It is easy to read novels passively. This past summer I indulged in reading novels in many different genres, and I did not write a single word of analysis. I just let the words wash over me and let myself be swept away into the plot and atmosphere that the writer creates. A novel like Stoner by John Williams let me live the life of a middle class man in the 1920s from rural Missouri who became a professor of no import; who was passed over for promotions and was left by his wife, but who lived a full life by experiencing love in all its facets. This novel struck me and I found myself in it- it was inherently real and personal. It led me to question things about my life and prompted me to write about it. That is what I believe the point of good writing is.
To be completely honest, reentering the academic scene this semester and discussing a novel like The Maltese Falcon, felt jarring. My past experiences with the Noir genre have only been in parody, for example, the Finding Mary McGuffin Phineas and Ferb episode (which is undeniably my favorite tv show); or in a passing glance at a row of dense mass market paperbacks found in a Walmart or Dollar Store. I saw the genre as cheap fiction.
I was pleasantly surprised by The Maltese Falcon, its plot was engaging, its main character charming and fun to follow, and created an atmosphere that feels unlike reality yet draws the reader in, a playground for cynicism and moral ambiguity. Some of the aspects of the novel are problematic compared to our modern sensibilities, and yet I was not quick to jump on these ideas because the genre does not feel serious to me. It feels like it is made for entertainment in the same way as a movie.
I wanted to investigate this feeling, so I did some research and came across a work of literary criticism by Raymond Chandler entitled, “The Simple Art of Murder”. He writes that the detective novel, “is written in a certain spirit of detachment”, separating detective fiction from that of old fashioned novels which “have always intended to be realistic”. I think the detachment from reality that characterizes Noir fiction is why I find it so hard to take it seriously. The murder mystery, Chandler writes, solves its own problems, leaving nothing left to discuss. It feels formulaic, predictable. Unlike a novel like Stoner, that left me wondering if the main character was truly happy, The Maltese Falcon left me satisfied but bored. It exists in a space that I could never imagine inhabiting. That may be because of my race and gender, but it is also because my world is not gritty and dark like that of noir. The bad guys are not always caught, justice is not always served. This white and black sense of morality makes the genre fall flat in my eyes.
This leads me to a question that has plagued my study of English: What is the purpose of the novel? Is it supposed to be so close to reality that we see ourselves in it, or should it be a form of escape from reality? Is a novel art? If so, how do noir novels fit in? What makes something art? Do I, as a reader, need to feel a connection to a form of media for it to be art? And, how does the author’s position change how we view their art? Does the fact that Dashiell Hammett wrote to make a living change how I view his fiction? Should it matter who the author was when looking at their work? Should an author always have deliberate artistic aims in order for us to respect the work as art? All of these questions frustrate me and my study of the noir genre, and they may not be answered. But I assume that as I read more of the required texts in Black Noir that I’ll get closer to an answer.
I think this post is a very relatable way of stating what it’s like to read Maltese Falcon when compared to our everyday consumption of media it was definitely enjoyable, but also a bit difficult to see the real and true meaning in the book. I think the author purposefully made the characters and the world a bit difficult to understand so we can get carried away with the story and ignore how real the story’s contents are. To answer your last paragraph, I don’t think that we need to form a personal connection to the book for it to be considered art. I think art is just being and if it inspires other people then why shouldn’t it be considered art?
In your concluding paragraph, you brought up a lot of interesting points which I also ponder as we are beginning to read a lot of fiction throughout this course. I have never been a fan of fiction. I have always found it to be slow, much too lengthy in the description of scenes, and as you said so detached from reality that I am not learning anything from the story. However, when I read fiction for school, I think it forces me to dig deeper when reading to try and understand what deeper message is being said. I would argue that while yes, the plot of the Maltese Falcon is unrealistic and allows one to detach from reality, I think Hammett is also making a commentary on reality and the world we live in through the ways his characters behave, make decisions, and interact with each other, which then forces us the reader to think about our reality and our place in it.
While reading your post, I found you put into words a lot of the feelings I could not describe about noir. I have never found much appeal in mystery or detective stories beyond a brief ohase of Nancy Drew when I was young, but I do enjoy the novels we have read so far. However, like you, I am satisfied yet bored. The characters do not feel as real to me, particularly when I am unsure if I can trust the narrator. Because of this, I have found myself reading passively. I understand what happens, but do not have any broader analysis, because I have not felt engaged enough to consider it longer than it takes to read. I am still coming to terms with what creates noir, and I feel that once I have more references to work with, I will be able to discuss these texts with more knowledge, surety, and consideration.