Kerry,
Re your comments below:
> Ho, and you accuse ME of sophistry? I recall
you
> making exactly the above
> argument many times, for your definition of
noir.
I've given reasons historical and practical for why I think
the definition of noir is broader than you. You've given
nothing except, "This is what I think."
Which argument is based on logic and which on
sophistry?
"I don't think you've quite got the argument here Jim. The
analogy would be to extend the use of the word
'movie' to mean anything that moves. Given that the world
hurtles through space, there's little useful distinction in
that. It's only useful when we answer
'compared to what?'"
No, I've gotten the argument just fine. I'm using a word more
broadly than you do. I'm using it in the way it was
originally used, just as "movie" was originally used as a
shortened term for "moving picture."
You're using the word "noir" more narrowly. And I'm arguing
that your narrow use of that word is just as wrong as a
narrow use of "movie" that eliminate an entire class of the
form, such as animated cartoons. Now do YOU get the
analogy?
> All joking aside, there ARE dark moments in Anne
of
> Green Gables. Why isn't
> it, by your definition, considered noir in
common
> parlance?
And that's an argument you mount after saying "all joking
aside?" Well, I don't include ANNE OF GREEN GABLES because,
first of all, it's not a mystery, and noir, in the context of
this list, is about mystery
(crime, suspense, call it what you will 'cause I don't want
to start another word war) fiction.
> Quite the reverse. If you say "mystery" you
will
> include stories in which
> the question is not only who did the crime, but
how
> the crime came about,
> how it was solved or possibly some other bit
of
> information revealed in the
> telling. Use of the word "whodunit" implies
a
> subcategory of mystery that
> to the exclusion of these other questions, at
least
> as the story's main
> purpose.
Again, you miss the point, and, I think deliberately. If you
use a word that is meant to be used broadly in a narrow
context, you MISuse the word. "Mystery," as it is commonly
used, has a broad meaning. But there are some people who use
it narrowly to mean ONLY whodunits and, when confronted by
another kind of mystery, will say, "That's not a mystery.
That's a thriller." or "That's a procedural" or "That's
criminal protagonist."
Similarly, noir, as it is commonly used, and as it was
originally coined, has a broad meaning. But some people,
including yourself, use it narrowly, and are just as
wrong.
> Spillane's world of vigilante
> justice implies a chaotic
> world to me, one in which a commonly
accepted
> standard of civilization (the
> justice system) is doomed. It has been a long
time
> since I read The Outfit
> so please forgive me if I've got it wrong,
but
> wasn't that about how one
> man could humble a large, powerful organization?
Who
> wasn't doomed in that
> scenario? The mob that was vulnerable to
guerilla
> tactics or the thief
> whose purpose was necessarily diverted to that
risky
> activity?
If you're going to admit that Spillane, and particularly ONE
LONELY NIGHT, is noir, than you've essentially admitted that
you've lost the argument. You might not like Mike Hammer, and
you might disapprove of his tactics, but he's clearly the
hero, he vanquishes the villains, he rescues the damsel, and
he analyzes the clues correctly so that he can reveal the
hitherto unknown identity of the main bad buy. He triumphs
not only over the villains, but over the chaotic environment
in which he operates.
Everything you say noir isn't, heroic, triumphant, with
solutions the protagonist can reach by logic, ONE LONELY
NIGHT is.
Similarly, I might not approve of Parker or his methods, but,
in THE OUTFIT, we're clearly supposed to root for him over
the forces of monlithic Organized Crime. Again, like Hammer,
Parker sets out to achieve a goal, and he achieves it. I have
a hard time describing him as a hero, but he's clearly a
triumphant protagonist, the main thing you say a noir
protagonist is NOT.
But, as far as MOST people are concerned, they are both noir
because they both, and particularly ONE LONELY NIGHT, have
the dark, sinister atmospherics that mark noir fiction.
> Speaking or original words, by your argument
"noir"
> would be French for
> "black" and that's the end of it. That's what
it
> meant originally, and
> that's still common parlance in France and the
many
> places in the world
> that use the language. Anybody who came along
and
> used the word to describe
> a category of literature would be simply be
wrong
> because more people, even
> those describing the colour of automobiles
or
> clothing, use the word to
> mean the equivalent of black than for any
other
> purpose. Who are you to
> change it?
