Nice discussion, miker. I wonder when "Bunny" wrote his Roger
Ackyrod essay discussing mysteries.
Ed
--- Michael Robison <
miker_zspider@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The hardboiled genre originated in the
violent
> Prohibition years and flourished during the
hard
> Depression that followed. Its audience was the
lower
> classes and blue collar workers, and this amounted
to
> a stigma to ward off elitist critical
review.
> Although there were occasional derisive comments
from
> the critics, the overall policy was one of silence,
as
> if left alone the offensive texts would disappear.
In
> 1940 Edmund Wilson risked his reputation by
lowering
> himself to read and comment on several of the
writers
> of the genre. He opens the essay by declaring that
he
> had only recently emerged from reading deeply
into
> obscure nineteenth century works, and that to
reawaken
> his literary senses to the twentieth century, he
had
> just finished the complete works of James Cain,
Horace
> McCoy, Richard Hallas, John O'Hara, John
Steinbeck,
> Nathanael West, and others. It is in this essay,
The
> Boys in the Back Room, that Wilson labeled them
the
> poets of tabloid murder.
>
> Wilson points to Cain's writing as the best of
the
> bunch. Wilson identified most of the writers as
being
> influenced by Hemingway's style and theme, but
in
> James Cain he also saw an association with "the
new
> school of mystery writers of the type of
Dashiell
> Hammett." Although Cain vehemently denied
the
> connection, whether he was directly influenced
by
> Hammett is moot. The common themes involving
tough
> and driven men struggling to dominate in a
brutal
> urban landscape are too similar to ignore.
Wilson
> sees Cain's work as being ingenious, but
"trashy"
> nonetheless, and often in danger of being a parody
of
> itself, but in the end he gives Cain limited
credit,
> "Yet even there brilliant moments of insight
redeemed
> the unconscious burlesque." Curiously, he
criticizes
> Cain's work for "its movie foreshortening and
its
> too-well oiled action." After submersing himself
for
> so long in the ornate and overwrought prose
that
> dominated the nineteenth century, it is
understandable
> that Wilson would object to the lean and terse
prose
> he sees as foreshortened. It must have been a
shock
> to read something written so straight and clean.
As
> far as his complaint about the "too-well
oiled
> action," it is hard to fathom that as a
criticism.
>
> Wilson interprets John O'Hara's writing more in
the
> line of social commentary than a genuine
literary
> effort. O'Hara's main concern was documenting
social
> snobbery in the many subtle and unsubtle ways that
it
> was expressed in the early twentieth century,
between
> the Catholics and Protestants and richer and
poorer.
> For the most part, Wilson's views on John O'Hara
are
> on target. However, Wilson's complaint about
Julius
> English's lack of emotion in An Appointment in
Samarra
> seems misplaced. The novel makes it clear
that
> English is significantly crippled by an
upbringing
> that stressed the suppression of untoward emotion,
and
> with this background, it's difficult or impossible
for
> him to cope with or even understand them. It's not
a
> lack of emotions that Wilson is seeing, but instead
an
> inability on English's part to express
them.
>
> Wilson is also astute in noting that in An
Appointment
> in Samarra, O'Hara does not create empathy in
the
> reader for the character, the readers "do not
share
> the experience of the sufferer." This
clinical
> attitude might be to some extent purposeful on
the
> part of O'Hara. It was paralleled to good effect
by
> later authors such as Vin Packer. It harkens back
to
> a naturalistic look at man as if he were
participating
> in a laboratory experiment. Wilson also notes
that
> O'Hara bragged about dashing his work off
without
> revision, and Wilson says this is obvious in his
work,
> with significant sections being "rather diffuse
and
> rather blurred." As an example, he points to
the
> relative pointlessness of some of the minor
characters
> in O'Hara's novels, some fleshed out to
considerable
> extent but of little use in the development of
the
> novel. This is a fair criticism.
>
> Wilson is best able to break from vague
generalities
> and home in convincingly when he examines the works
of
> John Steinbeck. Although he points out the
obvious
> fact that The Grapes of Wrath is a "propaganda
novel,
> full of preachments and sociological
interludes,"
> Wilson is perceptive in noting that
Steinbeck's
> writing closely parallels a biological
interpretation
> of man. Rather than raising animals to the level
of
> humans, he is lowering his expectations of man to
an
> animal level. At least at a symbolic level, this
is
> evident in his numerous idiot characters, such as
in
> The Pastures of Heaven, Johnny Bear, and of
course,
> Lennie in Of Mice and Men. In The Grapes of Wrath
he
> compares the travels of the Joads with a turtle,
with
> other similar animal analogies. Wilson finds
this
> biological realism as his end statement, and
is
> sceptical that any high moral ground is hinted at
by
> the animal comparison. Instead of rejecting
animal
> instinct, Wilson finds Steinbeck celebrating, or
at
> least accepting it in man. He quotes a character
in
> Steinbeck's To a God Unknown, "He was not kind
to
> animals; at least no kinder than they were to
each
> other, but he must have acted with a consistency
beast
> could understand."
