Noir or not ?

I know that I've mentioned my weakness for visiting Amazon UK when I've had a couple of beers. Despite knowing this I went to the site last weekend with 2 beers and a shot of Irish whiskey under my belt; just enough to loosen inhibitions and blur judgement, not enough for a wild spendfest. I had just watched the 2009 re-make of "The Taking of Pelham 123" and was obviously letting the film influence my consumerism.

I probably started looking for "heist" or "caper" novels but ended up buying several volumes (Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Manhattan and Miami) from the Akashic Noir series. I already have the "London Noir" and "Paris Noir" anthologies edited by Maxim Jakubowski and have thoroughly enjoyed both. Akashic Publishing also have their own versions of Paris and London noir and I may sample them at a later date.

What gave me something to mull over was the sheer number of volumes the company have produced in the last few years. They have almost 40 in print with more on the way. Locations include "Wall Street", "Moscow", "Delhi", "Havana" and "Indian Country".
This makes me think two things. First of all that the Noir label is very marketable. Secondly, and this is purely subjective, the label "Noir" is now stretched far beyond the limits I would normally think of when trying to define it. The original Serie Noire novels from which critics coined the term were hugely influenced by American hardboiled crime fiction. I find it difficult to give a definition of exactly what I mean by noir fiction but some of these locations are stretching it a bit.

The label is also being used in comics at the moment.Marvel Comics have created their own pocket universe with "Noir" versions of several of their super-heroes. This is definitely out of bounds : "costumed cut-ups" as Stan Lee used to describe them have no place in noir fiction.

Ironically, DC comics, Marvel's biggest rival, has launched a "pulp" universe featuring a mixture of comic book charcters, notably Will Eisner's "Spirit" and the Batman, and major figures from the pulp magazines of the 1930s, Doc Savage and the Avenger (labelled as "Justice Inc." probably to avoid legal action since Marvel has several titles based on their super group the Avengers). Shady alleys, trenchcoats, fedoras, elevated railways, cars with running-boards: this ticks a lot more of my noir boxes than the X men ever will.

It's interesting to note that the writer Brian Azzarello, noted for specializing in crime comics, only took the job of creating a "pulpverse" because he was told he could exclude super-heroes. Cynics might give gentle cough and discreetly point to the gentleman in black and grey pyjamas with matching bat ears and scalloped cape but Batman isn't "super": he's only the world's greatest detective who's trained himself in science and martial arts. (I also suspect that he's included because DC couldn't get the rights to use "The Shadow". If they do then this group of comics will move even higher up my reading list).

(Aside : reading back the above it's rather obvious that I'm a DC rather than a Marvel "fan", though I do read titles from both publishers. To an outsider the distinction must be very hard to make. This dilemma is summed up perfectly in an episode of "The Simpsons".

Mrs. Krabappel is trying to let "Comic Book Guy" down gently as their relationship isn't working. She tries to say it in several ways before resorting to "I'm from the Marvel Universe, you're from DC".
"Ah!", he replies"I understand perfectly".
Definitely a joke for the comic fans in the audience.)

A final thought on why DC's "pulpverse" has more right to the adjective "Noir". The writer on "Justice Inc.", the back-up feature in "Doc Savage" is one Jason Starr.
I've encountered Mr. Starr, along with Ken Bruen, as the co-author of the most hilarious crime comedy series I've ever read. ("Bust", "The Slide" and "The Max"). come to think of it hilarity would normally exclude a novel from my definition of Noir. Time to go back to the drawing board...........