--- JIM DOHERTY <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What gives the use of the term "literature," in
the
> exclusive sense, so much snob appeal is
precisely
> that
> it doesn't matter how good the work being
dismissed
> is, or how talented the creator is, but simply
that
> the genre, by this exclusive definition,
doesn't
> pass
> muster as "real literature."
>
This is actually the real argument that has shadowed this
conversation from the start. Granted, it's a tad more
articulate and far better stated than the same discussion on
a mystery book list yet when the gild is off the lily, it's
the same old genre versus literature back-and-forth.
Shakespeare in his day was genre. So was Cole Porter for that
matter. Marketing may have helped their careers but it
certainly didn't ensure that we would be watching and
listening now. Obviously, I'm not a major fan of the
so-called western canon. And there's any number of classics
that I think totally suck. What I don't understand is
why
-- if you read what you (and I mean that generally, not
personally) yourself call genre -- you even care that pulp,
hardboiled or dare I say it, noir is recognized by a strata
that is almost by definition based on snobbery? You can't
have it both ways. There's a resentment of not being accepted
by a group that isn't respected to begin with. I really don't
grasp what this discussion is really about. To get this
remotely back on topic, what matters to me first is whether
it's a good film and then whether it's noir. Many films can
qualify as noir but if they suck, so what?
William
Essays and Ramblings
<http://www.williamahearn.com>
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Nov 2007 EDT