William,
Re your questions and comments below:
"I agree with Jack. First off, please use examples of falling
outside those parameters."
Okay, first, as to Gallimard's Serie Noire line:
You're on record as saying that Mickey Spillane "is not and
never has been noir." (I might not have the post exactly
correct, but that, IIRC, was the gist).
At least two of Spillane's novels, including the Hammer novel
SURVIVAL ZERO, have been published under the Serie Noire
imprint. Therefore, in the opinion of the editors who coined
the term "noir" to describe a particular kind of mystery, and
presumably knew what they meant when they coined it, Spillane
does fit the parameters of "noir," despite being outside of
the parameters set by you and Jack.
Other examples: THE CASE OF THE COURTEOUS KILLER by Richard
Deming, a police procedural based on the radio-TV series
DRAGNET; James Bond Spy novels by Ian Fleming, Matt Helm spy
novels by Donald Hamilton, and Sam Durell spy novels by
Edward S. Aarons; Max Allan Collins's BUTCHER'S DOZEN, a
procedural about the search for a serial killer in
Depression-era Cleveland, featuring real-life Cleveland
police chief Eliot Ness as the hero; two Railroad Police
novels by Bert and Dolores Hitchens; three Chet Drum PI
novels by Stephen Marlowe; and nearly 100 American-set
hard-boiled detective novels by prolific Autralian writer
Carter Brown; all deemed "noir" enough to qualify for
publication by the original noir publisher, none qualifying
as noir under Jack's (and presumably your) definition.
Second, as to films listed in Silver & Ward's FILM
NOIR:
Private eye movies like THE MALTESE FALCON and MURDER, MY
SWEET (the French book editions of which were both published
by Serie Noire); procedurals like THE NAKED CITY, HE WALKED
BY NIGHT, and T-MEN; and spy movies like THE HOUSE ON 92ND
STREET and I WAS A COMMUNIST FOR THE F.B.I. All of them
deemed "noir" enough to be included in a standard reference
on film noir, yet none of them qualifying as noir under
Jack's (and presumably your) definition.
Finally, as to references in THE BIG BOOK OF NOIR, an
anthology of essays about noir in prose fiction, film,
comics, radio, and TV edited by Lee Server, Martin Greenberg,
and Ed Gorman:
A chapter on John D. MacDonald by Gorman; a chapter on Ross
Macdonald by Burton Kendle; a chapter on Donald Hamilton by
Robert Skinner; and two chapters by Max Allan Collins, one on
Spillane, and the other on Jack Webb. All of them regarded by
the editors as noir enough for inclusion in the anthology,
but none of them fitting Jack's (and presumably your)
definition.
"Second, my definition is even narrower than Jack's. Series
Noir (or Roman Noir, whatever) and cinema noir exist in a
very tight time frame. As a pre-war sensibility or
Depression-era style and as an immediate post war style. It
was all over by 1955 at the latest. Many of you consider
David Goodis noir. I don't. Really like his writing and he's
a fun read but he ain't the thing we mean. Touch of Evil is
not noir. It is junk. When I see some of the examples that
pop up on this list, I'm dismayed. I really enjoy this list,
don't get me wrong. But I see the attempts at a definition of
noir in the way the military sees mission creep. In fact, it
had a very short life-span and was incredibly influential but
like the art movement Dada, it was what it was and there are
no neo-dadists, or post-dadists or whatever-dadists."
You start by saying that your definition is even narrower
than Jack's, then go into a long explanation about how all
that was truly noir fit into a fairly tight period of
time.
But you never give your definition. We know what you think is
NOT noir. But what is?
You might actually have a point about the tight time frame,
at least as to film, but it's hard to know what you mean when
you give no specific definition. Telling us that David Goodis
isn't noir, Mickey Spillane isn't noir, and the film TOUCH OF
EVIL isn't noir, doesn't amount to a definition. Tell us who
or what actually is so we have a frame of reference. Or at
least tell us why you think none of them are truly
noir.
"The naming convention is the key to the whole mess. It was
an almost off-hand remark by a French critic who never
announced the beginnings of a movement or school or anything
with rules or regulations or secretaries reading the minutes
of the previous meeting. Talk about vague (and yes the pun is
intended)."
Well it wasn't entirely off-hand. It was a comment about a
style of film that mirrored a style of prose fiction that was
exemplified by Gallimard's Serie Noire line. In fact, in many
cases, the films referred to were directly based on books
that had been published by Serie Noire. Hence, Film Noir. So
it all comes back to Gallimard's name for its mystery
line.
But, in any case, doesn't the very fact that, as you point
out, the parameters were vague, argue strongly for an
inclusive, general definition, rather than one that is as
exclusive and specific as Jack's (and presumably
yours)?
"So I really don't care about somebody's big book of this or
that or conversations about how noir is alive today. It
isn't. What is being touted as the new noir is more a fashion
than a style. That's not to say that some of these books
aren't good or not worth reading. But having definitions of
post-1955 noirishness is sometimes funny and every time has
helped me with my own evaluations of the form."
Which you still haven't specifically explained.
"But the waving of books and quotations is a little too Mao
for me."
Then why did you challenge me to do just that at the
beginning of your message?
Apropos of nothing in particular, there are many on this list
who will no doubt be highly amused at my being labeled, of
all things, "a little too Mao."
Sorry you're leaving the group. I wish you'd
reconsider.
JIM DOHERTY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business
gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 08 Jul 2007 EDT