Jim,
Crime, Western, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, etc, all refer to the
stories, to the content and forms of the stories, but, as
your own definition states, noir refers not to content, but
presentation of a crime story. As such, can noir even be a
genre of film? As you have argued numerous times, with very
telling examples, the same exact story, the same content, can
be depicted as noir or not-noir. So given that movies and
books, by their very media, present stories in different
ways, is it really so outlandish to think that a term
referring to presentation might resonate differently in the
two media?
Of course, there's also a sleight of hand going on by those
of us who shift the definition during the transition between
media, from referring to presentation in movies to content in
books. So we move from talking about the atmosphere to
talking about plot and/or character, how screwedness, or
something like it, is realized through one, the other or
both. And, you claim, in doing so, we go against Gallimard's
original usage. I'm not so sure that's the case, given his
statement on the subject (as reported by Al Guthrie not too
long ago) and his use of an idiomatic phrase meaning a run of
bad luck as the name of the line (why does this reference to
bad luck not count in your discussion of original usage?),
but even if it is, that's just the first usage of the term.
Word usage evolves.
I know, you don't acknowledge this, claim that what I, and
others, call evolution is actually incorrect usage. You quote
Lewis Carroll (if you're really such a fan of original usage,
why don't you call him Charles Dodgson?) and accuse each
individual of making the word mean whatever he or she wants
it to mean. But what happens when enough individuals adopt
the same "wrong meaning"? If enough people start using a word
"wrongly," doesn't a new consensus form around a word? Would
a person using the word in its original usage even be
understood? For instance, how many today would understand
gunsel to mean a homosexual instead of a hood with a
gun?
This installment in the perpetual debate started with a
question about whether or not the term noir has been diluted
through its current overuse by marketers. Perhaps there are
two levels of meaning for this term, the common meaning and
the specialist meaning. For instance, words like validity,
reliability, random, etc, have very different meaning in
general and scientific usage. Is it really so outlandish to
think that literary terms might also have two levels? For the
general public, noir on a book's cover refers to a general
feeling of darkness. Apparently, the term sold some books, so
everyone has jumped on the bandwagon and uses it to try to
sell some more books. And those of us who were reading noir
before noir became trendy recoil at this new inclusiveness
(both of books and of johnny come lately fans who are not
nearly so cool as we longtime fans are) and say, That ain't
real noir! Look at the term pulp fiction from a few years
ago. After the movie of that title, the term was everywhere,
used to sell all sorts of movies and book. Purists complained
that pulp fiction accurately referred only to stories printed
on a certain type of paper and should never be mixed up with
stories in the slicks, much less paperback originals, which
were completely different animals. The general public didn't
know or care about these distinctions, bought the move or
books, or not, and the marketers soon moved on to other
terms, like noir. At which point Cain and/or Thompson (mostly
forgotten and out of print for years before Black Lizard
revived him) got added to Hammett and Chandler on book jacket
blurbs (which drives specialists up the wall, as many of us
see these as two very separate lineages). And soon this term
too will become oversaturated and useless in the market and
the merchants will move on to another and leave noir to those
of us who remain in the temple.
However, I doubt it's a coincidence that at the very same
time the marketers are expanding the field, the specialists
are seeking to narrow it, to try to home in on, and return to
(since we all look to precedence to shore up our
distinctions), the "true meaning of noir." So while Jim
believes true noir is defined solely by atmosphere, and
others (myself included) believe there are certain thematic
and/or content requirements, we are all engaged in an effort
to keep the barbarians from ruining what we like.
At the same time, though, we must remember that all of this
labeling is from the outside, and largely after the fact.
Jason told us he did not set out to write noir, though I
think we'd all agree, regardless of our definitional
skirmishes (and isn't it amazing that regardless of our
requirements we have so much agreement on application), that
that is exactly what he did. And Gallimard was REprinting
books -- what was between the pages did not change the day he
put the word noire on their covers. The literature predated
the labels
And the labels should never become restrictive checklists
against which is measured a book's worthiness -- if it has
these elements, it's noir; if it doesn't, it's not and not
worth reading. I think it's just that sort of inbreeding that
Kevin was complaining about, where the story is so intent on
supplying every noir element on the checklist that it never
gets around to such basic elements as plot and character. We
should never let the labels become more important than a good
story well told.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 21 May 2007 EDT