MrT (who goes by the name of Jacques Debierue, a killer
critic) wrote:
"Today, noir does not have a very definite meaning; however,
it is easy to see when something _isn't_ noir, which shows
that, however hazy, it is a robust concept and not a pure
contraption of critics."
Well put. It links up with something I've been thinking: for
all of our quibbling over the semantics of the word (and I
can clealy get as picky and snippy about it as anyone else
here), we are largely in agreement over what qualifies. Sure,
there are some books or characters along the borders that
some would place in, others out (for instance, James Bond),
but we seem to be in overwhelming agreement over what books
and characters are hardboiled and/or noir and, especially, as
MrT notes, those that are not. Which goes back to an old gut
feeling of mine that most criticism is largely done from the
gut; the big words and arguments are just rationalizations of
those gut feelings. I'm not saying that the gut's taste can't
be refined, just as we can learn to like, even love, dishes
that once made us gag. Afterall, our taste develops and
evolves, affected by numerous circumstances -- all those
social indicators like upbringing, education, class, gender,
race, etc, plus everything we've previously consumed -- but
ultimately, we're all Potter Stewarts (I can't define it, but
I know it when I see it).
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 20 Dec 2006 EST