I've taken my time on this one Jim because I think you're
right- we're lapping ourselves again. Our points have largely
been made.
First let me say that I'm sorry you've had to apologize and
explain on another e-mail. There's nothing wrong with
strongly held opinion, though it sometimes makes others feel
uncomfortable. I know the debate has been worthwhile for me.
It has expanded my thoughts on the subject. Not toward
agreement with you, but you could hardly expect that, given
that you're wrong.
At 03:11 PM 09/10/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>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."
That's not true. I'm not nearly so widely read as you, and
admire you for that, but I have given examples from the texts
before, and will do so here again, for your benefit.
First let me say that, while I agree with Jack Bludis'
shorthand definition of "doomed" it has some limitations. We
have to think of how that applies. What I've argued is that
noir is "non-transcendent" and significantly so. All other
genres in western literature suggest at least the possibility
of transcendence from the human condition. Other mystery
fiction, for instance, suggests that if the bad people are
discovered and punished in some way, the world is improved,
victims' deaths are somehow given value through understanding
and the current expanded notion of victims to include
relatives and family and community, may sometimes be given
something called
"closure." Not in noir. The best that noir has to offer is
survival, and we know that is short lived. In that sense,
"doomed" does, ultimately, mean death.
Now to back this up, let's compare two significant stories-
one a primal myth in western society (the story of Christ)
and the other a primal story in noir fiction (The Maltese
Falcon.) I do hope these sources are primal enough for
you.
I'm not trying to proselytize, nor debate the truth or
fiction of Christ, but merely point out that whether or not
the story is true it has had significant influence on the way
we think and write in the western world. At the same time, it
is not by any means the beginning of western thought, yet
still it makes a significant contribution primarily on the
issue of love. The Christian notion of turn the other cheek,
trust in love is a significant departure from the Old
Testament, and still a challenge in the modern world. The
promise for love, the compensating reward, was a heaven on
earth, and if that failed, eternal life in some other heaven.
Christ takes the risk, resists the temptations of empire,
does not call upon armies in his defense, takes his awful
punishment and is seen to rise again, three days later. He
transcends the human condition. Oh sure, he's the son of god,
but aren't we all god's children? If this wasn't meant to
inspire us, what was the point of this story about his coming
to earth?
Noir pointedly denies this. Sam Spade does not choose love.
In fact, he compiles a list of very practical reasons why he
should not trust in his attraction to Brigid O'Shaugnessy.
They're very good reasons, but no more compelling than those
that were aligned against Christ in his story. The difference
is that Spade lacks faith. He simply cannot bring himself to
trust Brigid, or to accept that there might be some other,
compensating reward if she fails him, or that the short
experience of love with her might compensate for her probable
betrayal. So he turns her over to the cops. Is justice
satisfied? Not really- the cops would sooner have had Spade
for the crime. It's a corrupt world, after all. Is Archer any
better off? No hint of that. What about Mrs. Archer? Well,
she'd rather have had Spade too. Gutman and the others lose a
competitor in their obsessive pursuit of a valueless bauble,
but I don't think that's intended as a good thing, do you?
Once could argue that, despite the novel's name, that's not
really the point of the plot. What Spade gets is the
self-evident validation of his personal, limited value
system, and to survive with it in a deliberately shoddy,
loveless environment for a little bit longer (until,
inevitably, he dies.) He does not transcend the human
condition. I doubt this is some kind of accident on Hammett's
part, though I'm not sure it matters.
You may think of this as some form of bravery, and I can see
that point, in the same way that I admire Sol Alinsky's
recognition that the same battles must be fought over and
over again, but it is certainly not heroism in the classical
sense. Spade is not a conquering hero like Caesar. He's
certainly not heroic in the sense that Romeo was heroic. In
fact, in that sense, Spade is a coward, unwilling to take the
risk, the leap of faith that even romantic love requires.
