The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group discussion

The real stuff -- a la James M. Cain, for example. I figured we needed a thread for real, down-and-dirty, gritty noir novels we've read or want to read.

I was going through my books today down in the British Reading Room and came across a book called No Orchids for Miss Blandish. Has anyone read it?

I have not ever heard of it. I do like your first comment about a separate thread. For example, wouldn't The China Syndrome be grouped with this?

Skye wrote: "I have not ever heard of it. I do like your first comment about a separate thread. For example, wouldn't The China Syndrome be grouped with this?"

Not really. It's more of a fictional account of a real event.

kind of a thriller, sort of. Yes - that's where I'd put it ... a thriller.

I repeatedly find myself 'in trouble' in any discussion of noir. I always wind up 'pulled in' ...to a situation 'beyond my control'... from which the only way out is, 'sudden, shocking, violence'! :p

I'm sorry, Feliks. I don't understand what you're saying.

Just a bit of dry humor. Everything I placed in quotes--they are all aspects of noir.

Nancy; how about Laura?

Skye wrote: "Nancy; how about Laura?"

There you go, Skye.

Feliks wrote: "Just a bit of dry humor. Everything I placed in quotes--they are all aspects of noir."

Gotcha.

How about if I throw out some titles to get us started here (see if any of these sound familiar to you):

The Expendable Man, by Dorothy B. Hughes
The Postman Always Rings Twice, by James M. Cain
They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?, by Horace McCoy
Nightmare Alley, by William Gresham (one of the best books ever)
anything by Cornell Woolrich

All except the first one by Huges.

Skye wrote: "All except the first one by Huges."

Oh my gosh! That's a super good one, Skye. The poor man in this book! Oy.

I particularly liked Rear Window by Cornell Woolrich both the book and the movie.

Also anything by Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett and more recently Michael Connelly ' s Harry Bosch Series.

You know, I don't think I'd put Connelly in the noir zone. And you might disagree, but I' not sure I'd put either of the other two there either.

noir  (nwar)
adj.
1. Of or relating to the film noir genre.

2. Of or relating to a genre of crime literature featuring tough, cynical characters and bleak settings.
3. Suggestive of danger or violence.

[Short for film noir. Sense 2, short for French roman noir, black novel.]
noir′ish adj.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

So that's the dictionary definition which is way different than the literary definition.

From Otto Penzler: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/otto-pe...


"Noir fiction has attracted some of the best writers in the United States (mostly) and many of its aficionados are among the most sophisticated readers in the crime genre. Having said that, I am constantly baffled by the fact that a huge number of those readers don't seem to know what noir fiction is. When they begin to speak of their favorite titles in the category, they invariably include a preponderance of books and short stories that are about as noir as strawberry shortcake.

Look, noir is about losers. The characters in these existential, nihilistic tales are doomed. They may not die, but they probably should, as the life that awaits them is certain to be so ugly, so lost and lonely, that they'd be better off just curling up and getting it over with. And, let's face it, they deserve it.

Pretty much everyone in a noir story (or film) is driven by greed, lust, jealousy or alienation, a path that inevitably sucks them into a downward spiral from which they cannot escape. They couldn't find the exit from their personal highway to hell if flashing neon lights pointed to a town named Hope. It is their own lack of morality that blindly drives them to ruin.

Noir fiction has its roots in the hard-boiled private eye story that was essentially created by Dashiell Hammett in the pages of Black Mask magazine in the 1920s. There are tough guys in his stories, and lying dames, and violence, double-crosses, murder, and nefarious schemes.

But--and this is where the private detective story separates itself from noir--it also has a character with a moral center. Sam Spade knew that when somebody kills your partner, you're supposed to do something about it. Raymond Chandler, whose splendid prose illuminated his novels and stories, compared his private detective to a knight, describing his as someone who walked the mean streets but was not himself mean.

The private eye story is optimistic, even if the detective is not. A client needs help and believes that a generally shabby guy in a rundown office with a bottle of bourbon in his desk drawer will somehow find a way to solve the problem. Can you get more optimistic than that?

Furthermore, this rather cynical figure--underpaid, disrespected, threatened, shot at, beaten up--has a code of ethics that guarantees he'll do the best he can for his client, who's probably lying to him anyway. A heroic figure stands at the center of the private eye novel; there are no heroic figures in noir fiction.

Not only are these two sub-categories of crime fiction not the same, they are philosophically diametrically opposed to each other. One is dependent on its hero maintaining the ethical high ground while most everyone with whom he interacts lies, cheats, steals and kills. The other features people who wallow in the sty that is their world. The machinations of their lust, whether for money or love (which, in noir fiction, is a four-letter word for sex), will cause them to be blinded to rudimentary decency as they become entangled in the web of their own doom.

Happy endings are not required in a private eye story, but the reader will generally have a sense of justice being done as the lone hero overcomes all the forces that have been arrayed against him. This is a uniquely American sensibility, deriving from the lone, stalwart sheriff cleaning up a town.

