Like Seymour, when I wrote my first novel I had no idea I was
writing noir. When I started sending the novel out to agents
and publishers I called the book "a psychological thriller,"
and when that didn't work I called it "a dark suspense
novel." That didn't work either. Then I got a rejection
letter that said "Sorry, we don't publish noir at this
house," and I thought, Hey, great idea! I sent it out calling
it "my noir novel" and it sold. So maybe it's true that you
can learn from your rejections. I agree, though, noir has
become a very ambiguous word and no matter how often it's
defined, people still seem to have their own definitions. I
like the screwed definition that has come up on this list a
lot, but the way I think of it is that noir is reality. Noir
gives us an actual view of the world, full of all its
randomness and chaos, and--as in real life--things don't work
out in the end. It's not necessarily a comforting view, but
it doesn't have to be overly bleak. My favorite noir novels
have a lot of humor in them, like Thompson and Willeford and
Hendricks. Not sure if these have been mentioned here, but a
couple of excellent noir novels I've read over the past month
or so are Red Baker by Robert Ward and Queenpin by Megan
Abbott. Well, at least they fit my definition. J
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Vorzimmer"
<jvorzimmer@...> wrote:
>
> > When he's good, I think he's the best noir
writer
> > because his style is so his own and he really
cuts out
> > a piece of the world all his own. Being a New
Yorker,
> > I loved his take on the city. It's priceless.
Be very
> > interested in what you think after you're done
with
> > it.
>
> Being a New Yorker myself I just elevated it to the
top of my TBR
pile. I'll
> let you know.
>
> Thanks!
> Jeff
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 May 2007 EDT