A few thoughts on Chandler's burgher

[John Carvill]

> Thanks Mark. I suppose the obvious definition of 'reactionary' is the
> opposite of 'progressive', which doesn't get us anywhere

Mark was kind enough to thank you for a 'full' post, so I can see why
you would thank him. But there are others on this list, and you didn't
really address my points so I won't bother going into too much detail
with yours.

You indulge in a lot of theorising, Adorno this and Leavis that and
petit-bourgeois the other, which instinctively turns me off. You make
an interesting assertion about Doc representing "the interface between
service provider and customer", basing this on your own theory, but I
think it's all a bit of a stretch. Marlowe is no businessman. Nor is
he any kind of vigilante.

I don't know why you seek to defend Davis's take on Marlowe, but all
Davis was doing in his book was parotting a common, even fashionable,
misconception which was not based on either an understanding of
Chandler's personaliy, or a close reading of the source texts.

> Actually, in my original post, I think I focused on a detailed account--so
far as it went--of the Chandler/Marlowe oeuvre!

What you focused on, in some detail, was your own theory of 'early'
vs.'late' Marlowe, but this did not relate to the issue at hand, i.e.
Davis's erroneous portrayl of Marlowe/Chandler. In any case it's all
too 'either/or', you can't make such a clear-cut distinction between
early/late Marlowe (which in any case I don't think you have
considered in the light of 'early/late' Chandler), or between whether
Marlowe or Florian can 'hold' their drink.