So we agree on much, with clarification, which points to the
value of Mark's request for specifics. But to carry on
regardless:
At 05:36 PM 05/07/2007, Kevin wrote:
>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.
Maybe- but I'm not sure that much of the, say, music of the
60s of the punk era didn't get similar criticism from serious
music lovers as they emerged, nor that much of that criticism
was entirely unjustified. You're going to have to face this
Kevin, as I have, that we are no longer of the age that makes
pop culture run. We've a different set of values than the
current young writers, with values that differ even from our
own when we were moved by pop culture. But that's a (relevant
I think) side issue.
>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.
But the issue these days is, what is real? That's actually
what you're arguing for here, is a reality that YOU can
relate to. You're assuming there's a universal reality, but
that is long gone and largely what the new young writers are
on about (some doing it well, others not.)
Best example of this was the submission by hardcasecrime that
followed this response to my response to which I am now
responding. In that one (the hardcasecrime response to Mark's
request) Charles spoke about the reality, or authenticity of
his current Hard Case Crime publishing venture relative to
Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and other movies, and the real thing
of the late 40's early 50's that exists now in our
imaginations and crack-covered souvenirs. But the current
reality is that all of these things exist now, in one form or
another, thanks to the miracle of modern communications
technology and none is more real than the other, except as
subjective preferences and memory. The reality is a
postmodern experience that denies objective reality, to which
you object as being entirely too self aware.
>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.
Okay, some good, some bad, we've agreed on that.
> > 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.
Maybe not, but that doesn't mean you're not, at times.
Strange thing is that every so often human options boil down
to that old, instinctual, brain-stem, fight or flight
response that has entertained humanity for thousands of
years.
>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.
Sure, but that's the defining characteristic of fiction. The
notion of the world making sense is, itself, a fiction.
>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.
Okay, but without story, a strong narrative, the piece of
work is not noir to begin with. At the risk of repeating
myself, noir is more than a sinister atmosphere, a sense of
doom evoked by, say, rain-slicked streets and high-contrast
lighting. It is also about more than one or more doomed
characters as you might encounter in a mindless depiction of
mindless violence lacking in plot. Noir requires a narrative
that is more than tragic, it is non-transcendent. The
characters, whether they want to or not (and they so
frequently want to) cannot escape the reality of their lives
and the human condition.
However, the fact that the label is applied to the works of
so many creators who don't really understand noir is, for
better or worse, a sign of the current popularity of this
genre, and I think to some extent the success of this list
which is always arguing for the genre's purity. And that's
part of our current reality too.
Best, Kerry
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 Jul 2007 EDT