At 08:44 AM 29/11/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>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."
Right, and my fault. I remembered you saying, either at
Bouchercon or here or both, that we differed on something
near this end of things. I think now it was that you weren't
convinced that noir reflected my conviction that the
certainty of death is the ultimate expression of that doom.
(Have I've got it right, now?) Anyway, with that in mind I
applied your "sometimes" more to the notion of doom than to
the cause of it. I apologize for the misinterpretation.
I agree, too, with your observation about everyone having
character flaws as being consistent with the noir vision. And
then there are external factors to bring the protagonist
down, as well, though that's all part of the same thing. But
the lack of perfection brushes up against the idea of the
protagonist trying to do a purely good deed, and being
brought down. Motives are suspect at the best of times, and
seldom single-minded or purely without self interest. But we
might argue that the drifter in Postman is as innocent as we
might reasonably expect anyone to be, and that it is his
guilt and ambivalence about the deed that makes it so
difficult for him to kill his benefactor. He does seem more
conflicted about killing the husband than the detective.
Dunno. Just a thought.
Best, Kerry
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 30 Nov 2006 EST