Mark,
Re your comments below:
> 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.
Come to think of it, that's true. You never have put it on
the line and offered an alternative to mine. All you've ever
done is complain about mine. You don't like mine? Offer an
alternative that you think is better.
> "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?
Noir and hard-boiled are inextricably linked. And I think you
know it. But leaving that aside, take a look at the first
hundred or so books Duhamel chose for the list. The include
Hammett's THE MALTESE FALCON, THE DAIN CURSE, THE GLASS KEY,
and RED HARVEST; Chandler's THE BIG SLEEP, FAREWELL MY
LOVELY, THE HIGH WINDOW, and THE LADY IN THE LAKE; Latimer's
THE LADY IN THE MORGUE, SOLOMON'S VINEYARD, and HEADED FOR A
HEARSE; Raoul Whitfield's DEATH IN A BOWL and GREEN ICE;
Frank Kane's SLAY RIDE; Henry Kane's A HALO FOR NOBODY; John
D. MacDonald's THE BRASS CUPCAKE; Harold Q. Masur's BURY ME
DEEP; Richard Sale's LAZARUS #7; and David Dodge's DEATH
& TAXES. That's 20 percent of the first hundred books
published under the Serie Noir logo. And a good chunk of the
rest were by Englishmen masquerading as American hard-boiled
writers like Peter Cheyney and James Hadley Chase.
Clearly, whatever Duhamel meant by noir, he did not mean
something exclusive of hard-boiled.
> "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. . . ."
If you want to include Holmes, and other Victorian mystery
writers, who, I agree, often had dark and sinister elements,
I won't object. Of course, Duhamel apparently specifically
excluded Holmes, so apparently he isn't included. Fine.
I don't know anything about PERFUME, but based on your
description, it sounds like it counts. Why do you think it
doesn't? Tell me what you think noir is. What do you see as
the common, defining elements? Offer an alternative.
> 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.
I've already listed a Florida noir that was on Duhamel's
"First 100", J.D.M.'s THE BRASS CUPCAKE. I've never excluded
a particular state because the weather was nice, and I never
said noir was a climactic description. I said it was about
tone and atmosphere. Certainly a writer can use weather to
imbue a work with that tone, but it's not the only way.
And you have yet to prove that there are mysteries dependent
on a dark, sinister atmosphere that are NOT noir. All you've
said is "They don't seem noir to me."
Okay, you may have made a touch (your first) with Holmes, but
hard- boiled was a reaction to, and to some degree a reaction
against, the type of mystery Conan Doyle wrote. And, to the
degree that noir and hard-boiled are related, so was noir a
reaction to it. But even Conan Doyle reacted to it, and to
some degree against it, now and then. His most noir Holmes
story, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, is atypical precisely
BECAUSE of its dark, sinister tone. Maybe Duhamel might have
made an exception. Of course, he seemed to be limiting
himself to contemporary writers, so perhaps not.
Maybe "contemporary" is also a defining element.
> 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?
I'm not interested in being useful, at least not in that
sense. The question, "What is noir?" came up. I offered an
answer based on my observations about the common elements of
the books and movies commonly given that appellation. I was
interested in being accurate. If you think I'm inaccurate,
tell me what you think would be more accurate.
But any definition that's so narrow that it insists that, for
example, hard-boiled and noir are mutually exclusive, or that
the protagonist is inevitably doomed, is not only TOO narrow,
it excludes most of the first 100 books Duhamel published
under his logo, and hence declared to be, noir.
I repeat, as I have many times before. If you don't like my
definition, offer an alternative. Put your opinions on the
line and be prepared to defend them the way you always insist
that I defend mine.
JIM DOHERTY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 Dec 2006 EST