The moral ambiguity noted in the early hardboiled stories may
owe more to what they were an alternative to, than the
specific time they were written. Sherlock Holmes and his
successors were completely unscrupulous, in that they had few
self doubts about the correctness of their proceedures.
Frequently Holmes was omnipotent in terms of capturing and
punishing a criminal. Note the solution to A Study In
Scarlet. These dectective, Holmes, Poirot, Ellery Queen, etc
were smarter than anyone else in the room, their deductions
were, however far-fetched, always correct, and if they deemed
a crime justified the criminal went free. Hammett and
Chandler played in a more realistic field. Their characters
made frequent errors in judgement, they dealt with criminals
who had serious personality disorders. Spillane, of course,
goes into a wild-west mode, shooting people out of hand as a
first resort, anything to move the story. But Hammett and
Chandler were moving detective fiction closer to reality and
I think that's what made them popular and why their school
was perceived as "new" at that time.
Patrick King
--- Tim Wohlforth <
timwohlforth@opendoor.com> wrote:
> If I may suggest a slightly different approach
to
> this discussion of
> morality and writing. Tom Nolan, in a review
of
> crime fiction in the
> WSJ discusses the relationship between private
eye
> fiction and the
> era that produces it. After discussing
Hammett,
> Chandler, Spillane
> and Macdonald, he says of our times "A lot
of
> detective stories in
> the first years of the new century show
wobbly
> emotion and crippling
> self-doubt ...they depict several types
of
> ambiguity." This is
> interesting. It may even be true. However, this
kind
> of observation
> suggests, rather than discussing whether fiction
has
> to be moral (or
> is immora) or better stated amoral), we should
be
> discussing what the
> inevitable moral implcations of fiction tell
us
> about the times we
> live in (or past writers write in.)
>
> Tim
>
> On Feb 22, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Michael Robison
wrote:
>
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> > And as a minor matter I certainly wouldn't turn
to
> > Oscar Wilde for advice on morality of any sort
let
> > alone the uses or morality in
literature.
> >
> > **********
> > Haha. What was his comment? Something about
books
> > being neither moral nor immoral? I can see
two
> > reasons for this. First, since art is open
to
> > multiple interpretations, its meaning
is
> sufficiently
> > ambiguous to preclude an objective moral
or
> immoral
> > character. Second, since art does not act
itself,
> it
> > can't be moral or immoral because
morality
> involves
> > action.
> >
> > Now I don't view either of these reasons as
being
> the
> > most silly thing I've ever heard, but neither
do I
> > find them entirely satisfying. As far as the
first
> > reason, it is true that art is to an extent
open
> to
> > personal interpretation, but I disagree with
the
> > reader-response theory that a book means
whatever
> a
> > reader wants it to. It's a small step from
the
> idea
> > that a book can mean anything to it
meaning
> nothing.
> > With meaningful interpretation strapped with
at
> least
> > some kind of limitation, it's not unreasonable
to
> > assume that the range of interpretation may
all
> lay
> > within either a moral or immoral zone. As far
as
> the
> > second reason limiting moral nature to actions,
I
> > would note that words express ideas and ideas
have
> > consequences which are pretty damned close
to
> actions.
> >
> >
> > miker
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________________
> > Any questions? Get answers on any topic
at
> www.Answers.yahoo.com.
> > Try it now.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have
been
> removed]
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on
Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 23 Feb 2007 EST