I wrote:
> "After reading a spate of recent books by some of
the more highly
> touted
> practitioners of the "new noir," I've noticed
something.
> "Not in all of them, mind you, but in enough of them
to be
> disturbed by
> what seems to be a trend. I hope not. Maybe I just
hit a bad string of
> books (and no, i don't want to name
them)."
And Mark wrote:
> Since when have you become so reticent?
Since I moved to LaLaLand and got so friggin' mellow...
Actually, it's the trend -- not any particular works -- I'm
disturbed by. Not having read everything by everyone, I'm
loathe to suggest so- and-so is this or that, based on just
one book. But there does seem to be a trend developing.
> "All the meanness and carnage of these soulless
wallows comes off more
> like pornography than noir, at least to
me."
>
> While maybe more prominent, is that really so new?
This sounds
> like the
> reaction I had 10-20 years ago to Rex Miller's Slob,
one of the few
> books I stopped reading without
finishing.
Not new, perhaps, but now ol' Rex would probably be
considered almost mainstream these days. I mean, America's
sweetheart is now a brain- dead ex-con skank?
Come back, Mary Pickford.
(Yeah, yeah, I know, but it'll just distract them).
And William wrote:
> If you allow "noir" to
> include the pulp tradition, then that's where
the
> confusion may be.
Yep, I think that's a big part of the problem. "Noir" and
"Pulp" and
"Hard-boiled" have become almost interchangeable in the
Blurbiverse, even among writers who should know better. They
may know the names, but sometimes I wonder if they know the
books. But whatever sub-genre banner these guys are sailing
under, I'm not sure I like where they're heading.
Cheap cynicism is easy; writing well is not.
Kevin Burton Smith Detectives Bicycles Rock'n'Roll http://www.kevinburtonsmith.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 29 Jun 2007 EDT