On May 19, 2007, at 11:43 AM, William Ahearn wrote:
> On one list I was on someone suggested that The
Matrix
> and the musical Chicago were noir. Almost had to
clean
> my keyboard.
>
> ... (not) a damn one of them is even close to
noir.
BUT THEY WERE WEARING TRENCHCOATS!!!!
I think at this point the mouthbreathers think noir means
anything that's a little sad or bittersweet or downbeat or
has some guy in it who needs a shave, or a woman with nice
legs and garters holding a gun.
They may be great fun but they're not exactly noir. And my
definition of noir is pretty open.
But there's an essence to noir that I find is missing from
much of the so-called neo-noir. Too much of it focuses on all
the usual trappings: guns, sex, lowlifes, booze, scum bags,
etc., but misses out on the cold, black heart of true noir.
The ending may be unhappy, but too often it feels predictably
so, tailored to fit the purported genre, not the story
itself.
Hell, Cain's Mildred Pierce probably carried more noir in her
compact than some of these hyper-ventilating "noirists" have
in their entire canon.
And to tell the truth, the more some writer (or their agent
or publicist or whatever) tells me how "noir" their book is,
the more likely it is that I'm probably going to find it
pretentious and/or poorly written. A lot of bad writing tries
to hide behind a self- imposed noir label. Even Akashic's
long-running noir series, which I've mostly enjoyed, boasts
an awful lot of stories that miss the noir boat. Again, they
may be great fun but they're not exactly noir.
I think noir might just be one of those labels you can't
really assign to your own work. You can aim for it in your
work, but for God's sake don't talk about it. It's like a
literary "KICK ME" sign.
Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 May 2007 EDT