More sophistry. Everyone on this list, including you, knows
that words can have more than one meaning depending on the
context. Usually the second meaning is related, in a
figurative way, to the original meaning.
But since you're pretending NOT to know that, I'll use two
examples.
"Hard-boiled" literally means to cook something, usually an
egg, in boiling water long enough to make it hard and tough.
Because an egg that is hard-boiled becomes tougher,
"hard-boiled" has also become a colloquialism for "tough."
Ultimately, in the context of crime fiction, it has come to
be used as a modifier for a type of mystery denoted by a
tough attitude and a colloquial style.
Similarly, "mystery" itself, means something unexplained or
not understood. In its original religious context, it meant a
supernatural truth that COULDN'T be explained or understood
in mortal human terms. Its original meaning, and, I suspect,
its use in so many of the earliest titles in the genre, has
led to its being used, figuritively, as the generic word for
fiction involved with crime.
Which brings us to "noir," literally, as you point out, the
color black. And the dark, sinister connotations of that
color ("It was a black night."
"The villain was wearing a black hat." Etc.) have led it to
be used as the modifier for a type of mystery denoted by its
particular use of dark, sinister atmospherics.
> Okay, talk to me like I'm an unperceptive six
year
> old, because I just
> don't see where you're setting the cut-off. Tell
me
> the required degree.
> What is the necessary treatment. Because that's
all
> I've been telling you
> Jim. The degree or required treatment is one
at
> which it becomes apparent
> that efforts to transcend the human condition
are
> doomed. You got another
> one, lay it out.
No it's not, for the simple reason that there are too many
examples of mysteries, in a variety of mediums, that are
generally classified, not by me but by others, as noir, that
don't have the themes you say are the defining
characteristics.
"To fail to define the degree or treatment is simply to fail
to make your point."
Why? I'm not a surveyor. Look at the books on the Serie Noire
list. Look at the movies generally identified as noir. Figure
out an average level, find a level that's a bit lower than
that average, and that's probably the borderline. I do know
that it doesn't HAVE to be so dark that the protagonist is
always, as in Jack's definition "screwed." And I know,
because you've already admitted it, that stories that have
heroes who triumph over adversity can easily make the
cut.
"Okay, I've accepted there'll be disagreements. But where is
your frontier? And don't just repeat the old argument. Tell
me at what point dark atmospherics become noir,
please."
See above.
"You can't argue (discuss?) the case by case application if
you have no idea of the definition. That's precisely what
you've been saying about meaning and language, Jim."
Sure you can. Two people can agree that, for example,
"hard-boiled" means "tough and colloquial," and still
disagree about whether or not a particular character fits the
parameters. That's why a lot of people on this list say James
Bond is hard-boiled, but I don't.
For me, he's a bit too polished, a bit too precise, a bit too
much the upper-class British genteleman. But I can easily
recognize that it's a close call, particularly since he's the
most famous example of a mystery sub-genre, the spy story,
that is generally regarded as being well within the province
of
"hard-boiled." For that reason, I've never objected to Bond's
being discussed on this list on the basis of his being "not
hard-boiled," and have never even brought it up except when
asked.
Similarly, I have a hard time regarding P.D. James's Adam
Dalgliesh as hard-boiled (though very often his stories are
quite clearly noir) for many of the same reasons. He's too
overtly cultured, too precise in the use of language, too
much the upper-class British gentleman. But, again, it's a
close call, particularly since he, like Bond, is in a mystery
sub-genre, the police procedural, widely regarded as well
within the purview of "hard-boiled." Again, if someone wants
to discuss him, I'll raise no objections.
In the same way, if someone calls a story or novel
"noir" that doesn't seem, to my eye, to meet the
requirements, that doesn't seem QUITE dark and sinister
enough to qualify, I doubt if I'll raise an objection. I'd
rather be too inclusive than too exclusive.
