RARA-AVIS: Caustic discussions

From: dermdocsx2 ( dermdocsx2@cox.net)
Date: 03 Oct 2007

As a regular reader and mostly lurker, I have enjoyed the suggestions of good reading material and found great books from many of the contributors; I consider this the main value of being on this list.
  However, while I enjoy some of the discussions of definitions of things like "noir" and "hardboiled", I found that many of them recently have degenerated into somewhat disrespectful disagreements and caustic barbs. Perhaps off-list communications would be the proper forum to continue some of these debates, especially if the back and forth goes beyond more than two exchanges. I don't know if anyone else feels the same way, but I find myself deleting a lot of messages if it appears the jist is an ongoing argument. Thanks for listening.

Pat Lee
--- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, William Ahearn
<williamahearn@...> wrote:
> --- jacquesdebierue <jacquesdebierue@...> wrote:
> Therefore, the degree
> > of "screwedness"
> > of the protagonist cannot be a determinant factor
> > for calling a work
> > of art "noir".
> >
> Fine. It's not my definition. It's Jack's. All I was
> referring to was Sam Spade. He's not screwed. That's
> all. That's it. I was not creating an over-arching
> definition covering the slave eaten by crocs on the
> ancient shore of the Nile all the way up to Ken
> Bruen's last wet dream. You have a noir definition
> that you're happy with? I'm so tickled for you. All I
> was responding to was Sam Spade. Even though I think
> you're wrong and you un-define by muddying the water.
> But I no longer care . . .
> William
> Essays and Ramblings
> <http://www.williamahearn.com>
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your
story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
> http://sims.yahoo.com/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Oct 2007 EDT