--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, William Ahearn
<williamahearn@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- GB <mnc_fb@...> wrote:
>
> > They are still noir as far as I'm concerned.
After
> > all, that's just a
> > very subjective label that describes mood
or
> > ambience I guess. The
> > thing is, I'd also consider them bad
noirs.
> >
> I was being a bit sarcastic. I don't think
they're
> noir as I think the term noir isn't all
that
> subjective. But if other people want to, there
isn't
> anything I can do about it.
It all depends on whether the label "noir" is considered
positive or negative for selling. That is from the
publisher's point of view (or the producer, if it's a film).
From the critical point of view, you can usually tell when
something is _not_ noir, which is a useful negative
criterion. The same happens with non-jazz -- easily
identifiable.
In any genre you will find writers who adopt some of the
trappings, some of the situations and some of the style
without really adopting the spirit. That is why "fake"
hardboiled is so funny, for example. I don't mean this
funniness as praise, necessarily.
Best,
MrT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Jul 2007 EDT