The noir story with a happy ending has never been written, nor can it be. The lost and corrupt souls who populate these tales were doomed before we met them because of their hollow hearts and depraved sensibilities.

So it's rather like I've been saying in every Goodreads crime-readers group where this occurs. Discussion of noir on the web always swerves in a giant gyre back around to deciding what books are noir and what books aren't. :( Recipe for disagreements!

I like much of what Otto has to say above; but its not going to be much comfort to someone insisting that 'Laura' is noir. No one wants their favorite title omitted or exempted...

Feliks wrote: "So it's rather like I've been saying in every Goodreads crime-readers group where this occurs. Discussion of noir on the web always swerves in a giant gyre back around to deciding what books are no..."

Sorry, Feliks. But Otto Penzler knows what he's talking about so his is the definition I've always gone by. Noir is way much more focused on the existential than on crime. It is (imo) a medium through which to explore the existential.

Well, you're not hurting my feelings with this firm remark. :) In fact you're 'preaching to the choir'. I'm always pushing for the strictest possible definition of noir. But again: why do discussions always founder on this rock and what do we do about the 'special exceptions' everyone demands?

Feliks wrote: "Well, you're not hurting my feelings with this firm remark. :) In fact you're 'preaching to the choir'. I'm always pushing for the strictest possible definition of noir. But again: why do discussio..."

Well, I suppose it's because noir isn't as widely read as other types of crime novels. I don't think disagreements need to become negative if we don't allow them to be.

Nancy wrote: "You know, I don't think I'd put Connelly in the noir zone. And you might disagree, but I' not sure I'd put either of the other two there either."

I agree; but I do think Rear Window is Noir as well as some flicks Linda Caruso made.

Except that many/most of his works are before WWII; which means they can't be noir. 'Rear Window' was written in '42. He's really a crime writer, a murder-mystery writer, or a pulp writer. Although some of his post-war titles could conceivably be noir on a case-by-case basis.

Look at 'Rear Window'; (the movie) closely: is the protagonist a disillusioned war veteran with no money? Is he morally ambiguous? Does he find himself doomed, trapped in a seamy environment? Is he in an alien, strange, unfamiliar America than the one he was drafted from?

The film itself is big-budget, has big stars, brightly lit, happy ending, and color cinematography. All of this is contrary to noir. If you can say that the movie bears no resemblance to the book and that the original story does have dark characteristics, I would agree it might be noir. But Woolrich wrote so much that was not noir, its hard for me to fathom 'certainty' in his case.

I'm not being a marquette; but I just have no idea how anyone can apply a noir label to a book, without checking off these basic points. There has to be some kind of rationale; rather than a 'feeling'.

Feliks wrote: "Except that many/most of his works are before WWII; which means they can't be noir. 'Rear Window' was written in '42. He's really a crime writer, a murder-mystery writer. Although some of his post-..."

And you're getting your information and your definition where?

Well for one easy and accessible source, you can check out the documentary written, directed, and narrated by Martin Scorcese called,
"A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies" in which today's leading film scholars (& some of the men who directed the famous noir films), speak about how 'noir' originated. It is a very specific invention that could only have come out of the late 1940s because of the distress affecting jaded/soured WWII veterans returning home to no jobs. It is also unusual in that it is one of the few genres which stemmed from cinema into fiction; rather than the other way around. The other major cause which gave it birth was low studio budgets for these films.

Sure, but the novels don't precede the films in this genre. Noir came from Hollywood first; it was created by movie directors. I'm not being disrespectful or demeaning this conversation, but how else can I present a fact?

Have you actually read any noir novels?

I've read novels which many people might label noir. But that's the thing: I don't think very many novels actually are.

A great compendium to see early crime writing by Woolrich et al: The Black Lizard Big Book of Pulps and: The Black Lizard Big Book of Black Mask Stories. Both edited by Otto Penzler, as it so happens.

Horace McCoy wrote his They Shoot Horses, Don't They? in 1935.
James M. Cain wrote his The Postman Always Rings Twice in 1934.

how is that at all post WWII?

They're not actually noir by intention. They were crime. Yes, they're atavistic; and they lent themselves very well to atavistic-feeling films. They often get lumped in with other noir products because people tend to talk about all these works as if they're the same, or came from the same time/place. But their style matches with later works only from fluke chance. After all, there was nothing preventing 1930s authors from accidentally writing about doomed, despondent characters or dangerous females. But they did not do so, intentionally striving to write noir. Movie directors hadn't invented the visual style until the 40s and the term hadn't even been coined until the 50s, in France.

For example: what would happen if I suggest Daphne DuMaurier's 'Jamaica Inn' is noir because it was written in 1936, has a doomed protagonist, is very dark, suspenseful, and involves crime?

Okay - I get what you're saying. Since the term "noir" wasn't invented until a certain time, books can't be labeled as "noir" up until that time.

Yes. Now we're getting somewhere. What happened was that film critics in France were watching a lot of American movies (because the French film industry was still getting back on its feet in the late 40s/early 50s) and they saw this specific style of weird, strange USA-based film coming up over and over--all possessing a set of very specific traits--and so they came up with the term which was 'film' noir. They didn't arrive at this concept from reading any of our novels.

