A few thoughts on Chandler's burgher

[Paul Nightingale]

Thanks Mark. I suppose the obvious definition of 'reactionary' is the
opposite of 'progressive', which doesn't get us anywhere! For our purposes
here we can give a crude working definition, one that corresponds to what
Davis wrote: at a time when the political consensus favoured some kind of
state intervention, and indeed embracing it in the form of the New Deal,
emergent noir celebrated petit-bourgeois individualism (hence, I think,
Davis' selection of the term "burgher"). Marlowe is a businessman selling a
service, an exponent of private enterprise. I said it was significant that
Marlowe, in the later novels, spends a lot of time refusing payment, one
reason why I feel that Doc Sportello (one definition of his name, as has
been described already, indicating the interface between service provider
and customer) alludes to late-Marlowe rather than Marlowe per se (we might
suggest that Pynchon's prologue alludes to early-Marlowe).

Davis refers to "the semi-proletarianised writer" and a fear of
proletarianisation is evident in the Marlowe-text. Even while hating them,
Marlowe aspires to the company of a corrupt bourgeoisie because it takes him
further from the street. Consider, for example, the way Farewell My Lovely
juxtaposes Jessie Florian to Velma; the former is pathetic and disgusts
Marlowe, while the later is allowed to become a tragic figure because she
has the resources to escape the social milieu that has destroyed Jessie. A
lot has been written here about drinking in Chandler's novels; Marlowe can
hold his booze, someone like Jessie Florian can't. The thrust of the
narrative asks us to forget Jessie while seeking Velma. Jessie is
disgusting: does Marlowe, and the reader, feel the same way about High
Window's Elizabeth Bright Murdoch? All of which brings into play complex
discourses of gender and class, of course.

Previously I wrote that "before a word has been written the figure of
Marlowe has been organised as a vigilante"; that is to say, genre
conventions allow him--indeed insist on it--to operate outside the law.
Here, the law becomes an example of state intervention; it frequently
hampers individual police officers who are reduced to the status of impotent
bureaucrats. Their frustration is described time and again; we might even
pity them. Such a construction derives from right-wing small-government
discourse. An ideal (and, following Weber, non-existent) reader is
positioned as one who will celebrate a hero free to cut corners and do his
own thing, which doesn't mean actual readers can't and won't occupy
different positions. In the event Chandler/Marlowe offers us a lot more and
that is why I described the novels as "interesting".

The reference to 'mass society' criticism was designed to put Chandler's
writing into some kind of context, one that included a range of political
positions: Leavis was hardly a Marxist. Given the 'mass society' attitude to
popular culture (as celebrated by Pynchon and postmodernism), a blanket
dismissal of anything produced by the culture industry, I think it fair to
describe such writing as reactionary. I don't have it to hand, but there's
an essay by Adorno that describes popular music as an example of Fordist
industrial production: genre fiction would be something similar and,
throughout, the Marlowe novels resist this negative label.

Actually, in my original post, I think I focused on a detailed account--so
far as it went--of the Chandler/Marlowe oeuvre! I was hardly critical of the
novels in question, although I think some better than others. Specifically,
the context for The Long Goodbye, an extraordinary novel, would include
Mills' writing on the power elite; and I say extraordinary here because the
writing and publication of this novel coincides with the witchhunt years
(explicitly referenced in the text).

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
Of Mark Kohut
Sent: 20 August 2009 11:09
To: Paul Nightingale; John Carvill
Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Chandler's burgher

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.