Jim,
You spend a whole lot of your post setting up a contrast
between your definition of noir and mine. However, I never
gave a definition. I was contrasting yours with Duhamel's,
not mine.
Even if I were to accept that those two descriptions support
each other, you run into trouble here:
"But, as mentioned above, the subject matter Duhamel
describes isn't limited to noir or hard-boiled, so it must
NOT be what defines noir or hard-boiled."
What's hardboiled got to do with this? Did Duhamel also
publish a Serie Hardboiled?
"If it's not what defines noir or hard-boiled, something else
must be the defining element.
"I think that defining element is a dark and sinister
atmosphere."
However, a dark and sinister atmosphere is not limited to
noir, either. As has been pointed out, numerous (the majority
of? it's been a long time since I've read them) Sherlock
Holmes mysteries are dark and sinister crime stories, as are
Poe's. Any gothic with a crime in it would satisfy this
definition. Dracula kills in a dark and sinister atmosphere,
does that make Stoker's novel a noir? I'm currently reading
Patrick Suskind's Perfume. It is certainly dark and sinister,
and there are murders, but I have trouble thinking of it as
noir. Snoopy's book is noir under this definition: "It was a
dark and story night. Suddenly, a shot rang out. . . ."
So even if your "dark and sinister" were common to all noirs
(of course, wouldn't that rule out a lot of Florida noirs --
Willeford, Hendricks, etc -- that take place in the
sunshine?), it is far from exclusive to noirs. You argue that
your definition is necessarily general to encompass all
possible contenders. Isn't it too general if it admits those
which are not contenders? At what point does a definition
become too general, too inclusive to be useful?
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 Dec 2006 EST