I've a problem, stated before, with the notion that genre
fiction needs to be transcended to be considered literary. My
difficulty results partially from the multiple definitions of
"literary", ranging from the concept of literature as
anything to do with writing (marketing departments across the
Americas are constantly sending me their "literature") to
good, or worthy writing. Ask what makes the writing good or
worthy, and the slope quickly becomes slippery. I recall a
recent criminal prosecution of a child pornographer, whose
defence included testimony from an English department
academic proclaiming the works employed "literary" techniques
as metaphor and allusion, and so had literary merit. At other
times I've heard literary defined to mean that the work
tackled larger themes of human existence, often at multiple
levels of interpretation of the writing.
I can go with that, but on the flip side there are genres
whose characteristic themes are the big ones of human
existence: power, for instance, necessarily followed by
corruption and violence, in many settings, from the home to
government, to business, to social and sexual relations.
Throw in the human weaknesses that provide opportunities for
power and corruption to flourish and it seems to me that noir
is automatically "literary." But we know some noir is better
than other examples. Does this send us back looking for the
use of literary devices, such as metaphor and allusion, as
singular examples of literary merit?
Chandler's and Hammett's metaphors have become overworked to
the point of self-parody. But I think that leads us to a more
useful definition of worthy literature: originality. The
hardboil style was fresh when Chandler and Hammett used it,
and updated, argot remains a useful and creative device. The
categorization of genres is largely, I think, a marketing
device. "If you liked this story, you might want to buy these
three others." This results in a lot of formulaic writing
that can be quite enjoyable, but not necessarily great
literature, while "literary" becomes just another genre, with
its own characteristics. In this context I don't think fresh,
creative writing so much transcends its genre, rising to a
another level, as it uses the genre's characteristic devices,
and perhaps some new, additional ones, to burrow more deeply
into the genre's themes, exploring new depths, bringing new
awareness.
Certainly Ross Macdonald was not the stylist that Chandler
and Hammett were. He improved with practice, but I don't
think he reached their level. And I'll admit some bias here.
Macdonald grew up about thirty miles away from where I live
and we share some Puritan heritage. Always nice to see the
locals do well, so I'll argue his literary merit.
From my first readings over thirty years ago I
recognized some thematic qualities in Macdonald's work that I
didn't find in other, mostly American examples of crime
writing. Not that I read or was even aware of everything in
the genre, but Macdonald linked a background setting of
environmental exploitation and decline to a foreground of
human corruption and I think he was at least among the first
in the genre to do so. Certainly he made use of literary
allusion. One of his books, at other levels, is a study of
the cultural and psychological study of the femme fatale. And
there was that whole, painful exploration of the sins of the
fathers being visited on the kids theme. Chandler hinted at
it when Marlow helped the Colonel with his spoiled, wonky
kids, begging the question as to how this superficially nice
guy ended up with such amoral offspring, but Macdonald rolled
up his sleeves and dug for the answers, over and over
again.
Macdonald made Archer do much of the spadework with Freudian
psychology, and he may have been first in the genre to do
that. Many followed, but that isn't serving him well just
now. As a doctor, examining and categorizing humanity in
admittedly primitive fashion, Freud was a necessary step
toward a science of human behaviour that would, in the long
run, discredit him.
I have a feeling he will be back, in a modified form perhaps,
along with his own, numerous literary and cultural allusions
that science and the existentialists have disproven. A person
may just be the sum of their actions, but among their
behaviours is the persistent belief in a self separate from
the body and mind, a spiritual self from which our values are
derived. The whole notion of corruption is pointless without
these values. Science now answers many of the questions once
directed toward religion, but science isn't especially good
at comfort and solace. Not much at confession, science and
the behaviourists. Archer and Freud, as judgmental observers
and reluctant actors, were more priests than
detectives.
Of course this may all be crap, but it's been fun in the
passing. Kerry
At 05:24 PM 15/06/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>
>Not that there's anything wrong with telling a
good
>story. In fact, there's a whole lot right about
it.
>I'll choose a good story over the concerns of "Big
L"
>Literature almost every time. On rare
occasions,
>though, you get both. And I'd place Sallis
among
>those few who even attempt (and in his case,
often
>succeeds at) this.
>
>************
>I've only read three by Ross Macdonald, but I
don't
>see him anywhere close to the Big L category, in
style
>or content. Hammett and Chandler
absolutely.
>
>miker
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo!
Groups. Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/co.u8A/gOaOAA/Zx0JAA/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 : 16 Jun 2006 EDT