That's why the Maltese Falcon is noir, and Spade's hardboiled
demeanor is likely a mask for his fears. He's seen too much
to keep the faith.
>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?
My point was that I use "movie" more broadly that you do, to
include animation. I think of animation as a sub-category of
movie (just as I use noir as a sub-category of mystery,) not
as a separate thing entirely. When I was a kid and went to
see Mickey Mouse, I was still going to the movies, not the
animations. Maybe in Chi you went to the cartoons, but not
here in the Hammer. So in that sense, your analogy to our
different definitions of noir didn't work.
>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.
Yes, you're right. You already admitted that we were talking
within the crime, mystery or suspense genres. Or across them.
But still, aren't they all, in some way, atmospherically dark
and sinister? If so, how does noir define a category within
them? Why not just call all mysteries noir?
>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."
Well, there are people who think the moon is made of green
cheese. I'm asking you to tell my why YOU don't call these
categories noir, as they all seem to me to have at least some
dark atmospherics.
>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.
Because others use other words incorrectly, I am therefor
wrong in the use of this word? You're caught in a tautology,
Jim. If words have a meaning so broad that they cannot be
differentiated from other words then they have no meaning at
all.
>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.
What I'm saying is that I don't believe in Hammer's heroics.
You're right that they're there within the text. And he does
appear to transcend experience. Pretty hard to believe in
this world though, isn't it? But I'll give you your argument.
Hammer is hardboiled, but not noir.
>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.
Sure, he's the protagonist. But we've plenty of anti-heroes
as protagonists.
> 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.
No, that's not true. I think there's a difference with Parker
and clearly you suspect as much yourself. Parker doesn't
attempt to transcend the organization. He merely attempts to
get it to stop interfering with him. He fights it to a
standstill in this regard, under very narrowly defined
circumstances. But the organization is still out there and
could get back to him if those circumstances are breached.
And what Parker gets to do is to go back to his thievery, not
transcend it. Again you're right. He's not heroic (he's
anti-heroic) but he is noir.
>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.
Well, I don't, and I've told you why.
It's true that we use words to communicate with others, based
on common definitions. But there are also common mistakes.
I've seen a lot of people mistake the word "then" for "than."
Sometimes it's a typo, sometimes it's simply substituting one
for the other due to their similar sounds, sometimes it's a
complete misunderstanding. But at no point will these two
words mean the same thing, however popular the usage
becomes.
>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 you seemed to think only one meaning could be correct,
based upon its age.
>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.
Gee Jim- what if they're wrong, instead of others on the
list? All I'm asking is that you show me how you define
mysteries that are non-noir.
>"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.
You can have that debate because you've agreed on the
definition of hardboiled. Once again you miss the point of
your own argument.
>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.
But wait- are they right or wrong. Do we accept them as
gospel, or do we apply our own cognitive skills? So I ask you
again, in another form, if some of these "few" don't have
what you consider to be noir, how so?
But you're right- we're repeating ourselves.
>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.
Ah Jim- the modern hero doing battle for the common man. That
is a good one.
Nobody's claiming to be some sort of elite in this thread or
any other. We like the same genre is all, and we're
explaining why. It's true that I've enjoyed besting you
debate, but I've given you credit for your arguments too (at
risk of you thinking that's the same as agreeing with them,
when it suits your purpose.)
And I've engaged in this round for the same reasons you did.
The talk about noir seemed to be getting mushy and pointless
and include notions that just didn't seem right to me. So I'm
glad you came out to go another few rounds. If others don't
like it, they can skip us and go on with other discussions. I
skip a few of those discussions myself now and again. I'll
gladly go at it again in a year or two when there's evidence
these same arguments bear repeating. Anyone wants to censure
me, that's fine. Anyone wants to censor me, I'll go read the
archives.
Meantime Jim, thanks for a stimulating debate. I've learned a
trick or two about bluster and feints, but nothing that
changes my mind about the definition of noir.
Best, Kerry
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.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 : 11 Oct 2005 EDT