"The fuck'm I doing here?"

[John McFetridge]

This is from a discussion about Elmore Leonard, but it seems to apply to all noir/hard boiled fiction (or it wants to, anyway) and I wondered what people thought about it:

"Though pioneered a century ago by the English dandy Ronald Firbank, and then popularized by a man whose first name was Evelyn, the technique of letting conversation carry a story is regarded in America as the tough guy’s way to write a novel, and Leonard makes no secret of his pride in it. Unfortunately, it compels him (as it did Firbank and Waugh) to stick to talkative characters. This excludes the true professionals on both sides of the law, leaving us with small-time cops and ex-cons who rarely keep quiet long enough to seem cool. They’re street-smart for sure, but although the recurring interjection “The fuck’m I doing here?” certainly puts Sartre in a nutshell, no one seems to think about anything, at least not anything interesting."

The discussion cane be seen here: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004908.html

It seems to me that maybe noir fiction is a little too subtle for this guy and that he needs all the "thinking" to be spelled out so clearly most of us would find it boring.

What do you think?

[Sandra Ruttan]

Oh my God. I didn't realize that police officers were never supposed to discuss a case. That they never split up during canvas and had to fill each other in on what they learned, or that they never discussed theories. That they never argued or had moments where they shared something personal.

Of course they live entirely in their heads. Who doesn't?

(You can discount so many books I'm bored with if they follow this guy's philosophy. It's funny to me that for all the hype over 'show not tell' writing, so many emphasize narrative thought, which is telling writing. I'm not showing you how the character feels through their words or actions, I'm telling you how they feel, how they think. Any book needs a bit of balance, but I also think people are conditioned to expect explanations because of TV. Having watched a few repeats the past few days, I'm struck by the awareness that in CSI nobody would explain how they process the evidence every time they do it, or call someone over to show them results before they've actually done the test. The one distinct difference with TV is that you're virtually never told what someone thinks - you're expected to get that from the look on their face and what they say and do. You get to know characters to the point you can predict their reactions. I'm sure you know what I think John without me having said a word...)

[Eric Christopherson]

Those CSI shows are hokey on a lot of levels. For example, in real life CSI personnel rarely interact with witnesses or suspects--except maybe when testifying in court--and they don't get out of the lab much.

[Sandra Ruttan]

Yeah, they crack me up.

But I think an interesting paper might cover the influence of tv on literature and how that's changed how we view narrative.

The reality is, most henchmen, most mass murderers... they don't think interesting things. Now, sometimes, someone's brilliant with the narrative - African Psycho by Alain Mabanckou, for example. But sometimes all you're thinking is It's amazing all these hookers are so... philosophical. And they've studied poetry. Riiiiiiight.

[John McFetridge]

Well, that's just it, the reality is, most people don't think very interesting things (or maybe it's just me). My favourite books, though, offer a whole bunch of stuff to think about, usually by being quite subtle. As you say, the overly philosophical (and overly quirky) characters can take you right out of the story.

Maybe it has more to do with the whole being greater than the sum of its parts -- the big questions, the existential stuff, is often dealt with really wellin noir and crime fiction by getting across the feeling more than by addressing the questions directly. Or something like that.

I guess this is a bit of a rehashing of the "theme vs. plot" discussion, but it seemed to me this guy had made a fairly common value statement about crime fiction -- that not much is going on beyond the crimes and the solving - the plots- and I disagree with that.

[Sandra Ruttan]

I also disagree with his value statement. I completely agree with you here.

[terry bowman]

Lee Lofland has a chapter in his book entitled CS... I don't think so. At his lectures he stresses the fact that crime writers shouldn't watch TV (even though Lee consults on CSI:NY).

I also had a stripper tell me one time (while she was in flagrante delicto {read:dancing nekkid}) the her hero(ine) was Flannery O'Connor. So anything is possible.

[Sandra Ruttan]

I pretty much agree Terry. In one discussion some aspiring authors were talking about using TV for research and I tried to caution them... Anyone who's spent 5 minutes on DorothyL or attended a Bouchercon knows how the crime fiction fans often know forensics and procedure better than authors do, and they will take you to task.

In fact, I haven't seen one show - Homicide, Life on the Streets included - that gets arson investigation completely correct.

CSI: NY... that would be the CSI that ripped a story right off a well-known crime author. I won't watch that one. Or Miami because of woman-with-annoying-voice-and-guy-I-can't-stand. It's the original or nada when I'm suffering insomnia.

[I. J. Parker]

I've always thought that the television addiction is responsible for the dialogue-driven narrative. I think we should remember that there is a difference between the inner man (or woman) and what this person says and does. Sometimes that difference is significant and interesting.

[Sandra Ruttan]

Sometimes it's interesting, but really only if it's in conflict. Things can be overthought. In a procedural, I don't want to read protagonist thinking about all angles of the case and possible theories, then read them explaining the theories to their partner/boss/whoever. In the case of the author who goes for narrative thought, then you get the summary she shared her thoughts with the team. What I don't like about that is, it offers no opportunity for interaction, no opportunity for anyone to raise a valid point or observation and tells us nothing about anyone else except one character. I was watching a program on the investigation into the Green River murders yesterday, and this guy murders 48 women and says he's a nice guy. I don't really give a rat's behind if he thinks he's a nice guy - his actions prove he isn't.

It's a very delicate balance. I think most people err on too much narrative. When I'm reviewing a book and I keep thinking, "yeah, yeah, YEAH YOU'VE OBSESSED ABOUT THAT A ZILLION TIMES" I'm frustrated. That's my major beef with emphasis on narrative. Think about something once, twice, maybe even three times (depending on what it is and if it runs throughout the entire story) but a lot of it is so repetitive and I feel as though the author is saying Did you get that? I know some of you are dummies, so I want to make sure you've GOT THAT... okay, a couple more times, just to be sure you DIDN'T MISS IT. While I'm not a stickler for rules, I do long to send those authors Elmore's list. There's one book this year that would have been on my top 10 reads if it wasn't for that. My sole complaint, and enough to vault several other books over it.

(And I realize it's easy enough to do when you're writing. If you're smart, you take out all the repeats in the rewriting phase. As a friend, who is strictly a reader said to me, in one series they kept alluding to this thing in the person's past, again and again and again and by the time they explained in 8 books along she was so done with the whole subject. Said it lessened the series in her eyes.)

[I. J. Parker]

I'm not an Elmore Leonard fan. And I have seen some very empty and meaningless dialogue in some writers' books. My view of Leonard these days is also colored by Leonard's "rules" for the correct format of the mystery novel (or whatever). Countless authors slavishly follow these and preach them to others. I feel very strongly that no author -- and I don't care how famous he is -- has any business dictating his style preferences to anyone else.

[John Dishon]

Here Here!!

[John McFetridge]

Well, just to clarify, the eleventh rule is break all the rules to get it right for you.

I don't think anyone expects people to actually follow writing rules (I hope not, anyway). Usually rules are offered up as a starting point for discussion.

And you're right, of course, slavishly following any set of rules is a bad way to try and create something new.