A few thoughts on Chandler's burgher

[Mark Kohut]

Paul,

Thank you for such a full post. So interesting as I read some Chandler I have not.

I, too, will question what "reactionary" means. You can define in general, but it is curious that whatever it means, you do focus on Chandler's Frankfurt School-like critique of media/advertising. This is major and anti-reactionary all by itself, yes? In these best-selling, therefore mass-
(enough) audience works?

Vigilante? In one sense, but each book shows a man committed to finding out the truth and effecting justice. A vigilante usually carries the connotation of having little regard for facts.

--- On Thu, 8/20/09, John Carvill <johncarvill at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: John Carvill <johncarvill at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Chandler's burgher
> To: "Paul Nightingale" <isread at btinternet.com>
> Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Thursday, August 20, 2009, 5:49 AM
> 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
>