>
> Upon a closer inspection, this introduces
questions
> about Steinbeck's true feelings about the
communist
> themes that run through his work. When the doctor
in
> In Dubious Battle is told by the young idealist
that
> the violent struggle will be justied by the
utopian
> end, he replies that in his "little experience the
end
> is never very different in its nature from
the
> means..." Steinbeck sees man as an animal
with
> predatory instincts necessary to species survival,
and
> the doctor's statement is closer to scientific
fact
> than moral verdict. More overt, there is an
innocence
> in the pure killing instinct in Lennie, even
though
> Lennie knows right from wrong. In pondering
whether
> Lennie is good or bad, Wilson paraphrases
the
> scientific determinism discussed in Wolcutt's
American
> Naturalism: A Divided Stream, "He is betrayed as,
the
> author implies, all our human intentions are, by
the
> uncertainties of our animal nature." This
commitment
> to Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest in
the
> social affairs of man does not find a good fit
with
> communism.
>
> Although Wilson believes that Steinbeck has
a
> "first-rate" mind, he is less than
totally
> enthusiastic about Steinbeck's work. In the end,
he
> finds Steinbeck's writing to be an uneven "mixture
of
> seriousness and trashiness," and finally dismisses
him
> with, "It is hard to feel that any of his books,
so
> far, is really first-rate." Steinbeck doesn't
equal
> the major American writers of the twentieth
century,
> but Wilson's comment strikes one as overly
harsh.
>
> Wilson finds common ground with Richard Hallas in
a
> fascination with the unreality of the California
scene
> with a Hollywood background, and it is perhaps
for
> this reason that he chose to review Hallas's I
Play
> the Black and the Red Comes Up. There is
contemporary
> thought that the book was written more in parody
than
> as a serious effort, and Wilson himself calls
it
> pastiche. Wilson makes an unconvincing pitch that
the
> unreality is based on the weather and the
geography.
> Compared to the overpowering social elements
of
> California at this time, the Hollywood phenomena,
the
> leftover rags-to-riches hopes of the Gold Rush,
and
> the end of the line for raking in the
magnificent
> harvest of manifest destiny, it seems a
longshot
> betting instead on the sun, the rain, and the
surf.
> California was the end of the rainbow, complete with
a
> pot of gold.
>
> Wilson's lack of understanding of Horace McCoy
is
> another shortcoming of the essay. One need not
like
> McCoy to appreciate the significance of They
Shoot
> Horses, Don't They? The French understood it,
Camus
> calling it the most existential of American novels,
he
> used it as a model for The Stranger. McCoy
doesn't
> even rate a full paragraph in the essay.
Wilson's
> only comment is that McCoy does not adequately
explore
> his characters and their motivation. He states
this
> in spite of frequently invoking Hemingway's
influence
> throughout the essay. It appears that Wilson does
not
> comprehend that one of Hemingway's strengths was
his
> understanding of the significance of what goes
unsaid.
> Wilson probably wondered what the husband and
wife
> were discussing in "Hills Like White
Elephants."
>
> The edition of the essay reviewed here had a
brief
> commentary on Nathanael West's works appended, and
he
> is refreshingly positive towards most of his
novels.
> He qualifies this by noting that West is
influenced
> more by the French than the American school.
Miss
> Lonelyhearts and Day of the Locust carry a lot
of
> impact in a few pages, and the spiritual crisis
and
> sense of human loss may not match the grace
or
> philosophical complexity of Dostoevsky, but
it's
> surely more palatable.
>
> A food critic who doesn't like seafood would do
well
> to avoid the subject. Similarly, a literary
critic
> with no appreciation for a genre cannot be expected
to
> comment intelligently on it. This particular piece
is
> collected in a book of his essays entitled
Classics
> and Commercials, and it's obvious which category
he
> places hardboiled literature. Wilson,
continually
> referring to the authors work as trashy and at
least
> once as second-rate, leaves little doubt that his
main
> impetus is to denigrate the subject. There
are
> moments of worthwhile insight in the essay, but
most
> of it suffers from vague hand-waving and
blatant
> condescension. Poetically terse prose and
a
> recognition of the value of what goes unsaid are
both
> important techniques of the genre. His
complaints
> about what he terms Cain's foreshortening and
McCoy's
> lack of characterization raises serious
questions
> concerning his understanding of this. In the
end,
> Wilson's apparent inability to grasp the
significance
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
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/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:
rara-avis-l-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:
rara-avis-l-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> 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 : 21 Sep 2006 EDT