police procedurals like THE NAKED CITY, HE WALKED
BY NIGHT, and T-MEN, and even romantic chick flicks like
LAURA and THE SPIRAL STAIRCASE.
The broad application of the term, not only by Duhamel but by
most people who've used the term since he coined it, is
precisely why an inclusive definition is the only one that
will work.
> Don't we already have useful words meaning "dark
and
> forboding atmosphere"? Isn't one "gothic"?
Isn't
> another "paranoiac"?
Those are more specific. "Gothic" seems to imply a period,
and moreover, though the term isn't used as often now, its
use for a particular kind of mystery popular in the '60's and
'70's featuring young female protagonists in jeopardy both
romantic and criminal, gives it an implied specificity that
"dark and sinister atmosphere" doesn't have.
Though I'll happily include gothic novels as noir (and that
will probably irritate you even more than my including
Chandler).
"Paranoiac" is, as far as I know, a medical term, not a
literary one. But seriously, it is, once more, too specific,
implying a protagonist who believes (in all likelihood,
incorrectly) that he is beset by forces beyond his control.
Too specific.
> This is the other problem, since obviously there
are
> lots of "gradations" as you put it, and while I
can
> simply point to STREET OF NO RETURN and say
"that's
> a
> noir" and SPY and say "that's a spy story" you
have
> to
> reinvent the wheel, claim they're both
"noirs",
> remind
> us of your own definition of "noir", and
then
> distinguish between them. That's part of what
I
> meant
> when I said your definition wasn't
useful.
I don't think it's at all difficult to look at at TSWCIFTC
and call it noir. And it doesn't require, as you say,
re-invention of the wheel. Indeed, it's one of the noir-est
spy stories ever published. Further, I'm sure I could find a
reference work that refers to either the novel, or the film
made from it, as noir. So again, it's not me that's
misapplying the term. On the contrary, it's me seeing how the
term is applied, and trying to find the common elements among
the many different kinds of stories to which it is
applied.
And, sorry, those common elements are not "downbeat endings,"
"unheroic, doomed, or (as Jack might have it) 'screwed'
protagonists," "nihilism," or
"fatalism." Many stories classified as "noir" have those
elements, but many others don't.
The common element among the many different stories to which
the word "noir" is routinely applied, and to which it was
applied long before I came along, is a dark and sinister
atmosphere. That, and not "stories in the tradition of Goodis
and Woolrich" is what
"noir" has meant in practice.
If you don't find that useful, don't blame me. Blame Duhamel
and everyone who came after him for applying the term so
widely.
> This [the lack of a guarantee of
enjoyment]
> is the other part of what I mean when I say
your
> definition isn't useful. Well, I suppose if
somebody
> wanted to simply read crime stories with
forboding
> atmospheres, it might work. Let me rephrase it
then:
> your definition is of limited usefulness.
No definition of a particular kind of crime story is going to
come with a guarantee that you'll like it if you've like
others of the type.
I can get as specific as you want. Let's try something as
specific as the "hard-boiled private eye." If you like
Spillane, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll like Michael
Avallone. If you like Joe Gores, it doesn't necessarily mean
you'll like Michael Brett.
Or let's try something even more specific. "Police
procedural," a piece of crime fiction in which a major part
of the interest is the authentic depiction of the law
enforcement profession. And I'll make it even more specific
by saying that it has to be set in a large urban area in the
US.
All kinds of stories fit that specific definition. I can't
guarantee you'll like them all. I can't guarantee that you'll
like William Caunitz just because you like Joseph Wambaugh. I
can't guarantee that you'll like James Ellroy just because
you like Collin Wilcox.
No literary definition can guarantee that you'll enjoy every
single example that fits that definition.
> (Do you classify all crime fiction this way?
By
> style?
> "Hard-boiled, noir"...I guess the rest would
be
> "realistic, poetic, fantastic"?)
The point is, others have classified the works. I'm just
trying to identify the common elements.
> I don't think styles define stories. Obviously
here
> you're lumping together some pretty dissimilar
books
> and authors.
Very dissimilar books are certainly getting lumped together,
but I wasn't the one who lumped them. They were lumped before
I was ever born. I have just endeavored to discern the common
elements. It's not my fault that the common elements don't
guarantee a story that will satisfy you or that will
sufficiently delineate the differences between a Cain and a
Chandler.
