On May 20, 2007, at 3:06 AM, Juri Nummelin wrote:
> Just who are the fake neo-noirists people in here -
Kevin, for
> example - are criticizing for being
phony?
In here? I don't think I said the writers I was referring to
were specifically "in here" but as a reviewer and editor and
stuff I've received an awful lot of novels and stories, both
published and in manuscript form, that bang the drum loudly
for their noir-ness. No doubt most of the folks in here have
also seen some book or story tagged with the noir or
hard-boiled label, and found it really didn't fit the
definition they had. Or sometimes anyone's definition, except
maybe the author's or their publishers.
But generally, I've found that the louder they beat that noir
drum, the more disappointing the book. And usually for all
the reasons I've cited before.
Here's one of the first cases where that sorta thing came up
for me, a rather embarrassing tale out of school. Years ago,
when I first started running fiction on the site and really
didn't know what I was doing (still don't, actually) one
misbegotten writer used the term
"NOIR" about ten times in his brief query letter, each time
capitalizing it so I wouldn't miss the point.
The writer was using a tongue-in-cheek "tough guy" pen name
and the story itself was so ham-handed (Lots of obscenities!
Lots of violence!! Lots of sex!!! Lots of ALL CAPS!!!! Lots
of exclamation marks!!!!!) and so over-the-top I thought it
was a parody, a sort of grimmer version of Shell Scott. Very
funny, very dark.
I told him I thought it was hilarious and we'd love to run it
with a few minor tweaks, mostly toning down a bit here to
build it up somewhere else, and cutting a few repetitions and
inconsistencies.
But, uh, evidently, it wasn't a parody. He sent back a
withering reply full of obscenities and suggestions about
what I should do to myself.
I bit my tongue, and apologized and trotted out the old
blather about
"not meeting our present requirements." And then I never
heard from him again. Or saw his name anywhere. Ever. And I
never knew his real name, so he could be anyone. Maybe the
story was published elsewhere and he went on to bigger and
better things under his real name. Hell, he could be a big
shot author now, for all I know.
So maybe noir's a label best left for readers to pin on you.
Just like it's hard to bestow a nickname on yourself without
coming off as pretentious. It's almost like a little boy
thing: cute when it's done by a six year old; a little sad
when it's done by an adult.
Anyway, as I said, my definition is pretty open, encompassing
everything from MILDRED PIERCE to BLADERUNNER, and covers the
spectrum from dark, dark grey on down, whereas purists may
want it only to be the darkest black.
So whether recent books by Duane' and Jason and Megan are
pigeonholed as noir or not isn't that big an issue to me.
Whether they're good reads is more important to me, and I
enjoyed them all.
But being tagged "noir" is absolutely no guarantee of
quality. A book can be as noir as hell, and still be
lousy.
Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 20 May 2007 EDT