I don't disagree with you on your main point about how "everything's
alternative" (how's that for an oxymoron?) and "everything's noir." I've
said many times before that if I never again see a book cover blurb that
reads "A taut, noirish thriller" again, it'll be too soon.
It occurred to me after I posted my previous comment in response to the
Woodrell quote that he's an alumnus of Iowa's MFA program, and that spoke
volumes to me.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 7:49 AM, davezeltserman <davezelt@rcn.com> wrote:
> Well, I do agree with him that there's a lot being called noir these
> days that seems more fashion than true noir. NY houses mostly don't
> have the guts to publish anything labeled "crime" that's too dark or
> bleak or with too unlikeable protagonists, yet they want to call all
> their noir-lite "noir" (a few true noir books do escape every once in
> a while). I could give you two examples of my own with editors at NY
> houses calling me claiming they loved Small Crimes, yet blanching at a
> (far less dark) books of mine claiming it was too dark and they
> wouldn't be able to get it through their houses, then asking if could
> write something more mainstream. Did I already say gutless?
>
> I don't get Woodrell's claim about noir being about the underclass.
> Plenty of great noir novels featuring middle to uppleclass. Lou Ford,
> for example, in Thomnpson's Great Killer Inside Me, was decidely
> middleclass (as was the upbringing of Dusty Rhodes in Swell-Looking
> Babe), Cornell Woolwich's Fright, Rex Stout's How Like a God, Seymour
> Shubin's Anyone's My Name, the recent excellent Russell Hill's
> Robbie's Wife, etc.
>
> --Dave
>
>
> --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com <rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com>, Brian
> Thornton
>
> <bthorntonwriter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, O Sage, O Woodrell, for finally shining the beacon of
> knowledge
> > upon we poor, benighted masses.
> >
> > Authors defining "noir" is sort of like porn actors defining money
> shots.
> > Either you do it, or you don't.
> >
> > Sheesh.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Michael S. Chong
> <menglish47@...>wrote:
>
> >
> > > "I just brought noir back to town, man. Both sides of that story do
> > > exist, the unbelievably generous and kind smalltown stuff happens
> two doors
> > > down from the shotgun shack and the woman who sells her twelve
> year old
> > > daughter for ten bucks a throw. I focused on the noir. Not to start a
> > > fracas, but hardly anything in books or films that others call
> noir would
> > > pass muster as noir by my indices----a saxophone, a blonde and an
> unfiltered
> > > cigarette do not make a thing noir. Pure noir is a direct bastard
> child of
> > > Greek Tragedy, a bastard child that was raised by the bunch that
> would have
> > > it, that being gutterbound underbelly proseteers and their
> disciples. Such
> > > novels are among the few places to encounter the POV of the underclass
> > > expressed as if to other underclass folk-that is to say as
> truthfully as can
> > > be. I am as proud to be considered related to them (I mean,
> Thompson, Cain,
> > > Edward Anderson, Charles Williams, Kromer, James Ross, LeSieur,
> Goodis and
> > > the
> > > rest) as I am to any of the sanctified names."
> > >
> > > From an interview posted at
> > >
> http://www.breaktech.net/emergingwritersforum/View_Interview.aspx?id=18
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 31 Jan 2009 EST