Kerry wrote:
> But you're comparing the classics of the past with
average, though
> highly touted, noir of today. "Touting" is not
synonymous with
> considered critical evaluation, though if there's
any skill that has
> well developed and improved upon in the past
century, it is touting.
True. Perhaps it's unfair to compare Dick Blowhard's
INTESTINES AND VERMIN BY MOONLIGHT so unfavorably with DOUBLE
INDEMNITY or some other much admired noir classic that has
stood the test of time.
And maybe it should be spelled "tooting." "Noir" is tossed
around so much by some publishers, writers, critics and
readers -- most of whom wouldn't know it if James M. Cain's
ghost rose from the dead and pissed on their leg -- that the
phrase itself has become almost totally meaningless, except
as a marketing tag.
"Put a noir sticker on it, boys! Those mouthbreathers will
buy anything!"
> The genre has always been about violence. What
you're saying is that
> the authors of the classics managed to humanize
their violent
> characters more than the average authors of what
you're reading
> today.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
In fact, I felt it strongly enough to cross-post it in a few
other places, and I felt gratitude that the majority of the
responses from readers and writers and editors have supported
me. Although it's got a few people, predictably enough,
pretty upset with me.
> I suspect many of the less-skilled, past writers of
noir
> shared this failing and we don't recollect them so
quickly now.
True enough. Back then, it seemed there was good stuff and
bad stuff, and the bad stuff eventually faded away. Now we
have good stuff, bad stuff, and stuff we're told relentlessly
is good stuff even though its actual quality is
irrelevant.
Hopefully, this neo-nah fad of adolescent acting out
(suggested upcoming title: STAPLED TO DEATH: THAT WAS EASY)
will soon fade away as well, and those currently trying to
cash in on it will go back to writing better, stronger books.
Some of them, judging from their work in the past, are
certainly capable of it.
> And why should the authors of today write about the
same things, in
> the same way, as the authors of the past? Chandler
and Hammett and
> the rest wrote the best Chandler and Hammet and
Cain, etc. If the
> genre is alive, it will continue to be explored in
different
> directions and in different ways.
Granted, and I love that about the genre. But not all
explorations, even well-intentioned ones, succeed. Are
cartoonish characters, ridiculous plots and outrageous
coincidence the best these guys can do? Or all that readers
in this sub-sub-genre now expect?
> I know there's a good chunk of this list that would
disagree with me,
> but I'm not sure the noir classics are morality
plays either (in the
> sense of knowing and representing firm moral
choices) so much as
> observations of a collapse of institutionalized
morality.
Hmmm... maybe. In which case, you could say these current
cartoons are indicative of that collapse. But the characters
(and their
"actions") frequently depicted in these books are so extreme
and disconnected from anything the average reader can
identify with that its hard to see these fictional constructs
as having much to do with any sort of reality or society at
all. They are born, live and die in a vacuum unconnected
except in passing to our world.
At the end of a book, I want to think "Wow!" or "Damn!" or
"OHMYGAWD!!!"
Not "So what?"
It's one thing to comment on the collapse of
institutionalized morality. It's quite another to pander to
it, while simultaneously claiming some sort of moral or
intellectual high road.
> If authors write about the banality of evil, they
are criticized for
> ignoring its effects. If they graphically depict the
obscenity of
> evil, they are only trying to shock.
That's too easy, and not what I said at all.
I can deal with the banality of evil, or its obscenity; it's
the notion of lovingly depicted scenes of torture and
mutilation presented as entertainment, presented in a
narrative (and moral) vacuum, that's troubling.
If these guys actually have something to say about violence
or evil, maybe they should tether their writing to something
a little closer to real life than Saturday morning
cartoons.
And if they intend to shock, they better learn to pace
themselves. If they start with dismemberment and
disembowelment in Chapter One, it doesn't matter how far they
take it -- after a while, it's simply tiresome and
predictable, no matter how many more body parts they lop
off.
> What man can imagine gets done. Crucifixion is
hardly new. It was,
> not that long ago in human history, a form of
institutionalized
> violence, practiced with decorum and piety. Maybe we
should be
> shocked by it.
I'd like to think we should. I sure don't think I want to be
someone who's entertained by it.
(But for the record, the fact Al's new book -- which I'm
reading now
-- and my initial rant both feature a crucifixion is a
coincidence).
>> I may be imagining this, but it seems to me that
there's also a
>> growing contempt among the authors for their own
characters, a kind
>> of mean-spiritedness that's creeping in -- a
condescending sort of
>> self-righteous authorial stance being adapted
that says "Yeah,
>> they're all scumbags, so I make them go through
all kinds of shit.
>> Cool, huh?"
>
> No more self-righteous, and a good deal less
hypocritical than the
> stance of readers who, made uncomfortable by graphic
depictions of
> mindless violence, would like to imagine it does not
exist in fact.
Who's saying mindless violence doesn't exist? Certainly not
me. And certainly not anyone who's ever read the newspapers
or seen the news. But that's real life, which is already
essentially mindless and senseless. Narrative fiction should
try to make at least some sort of sense. Otherwise it's just
a random series of unconnected events.
No, what I'm really disturbed by is not depictions of
mindless violence but MINDLESS deptctions of mindless
violence. Scenes not injected into a plot to serve the story,
but INSTEAD of a story.
> As one of the latter, I find it helps to
laugh
> about it all now and again.
Hey, I'm all for black humour. But too much of what I'm told
is black humour these days seems more cruel and mean-spirited
than funny.
I've found black humour's an approach that generally requires
a deft touch, a strong sense of story and a sly wit on the
author's part; not a sledge hammer and railroad spikes and
chainsaws and dental instruments and gallons of fake
blood.
The other much-dreaded wiggle words used to excuse so much
heavy- handed, forced writing are "homage" and
"parody."
Kevin Burton Smith
"I blog, therefore I am..." http://thrillingdetectiveblog.blogspot.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 05 Jul 2007 EDT