"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."
Kevin, PLEEEEEEEASE give some specific examples, not
hyperbolic parodies
(which are kind of ironic in a complaint about hyperbolic
parodies). At this point I have no idea whether I agree with
you or disagree. Yes, some writers go overboard; yes, some
substitute style for substance; yes, some seem to be
stringing together graphically violent (and/or sexual) scenes
into a very tenuous plot. But do you and I agree on who or in
what books? Until you offer examples, we really can't discuss
what is or is not gratuitous and why. I can think of
necessary and gratuitous examples of most of your scenarios.
A chainsaw alone, for example, does not render a work torture
porn. And it's not just in how a character might make use of
that or some other implement, but how the writer describes it
AND contextualizes in in a work.
And I really have trouble understanding how anything you
claim of today's noir/hardboiled does not apply to that of
old. Yes, on a standard scale, today's fiction is far more
graphic/explicit than that of old, but they're pretty
comparable when measured against the mainstreams of their own
eras instead of against each other. As the mainstream becomes
more accepting, it takes more to titilate, shock, etc. In
fact, your entire argument, including the hyperbole reads
amazingly close to essays I've read that railed against
Spillane in his heyday.
And I can't help but ask: is gratuitous always bad? It seems
pretty puritanical to say that appealing directly to the body
and bypassing the intellect is evil. In other words, what's
really so bad about appealing to prurient interests?
Sometimes I want to read something that makes me think, but
other times I want something that's just a comic booky
rollercoaster ride, something disposable and fun. Most times
I want a combination of the two.
"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."
Now this cracked me up -- How can someone railing against the
tyranny of a tasteless majority claim vindication in having a
majority agree with his complaint about the status quo? And
since when does the guy who used to love to depict himself as
an iconclast look to the majority?
Finally:
"Hey, I'm all for black humour."
You live in the US now, dude, drop the "u" in humor!
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 05 Jul 2007 EDT