"... dark and sinister is way to vague for a description of
noir fiction. In France, I think dark and sinister works, but
outside of France I believe noir has evolved to become
something more specific."
"Dark and sinister" works precisely BECAUSE it's broad enough
to include all of the various types of crime fiction that
it's been used to describe. And (and here's the point) used
to describe from the very beginning.
Even before it began to be used so generically that it was
virtually a synonym for "mystery," a definition even I think
is too broad, it was used to describe a very wide spectrum of
crime fiction.
Look at the recent anthology of articles on noir, THE BIG
BOOK OF NOIR. You'll see articles on Donald Hamilton and Matt
Helm, on Cornell Woolrich, on Raymond Chandler, on Jack Webb,
even on the old-time radio series THE SHADOW. Signficantly,
this was not a bunch of bottom-liners looking for a term
that's in. It was a fairly serious discussion of what noir
is, in prose fiction and in other mediums, and the consensus,
to the degree that a consensus can be drawn from so many
disparate articles, was that noir is a broadly applied
term.
It simply hasn't evolved the way you insist it has.
"And I don't think it's absurd at all that film noir is
different from book noir. Film noir doesn't just take into
account subject matter; it also refers to mood and look and
atmosphere. In book noir, I think it's all about character.
That's why in (in my opinion) the Maltese Falcon book is not
noir, but the film is. In France, both are noir."
Neither does "noir" in prose. And it never has. Cornell
Woolrich, who is one of the authors often pointed to as the
someone who almost defines noir, has at least as many winners
in his stories as losers. That the protagonist wins may be
nothing more than the carpiciousness of fate and chance, but
the fact is that the hero comes out on top in much of his
fiction.
Read the story "Endicott's Girl" in his collection
NIGHT AND FEAR, and see if that isn't noir according to the
most narrow definition.
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
At least, according to the most narrow definition of noir
right up to the end. Somehow, by the most unbelievable,yet
thoroughly compelling set of coincidences imaginable, the
cop-hero who's been trying to save his daughter from a murder
rap, who's been willing to do murder himself to save her, is
stopped before it comes to the crunch, and told that the
premise he's been operating under was dead wrong, that his
daughter's innocent, and that he's still got a chance to
catch the real killer.
The notion that a surprise twist that winds up with the hero
saved rather than doomed, somehow changes a story that is
noir by anyone's definition, at least to the point of that
surprise twist, strike me as silly. It gives the reader the
same jolt. It keeps the reader turning pages for the same
reason.
Some readers might feel cheated that the hero emerges
triumphant. Other might feel relieved and would be just as
angry if the hero simply walked to his doom.
Point is, doom can't be the defining element unless you're
prepared to say that a story can hit on every other noir
cylinder yet not be noir.
That strikes me as too narrow, and it's why I always rail at
that narrow definition.
END SPOILER ALERT END SPOILER ALERT END SPOILER ALERT
END
And the notion that it means something different in France
(where the term was COINED, for crying out loud) and here is
almost, if not more, ludicrous than the notion that it means
something different depending on the medium it's applied
to.
JIM DOHERTY
____________________________________________________________________________________Need
a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo!
Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 21 May 2007 EDT