From: Alexandra
I hope this message gets to you,
I just wanted to say how much your book has touched my heart. I was on After Ellen and saw a recommendation to read The Blue Place…and since the last great Lesbian Fiction book I read was Annie on my Mind…and Ruby Fruit Jungle, I had no idea if another book would hit me so deeply. Last night I finished reading by 12am, when I got to the last page and realized that Julia had passed away I was completely in shock! I first couldn’t contain my tears and then I felt silly because I know it’s fictional…but a part of me truly felt Aud’s pain, even for just split second (it was intense!). Although real life is similar…I couldn’t imagine meeting the love of my life only to have her die.
I ended up having to call a friend over the phone because I couldn’t stop crying…but I have to say, your writing is so beautifully raw. Thank you for The Blue Place, and I look forward to reading more of your novels!
Everything sent to asknicola2 at nicolgriffith dot com gets to me. Sadly, though, sometimes my responses aren’t particularly prompt: I start to reply, get distracted and then wander off–but the emails do get to me. I read everything. And every couple of months I comb through my posts in draft and resurrect the ones I abandoned. (Well, most of them.)
I can’t imagine falling in love and then being suddenly bereft, either. I suspect I’d become unhinged. (Love in and of itself tends to unhinge a person. As does grief. Both together… Ooof. Cataclysmic.) I felt terrible killing Julia–but once I got about halfway through the novel I knew she had to go. Even so, I tried everything I could think of to avoid it, but that’s just how the book had to be. It’s what needed to happen to Aud.
My acquiring editor was very unhappy (she bought the novel on chapters and synopsis, and it changed). She and I had a fight. We both lost–she didn’t get her way and I got assigned to another editor. It was a difficult time. It made me wary enough about dealing with the publisher that when they insisted, through my new editor, that I change the title, I was willing to discuss it. The original title was Penny in My Mouth. (I liked it, but my agent kept asking, “Who’s Penny?”) My second choice was Thaw, but no one liked that, either. (“Thor?” they said. ” Thor?!”) They wanted The Blue Place. I sighed and gave in as gracefully as I could (looking back, probably not very).
One day I’d love to see all three Aud novels published as a matching set with luscious paintings on the covers. I think these are rich, complex books which have been mischaracterised as spare, noir novels. They’re not noir, in my opinion. They’re luxuriant, and, even at their emotional nadir, lit by hope. At least I think so but, hey, the readers are the ones who really count. So what do you think? Lean mean noir machines, or sensuous and luxuriant deliciousnesses?
Anyway, when that happens–the matching set–it would be tempting to change TBP to Thaw, just to have all three be nifty one-word titles. But my guess is that would confuse and annoy readers. So I imagine it will be TBP for all time. I’m reconciled to that. Mostly.
Nicola Griffith 
“noir” is French for black. “Noir” fiction and film is “the unsentimental portrayal of crime, violence, and sex.”
I agree completely that TBP, Stay, and Always are “rich, complex books,” but they (or Aud is, or tries to be) are often dark, unsentimental, and violent*. (The tone, of course, changes a lot by the end of Always.)
I see no contradiction between describing them as both (not so lean), mean noir noir machines and sensuous and luxuriant deliciousnesses. Can't they be both?
Oh man no way, The Blue Place is a great title– I'm with your editor on this one. I'm a happy ending kind of guy, but TBP wasn't a “feel bad” novel, the kind the reveled in cheap shots & misanthropy. I'd call 'em noir, but I'm not a stickler for genre in the least– crap! I realized now (trying to picture Aud in a Bogart hat & trench) that a Morcock treatment of Aud– eternal champion!– would be hilarious.
