Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: On Noir

Date: 30 Sep 2005


Re your comments below:

> The debate is interesting for its own sake. All this
> stuff is
> categorization after or during the fact, simply to
> help readers who like
> the stuff know when something similar comes along.
> In that way it's useful
> to both commercial interests and to us, so we can
> agree on what we're
> talking about. Not that we ever will. Jim finds my
> definition too narrow,
> and I can live with that. I suspect he's been wrong
> before.

I've been wrong before, but not about this.

> I think his
> definition is too broad to be of much use. Jim
> suspects I've been wrong
> before.

You're already wrong. It's not MY definition. It's THE definition. It's the one that was used by the people who coined the term long before I was ever born and long before I'd ever heard the term. They may not have expressed it explicitly, but their choice of the material that fit their parameters makes the implicit definition clear.

It may not be of much use, or at least not of much use to you, but that's not my problem. My problem is that defining it narrowly is simply incorrect. Incorrect historically, and incorrect as it's commonly used now.

If you want a term that's useful to describe the kind of story you like, come up with a new one. Noir's already being used for something else much broader than what you're describing. And it always has been.


__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page

RARA-AVIS home page:
  Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 30 Sep 2005 EDT