And naturally I'm not saying there aren't exceptions. There always are ("From Out of the Past"). But I think there's a lot of value also in finding a tight definition and sticking with it. Defining noir precisely, becomes a tool for organizing and defining respective accomplishments. Its respectful to give credit to the artist for what he actually creates. I take nothing away from Cain or Hammett or Woollrich, all huge talents--but isn't it fairer to credit them with what they actually did? Their reps don't diminish by correctly referring to them as crime authors or pulp authors. They were innovators; but simply earlier innovators in the history of our popular literature.

Someone we might also mention at this point: Jim Thompson.

So technically then, the thread should focus on post-term coinage (for lack of a better word) novels. I can go with that.

But wait. I just looked at my The Cambridge Companion to American Crime Fiction which calls books by James M. Cain and Horace McCoy "American romans noir."

So technically, my sense of the use of the word "noir" is also appropriate.

Well if the editor of that volume is --in his remarks--using that phrase, he's free to do so. If it were me, I would call perhaps call those two books, 'noir-ish' or 'proto-noir'.

However, using the word 'roman' the way I suspect he is, he is saying that it they are a close facsimile of noir. Its a tricky word. How do you use it? In the same sense as 'roman a clef'?

A roman a clef (as I deem from Merriam-Webster online) is a book which is a very sheer disguise of another kind of book.

Anyway. For a hair-splitting this fine, its not as if I would say anyone is out-and-out wrong; its more a case of 'what is the most clear term we can use'(?)

Feliks wrote: "Well if the editor of that volume is --in his remarks--using that phrase, he's free to do so. If it were me, I would call perhaps call those two books, 'noir-ish' or 'proto-noir'.

However, using ..."

Well, considering he's published in the Cambridge Guide, I'd say his opinion is respectable and believable.

So for the purposes of this thread, we'll include books that fall under the category of "American roman noir" (which include those early novels I mentioned) as well as what was written after the term "noir" as a genre was coined.

And now, can we please get down to the business of recommendations, discussions and the normal stuff we do in these threads?

Thank you.

I think you two scared everyone away.

A hidden gem: The Cocktail Waitress, by James M. Cain

I think Postman was his best, but his last, lost manuscript was a great addition to noir tradition. Amazing to think it might never have been found but for the efforts of the Hard Case Crime folks!

Reva wrote: "I think you two scared everyone away."

LOL - we're moving on. Now that that's over, we can get back to business.

Sawyer wrote: "A hidden gem: The Cocktail Waitress, by James M. Cain

I think Postman was his best, but his last, lost manuscript was a great addition to noir tradition. Amazing to think it might never have bee..."

I didn't even know about The Cocktail Waitress until recently. First, though, I'm going to read The Postman ... I read it eons ago but a revisit is good.

Reva wrote: "I think you two scared everyone away."

As my husband always tells me: I'm small but I'm a feisty little broad. I need to apologize -- I don't normally get that out of control. But aargh

Here's a recommendation. The works of W.R. Burnett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Bu...

Nancy wrote: "How about if I throw out some titles to get us started here (see if any of these sound familiar to you):

The Expendable Man, by Dorothy B. Hughes
[book:The Postman Always Rings Tw..."

Fantastic group of novels there. I really enjoyed Nightmare Alley. One of the best I've read recently in this genre. I'll have to check out The Expendable Man. I read In a Lonely Place recently for another group, also a Dorothy B. Hughes novel.

Franky wrote: "Nancy wrote: "How about if I throw out some titles to get us started here (see if any of these sound familiar to you):

The Expendable Man, by Dorothy B. Hughes
[book:The Postman A..."

I LOVE Nightmare Alley. One of my favorite novels ever.

The Thief by Fuminori Nakamura. It's very spare, understated and bleak; moves fast (only 200 pages or so). It could go under translated fiction as well.

Flash Beagle wrote: "The Thief by Fuminori Nakamura. It's very spare, understated and bleak; moves fast (only 200 pages or so). It could go under translated fiction as well."

Love that book! Have you read his Last Winter We Parted? Bleak-o-Rama.

Nancy wrote: "Flash Beagle wrote: "The Thief by Fuminori Nakamura. It's very spare, understated and bleak; moves fast (only 200 pages or so). It could go under translated ficti..."

Not yet! I think I'm afraid to! In the movie Amadeus, the way the priest looked at the end (totally devastated from Salieri's confession), that's me after reading The Thief. I'll have to get up some courage and plunge into Last Winter.

Flash Beagle wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Flash Beagle wrote: "The Thief by Fuminori Nakamura. It's very spare, understated and bleak; moves fast (only 200 pages or so). It could go under tr..."

It does require a bit of mental toughness to get through, but it's beyond excellent. The Thief is like happy town compared to Last Winter We Parted. Just fyi.

Feliks wrote: "Here's a recommendation. The works of W.R. Burnett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Bu..."

Thanks, Feliks! Missed your post earlier.