--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "GB" <mnc_fb@...>
wrote:
>
> The violence in the work of some of the classic
authors like Thompson
> or Dan Marlowe never seems gratuitous or over the
top in the manner
> of so many contemporary noir writers who think an
exploding head and
> a blood-splattered windshield is the modern-day
equivalent of a
> cartoon character slipping on a banana peel. One
culprit behind this
> trend, in my opinion, is none other than Quentin
Tarantino. Just as
> you say that many of the new novels are books based
on other books
> instead of life, Tarantino's films mymic his
predecessors' work
> behind a faux ironic smirk instead of expressing a
genuine outlook on
> life.
I don't think Tarantino is very good. I would go so far as to
say he is not even good. If he has shown any originality, I
have missed it.
>
> His influence on the rest of popular culture (from
the ever more
> gross films of people like Eli Roth to many of the
recent noir
> novels) is likewise tangible.
Influenced by Tarantino? That is not a very good
recommendation.
As to noir and violence (sex has nothing to do with violence,
in principle, and should be treated separately, though I
don't see why it should be treated, it's part of normal
life), you can have a wonderful noir novel without any
violence, or with only incidental violence, or with violence
present but not described. I think we all know examples. I
don't think a lot of violence, or a detailed description of
torturous violence is a necessary ingredient. Something needs
to go very wrong, but it doesn't have to lead to or involve
physical violence.
Best,
MrT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Jul 2007 EDT