A few thoughts on Chandler's burgher

[John Carvill]

I wish I had the time to re-read all of Chandler.

> But Davis is correct:
> the genre is reactionary

How can the whole genre be reactionary? Define your terms, please.
What genre, exactly? You seem to be discussing a number of related
genres, including pulp fiction and noir movies, neither of which are,
strictly speaking, directly related to Marlowe. I think the reason we
still read Chandler today is that he transcended genre, so arguing
that the genre is reactionary is kinda irrelevant.

Recall also what Pynchon says about John Buchan in the Slow Learener
intro - he seems to still be praising Buchan's books, even though they
were fairly reactionary.

The Big Sleep, the novel, differs quite a bit from The Big Sleep, the
movie. The movie is a Howard Hawks film, with all that that implies.
It was never going to be totally faithful to teh book. But I would
argue that it's all teh better for that, not that it's better than the
book, what I mean is it's better to make a film which retains some of
the spirit (and particulars) of the source material, while adding some
new elements, namely Bogart & Bacall, etc. Otherwise why bother making
a film? A-and, Bogart still does that 'gay' lisping routine when he
goes into Geiger's 'bookstore'. Yes, they changed 'prostitute'. It was
the times. Censorship, etc. But they replaced it with "the rotten
sweetness of corruption" which was doubly appropriate, and very much
in keeping with the spirit of Marlowe (and Chandler).

Compare the movie of 'Watchmen', they tried to 'stay faithful' by
basically using the comic book as a storyboard, so the viewer who's
read the book keeps recoginising these cinematic recreations of frames
he's familiar with. AT first this is pleasing, later it becomes
tiresome. You are left wondering, why bother?

> and, before a word has been written, the figure of
> Marlowe has been organised as a vigilante.

I can't argue with that. Mainly because I don't know what it means.

Cheers
J