> And I, at least, think you miss the
> mark
> as a result: FALLING ANGEL is a PI story with
a
> dark
> forboding atmosphere, but I really don't think
that
> makes it a "noir". At it's heart it's a straight
up
> horror story, done in PI fancydress.
I'm not waving the flag for FALLING ANGEL here. I found it
disappointing, and I didn't really think the horror elements
and the hard-boiled PI elements meshed well. What I am
saying, though, is that the main character was a hard-boiled
PI so, whatever else it is, "straight-up horror story," "tale
of demonic possession," whatever, it's also a hard-boiled PI
story, and that's precisely what the author intended.
> I was saying something much more basic,
> that your classification schema would reclassify
a
> lot
> of books, resulting in odd, eccentric groupings.
It
> might work for you, of course.
Maybe the groupings are odd. Maybe they're not. But they're
not MY groupings. They were getting grouped together long
before I ever tried to define the terms.
All I did was try to determine what these disparate
books and films, that had been grouped together by others,
had in common.
What they have in common is a dark and sinsiter atmosphere.
And that's really about all.
If you don't find that helpful, don't blame me. Blame
Duhamel, and Billy Wilder, and Spillane and Collins, and all
the other people used the term "noir" so
indiscriminately.
> But your definition, on it's
> face quite simple, in practice redraws the lines
on
> the map. I want to be sure we're all at
least
> talking
> about the same thing.
No it doesn't. The lines were already drawn. All I did was
look at the terrain inside the map and describe it.
> And I think tossing
> Chandler in with Cain just obscures the
differences
> between the two, the stuff that made them
worth
> reading in the first place.
Maybe it does. That's not the point. The point is, I didn't
coin the term and toss Chandler and Cain together into the
mix. Duhamel did. And before the term had even been coined,
Billy Wilder did when he hired Chandler to write the
screenplay to DOUBLE INDEMNITY precisely because, in his
opinion, Chandler and Cain were mining the same vein.
You may disagree that they were mining the same vein. You may
not like the fact that they were spoken of us writing in a
similar tradition. You may not like the fact that the mystery
editor who coined the term published both of them under the
SERIE NOIR imprint. Chandler, in fact, disliked being lumped
with Cain, a writer whose work he didn't really
respect.
But that doesn't alter the fact that they were already tossed
together. I didn't toss them there. They were already there
when I came along. All I tried to do was find the elements
they, and all the other writers classified as "noir," had in
common
> I don't think Chandler or Hammett are
noir
> writers. They're pretty much the antithesis of
it,
in
> fact, no matter how much dark and
forboding
> atmosphere you spot. You're on somewhat
stronger
> ground with Spillane, although Hammer's
essential
> strength and heroism doesn't qualify him,
IMHO.
Whatever term you're trying to come up with for whatever it
is you think Hammett and Chandler (and arguably Spillane) are
the antithesis of, it's just not "noir." That's not my
opinion. That's the opinion of the guy who coined the term
and who published both Hammett and Chandler under the NOIR
label.
That's also the opinion of Silver & Ward who included
entries on Hammett and Chandler, and the film adaptations of
their novels, in their massive FILM NOIR book.
That's the opinion of the folks who put together THE BIG BOOK
OF NOIR, which included material on Hammett, Chandler, and
Spillane.
That's the opinion of the people who hired me to write an
on-line piece on Chandler called MASTER OF AMERICAN NOIR (not
MY title; it was the one that was imposed on me, though I
admit I didn't object).
If you're going to fall back on how "noir" is used "in
practice," and that's what you said at the beginning of your
post, then, like it or not, you're going to be stuck with a
term that is a lot more inclusive, and unnuanced, than you
want it to be.
I didn't make the term inclusive. It already was in practice.
To repeat, all I did was try to see what the many disparate
works classified by others as
"noir" had in common.
It's not my fault that "dark and sinister atmosphere" is all
I could find. Maybe that means I'm not discerning enough.
Maybe there are other elements I missed. But whatever the
elements are, they have to be something that Chandler and
Cain, and all the authors whose work is commonly classified
as "noir" have in common.
I'm not the one doing the reclassifying. Chandler and
Hammett, and a host of others, were identified and classified
as "noir" authors long before the Rara-Avis list was ever
founded. If you inist on a definition that deliberately
excludes them, you're the one doing the reclassifying.
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 : 16 May 2004 EDT