Mario wrote:
> > But I still think anyone whoever tackles such a book is going to
> have
> > to nail down the definition first. Simply calling it noir doesn't
> make
> > it so.
>
> Noir is a much looser denomination than other genres. And I don't
> think noirs depend as much on cliché situations and characters. The
> best ones have none of that, each one is a original work.
>
> Look at this list... What do they have in common? Hard to say, but
> it's not clichés.
>
> Perhaps a handbook could provide tips for conveying despair and for
> creating doomed characters, but a good doomed character is a tall
> order.
Exactly. Which is why so much of what is marketed these days as "noir"
disappoints me, and why I felt a working (but flexible) definition was
important. I focussed on mood and tone and feel, and tried to get away
from more the more obvious (and easy to mimic) tropes.
"Oooh, he's wearing a long coat! He shoots someone! In the rain! Then
smokes a cigarette! It must be noir!"
Oh, sorry for giving away the plot of SIN CITY II...
Kevin Burton Smith
www.thrillingdetective.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Mar 2009 EST