At 12:26 AM 19/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>You gotta give Jim credit for sticking to his guns,
new evidence be
>damned.
It's not just that the terms "dark and sinister" don't appear
in Duhamel's description. It's that he confirms the
definition of "doomed" suggested by Jack Bludis.
"Those who like Sherlock Holmes-type puzzles won't find what
they're looking for. Neither will systematic
optimists."
Sounds to me like Duhamel is saying fairly clearly that noir
is the stuff of pessimists, or doom-sayers.
"The immorality generally accepted in this type of work
solely to serve as a foil for conventional morality is just
as much at home there as fine feelings, even just plain
amorality."
I think Duhamel is saying here that the immorality (the dark
and sinister quality) that shows up in other works solely as
a contrast for conventional morality, finds a place in noir
on a par with conventional morality or amorality.
This would suggest that "dark and sinister" cannot be a
defining characteristic of noir, as such atmospherics are
used elsewhere. The difference is in how the immorality or
dark and sinister atmosphere is employed. There is much that
is dark and sinister in Sherlock Holmes stories, even in the
character himself, but the stories confirm conventional
morality, whereas noir spares no room for optimists.
Thanks to Al and Karin.
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 : 19 Dec 2006 EST