--- Brandt Dodson <
bldodson@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> Is Michael truly noir?
>
>
>
> Not by the way I define noir. And by the way,
an
> extensive discussion of a
> definition for noir came up a few years
ago.
>
> To my way of thinking, Noir involves more than
plot
> line and character arc -
> although those are certainly important elements
and
> cannot be excluded in
> any definition - it is more a 'feeling'. The city
or
> other setting becomes
> as much a character in the book as do the
> protagonist and antagonist.
> Chandler's LA is almost palpable and greatly
lends
> to the noir "feel" that
> is so prevalent - yet often so
indefinable.
***************************************************** I don't
think Connelly or Chandler are "noir" by any stretch. To me,
that term belongs to writers like Jim Thompson and James M.
Cain who write about desperate people in desperate
circumstances who make poor choices. I think both Connelly
& Chandler are hard boiled authors who write about people
struggling to do the right thing in the face of deadly
opposition. I believe it takes much more than atmosphere to
make noir. The plot has to drive in a specific
direction.
While great hard boiled characters may have feet of clay,
their motives are usually to protect those weaker than they
are. The motives of main characters in "noir" fiction are to
advance their own agenda whatever they have to do. They
inevitably come to ruin however complex they may be as
people.
Patrick King
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 05 Mar 2008 EST