You gotta give Jim credit for sticking to his guns, new
evidence be damned. He has always insisted that Duhamel alone
had the right and power to define the literary genre of
"noir" for all time. For instance, here's what Jim wrote in
August, 2004:
"The term, as has been discussed here before, was coined by
Marcel Duhamel, when he was assigned to develop a mystery
line, which he called SERIE NOIR, for the French publisher
Gallimard. As the guy who coined the term, he's the guy who
set the parameters, and the parameters he set were pretty
wide."
Jim never offered Duhamel's own definition in his own words,
though; instead, he employed inductive reasoning to interpret
Duhamel's definition. Jim filtered the books down to the
common elements of "dark and sinister."
Now, Al provides us with Duhamel's own words (which Karin
kindly translated) about the elements a reader can expect in
one of his noir novels. And nowhere do the words "dark and
sinister" appear. In fact, he only discusses content, not
atmosphere.
And all of the sudden, Jim knows better than Duhamel, the man
he has constantly held up as the ultimate authority on the
issue:
"As for Marcel Duhamel's comments, he isn't giving a
definition. He's describing the subject matter that readers
can expect."
Well, as far as that goes, "dark and sinister" isn't a
definition either, just a description of the presentation of
"the subject matter that readers can expect." And reader
expectations are not a defining characteristic of a literary
genre? Isn't the goal of branding, as Duhamel was doing with
Serie Noir, to place a common definition in consumers'
minds?
"On the evidence of the books published in his line, it's
clear that all the thing he brings up aren't in every single
book he published. So it can't stand as a definition."
Can't they be a list of elements, each of which, alone or in
combination, is sufficient, but not necessary to noir?
"On the other hand, the subject matter, and the way his
writers treat that subject matter, sounds dark and sinister
to me."
So, after contradicting Duhamel, he's now trying to fold his
definition into his own? So "the guy who coined the term" is
no longer "the guy who [gets to] set the parameters"? He
needs Jim to interpret what he really meant?
Jim has always been fond of quoting Lewis Carroll when
accusing others of making words mean whatever they want them
to mean (usually while denying that the meaning of words can
and do evolve). Is clinging to a definition in the face of
its being contradicted by the man he claimed had the sole
power to define it any better?
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 Dec 2006 EST