In your entire long post, you've only managed to raise two
cogent arguments. The first:
> You've done well with your original usage
argument,
> but I'm afraid you'll
> have to provide more evidence for COMMON usage
than
> your say-so. Certainly
> there is a commercial usage, but marketers are
just
> as likely to use the
> word incorrectly as anyone else- especially
since
> they've the well
> recognized motivation to try to sell more product
to
> more people by
> describing the product as broadly as possible.
Have
> you never purchased
> something only to discover it does not live up
to
> its advertising, Jim?
> Man, have I got some stuff to sell you!
Yeah, but it was marketers that COINED the term, and you've
already said that you accepted my "original usage" point, or
at least admitted that it was convincing. But on to common
usage.
What examples could I offer that you couldn't claim were
"merely anecdotal?" It's not like I can take a poll of the
nation, or the world, at large.
Nevertheless, I'll offer one piece of evidence that I regard
as very solid. THE BIG BOOK OF NOIR is a 1998 anthology of
articles and essays about noir fiction in a variety of
mediums, with contributions by present and former Rara-Avians
like Bill Crider, Robert Skinner, Ed Gorman, Ettienne
Borgers, and Dick Lochte, as well as non-Rara-Avis members
like Max Allan Collins, Gary Lovisi, Stephen King, et
al.
Sticking strictly to the section on prose fiction
(there are separate sections on movies, comics, and TV/radio,
which also prove my point, but we'll stick to prose), we have
whole chapters about Harry Whittington, Mickey Spillane,
Donald Hamilton, John D. MacDonald, Ross Macdonald, Charles
Williams, Patricia Highsmith, et al. Other chapters include
shorter entries on Patricia Cornwell, Leigh Brackett, Evan
Hunter, James Reasoner, Joe Lansdale, Bill Pronzini, James
Ellroy, W.R. Burnett, William P. McGivern, Dorothy B. Hughes,
and Dean Koontz.
That's pretty damned broad! And this isn't a bunch of
"bottom-line" publishers looking to gull the unsuspecting
public. This is a group of respected experts in the field who
all use "noir" in a much wider context than you insist it
has. And, at the risk of repeating myself yet again, I'd
venture to suggest that about the only thing all of these
authors' works have in common is a dark, sinister atmosphere.
There may be a few who don't even have that, to my eye, but
they evidently did to whoever wrote about them for this
book.
> And why discount other opinions on RA (not just
my
> own) including some noir
> authors who suggest they had more than
atmospherics
> in mind when they wrote
> the books? These are people who read and study
the
> subject, actively
> looking for what makes this particular genre
work
> for them. Why discount
> their definitions too?
For the same reason I reject the notion that "mystery" only
means "whodunit." Because it's not what the people who coined
the term meant, and it's not how it's commonly used
now.
Which brings me to what really frosts me about this narrow
use of the term.
When someone says, "That's not a mystery that's a thriller,"
there's an unspoken addendum. "What I'm choosing to call
mysteries are superior to thrillers, and that is why I'm
choosing to deliberatley exclude thrillers when I use the
word."
When I hear someone wax on about the profound insights into
the meaninglessness of life that noir fiction so expertly
depicts, or how Hammett can't be noir because his character
are too tough, or Chandler can't be noir because Marlowe's
too heroic, and noir is ultimately about characters marching
reluctantly to their doom, what I'm hearing is, "What I'm
calling noir is more important and deep than the mere
entertainments most people mean when they use the term, so
I'll use it in a narrow sense that specifically excludes the
stuff I regard as inferior."
That kind of elitism does, I admit, push a hot button for me.
And if I sounded too passionate in the course of this thread,
that's why.
But I've said everything I have to say on the subject, and
I've said it all before, which is the reason that, until this
recent thread, I've stayed out of the discussions, for the
better part of a year, every time it, or the "hard-boiled"
argument came up.
I'm simply tired of repeating myself. And, I suspect, most of
you are tired of hearing me repeat myself.
So, Kerry, if you're not convinced, I leave you to the
satisfaction of having the last word. I'm retiring from the
field.
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine
Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite
Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kqIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09 Oct 2005 EDT