Kerry,
Re your comments below:
> 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.
He doesn't confirm it. He states that you will find plots
with that kind of subject matter in his line, but he doesn't
say that it's ALL that you will find. And, as I noted in an
earlier post, Duhamel's earliest choices (and I would suggest
that it's the books he decides to publish that provide the
best indicator of what he meant by "noir) for the line were
disproportionately American, or American-style, hard-boiled
mysteries with heroes who emerged triumphant in the end,
avoiding the "doom" that Jack insists is the defining
element.
> "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.
First of all, it doesn't follow that anyone
who's not an optimist is a pessimist or a doomsayer. S/he
might simply be a realist, a pragmatist, or (if he's a
character in a Woolrich story) a fatalist.
Certainly stories with a pessimistic view would fit according
to what he says (and, also, according to what I've always
said), but it doesn't follow that stories with something
other than a pessimistic view would not. In fact, this seems
to support my contention. The world of noir is not sunny and
optimistic. It's dark and sinister. But it's also a place
where a determined individual can win out, or where Fate can
take a hand.
Interestingly, on re-reading the bit about Holmes, he doesn't
seem to be rejecting the character so much as the style of
puzzle plot associated with him, and to disciples of Conan
Doyle like Christie, Queen, and Carr. There may be puzzles in
noir(as there are in Hammett, for example), but there's more
to a noir story than simply solving that puzzle.
> "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.
NO he's saying that what you've described the dark, sinister
quality is an inherent part of the landscape in noir, "at
home" in noir as Duhamel puts it, whereas, in traditional
mysteries, it exists only to provide a contrast with
conventional morality.
> 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.
No, it suggests that the dark and sinister quality is an
inherent part of noir, not an anomalous element as it is in
traditional mysteries. Which is what I've always said.
JIM DOHERTY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 Dec 2006 EST