Kerry you guoted me:
>> ... but I would add that sometimes the noir
that draws him into the vortex where of doom.<<
And said: "I know we disagree on this Jack, but to me this is
tragedy (the observation above, not the fact that we
disagree, sad though it is.) The protagonist would or could
succeed but for a tragic flaw of some sort. But I think noir
actually precludes the possibility of transcendence. She/he
Kerry, note that I said: "*sometimes* the noir character has
been moral and has had integrity right up until the point
that he or she becomes obsessed or has a need that draws him
into the vortex ..."
By my definition, noir=doomed, and yes, most of doomed by a
character flaw, but note that I said "sometimes."
Yes, even in the *sometimes,* there is a character flaw, but
who among us is perfect. And remember, the writer created
these characters and therefore, their flaws, minor though
they may be, like the need for survival like in the case of
Harry Morgan (To Have and Have Not.)
I'm not even sure we disagree. In noir, as I see it,
transcendence is impossible -- or it's not noir. This is why
I reject Marlowe and Spade as noir--except Marlowe in
*Poodle Springs." Like what I've read of Ross McD's Lew Archer, that last Marlowe is one sadly miserable son of a bitch, even at the end.
PS: It's funny, even in a medium like an e-mail list, we can
talk back and forth, look over our words before we hit
*send,* and still not know that we *may be* saying the same thing--or something damn close to it.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 29 Nov 2006 EST