Oh– hey– at BEA one of your buddies at Paizo gave me a copy of that Mars book you wrote the intro to. It is in my short pile! Of course, getting THROUGH my short pile is tough work– I'm easily distracted by shiny new books! But I am looking forward to it.
dianneordi, there are more definition of 'noir' than you can shake a stick at. By some, okay, yes, Aud could be noir. By many, no no no.
mordicai, Sword of Rhiannon… Leigh Brackett was damn good. And she was right on the cusp of several changes in literature. Let me know what you think.
I would classify them as “sensuous and luxuriant deliciousness,” definitely. TBP is so luxuriant in its descriptions of Atlanta that I want to go there, even though many of the things you describe — heat, humidity, traffic — are things I hate. The descriptions of Norway, Julia, and food make me absolutely swoon.
nicola —
I think this harkens back to our discussion of tags and ultimately, labels — which I hate. If I had seen the Aud novels in the “Lesbian Interest” section of Barnes & Noble — and in 9 years working there, I may have — I wouldn't have given them a second glance. I had no problem reading TBP when it came up in a search on Amazon.com for “Atlanta police” and I saw the description: “Aud Torvingen is a former cop, martial artist, [who] stalks powerfully through the streets of Atlanta … in search of an art thief and killer.” Once I read TBP, I was hooked and had to read the others.
Patricia Highsmith is another author whose work is labeled “noir,” but whose style is anything but spare.
nicole, I really want to go to Norway one day.
dianneordi, the only Highsmith I've read is The Price of Salt, a brilliant novel.
They are not noir in my opinion. We've definitely gone down this road before. I don't even think they fit in the mystery category.
I think the whole point is that they are not noir. Yes, there is darkness, but there is more light than darkness. Yes, Aud has a side to her that may seem cold blooded, but I don't think she fits the profile. She loves, she grows, she takes care of herself and other people. Certainly the books do not contain the air of 'despair and cynicism' common to true noir.
I've done a little research, and none of the definitions I found seem to fit the Aud series. Certainly after TBP, they don't even come close in my mind.
Here's some of what I found.
A <definition: “Noir fiction: Taken from the French word meaning “darkness” or “of the night,” noir is a category of modern crime fiction. Use this term for fiction of crime and detection, often in a grim urban setting, featuring petty, amoral criminals and other down-and-out characters, and permeated by a feeling of disillusionment, pessimism and despair. Examples include Jim Thompson's Hardcore and James M. Cain's The postman always rings twice.“
A history of noir fiction:
“Noir fiction, in America, can be defined as a sub-genre of the Hardboiled School. In this sub-genre, the protagonist is usually not a detective, but instead either a victim, a suspect, or a perpetrator. He is someone tied directly to the crime, not an outsider called to solve or fix the situation. Other common characteristics of this sub-genre are the emphasis on sexual relationships and the use of sex to advance the plot and the self-destructive qualities of the lead characters. This type of fiction also has the lean, direct writing style and the gritty realism commonly associated with hardboiled fiction.”
And more – from page 2:
“”Film noir” is not the cinematic counterpart of the “roman noir” or “noir fiction.” The concept of film noir developed independently and has only an indirect relationship. As film critic Raymond Durgnat pointed out and many have echoed, film noir is not a genre, instead, it is a cinematic style that uses chiaroscuro lighting effects with black and white film to create dark, nihilistic mood. Because of this, films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) can be referred to as film noir without being part of the French concept of the roman noir.”
If that's not enough, here's a link to wikipedia.
Everything I found seems to go along with your own description, Nicola, “The protagonists tend to be anxious, self-destructive and self-focused. They are closed. They don't love themselves, don't love the world (they hide from it, they fight it, they try put one over on it) and they don't love other people.” Except I'd say that the recently discussed “Night Train,” could fit the noir category (altho maybe Kelley doesn't think so – is slipstream noir?), and I think that Mike in that story loves a couple of people.
Sensuous yes. At times even luxurious – absolutely, rich and complex. And I did find hope in them. For which I will always be grateful.
And what does it matter anyway, as long as the lables don't keep people from reading them – we all love the books. :)
Oh, and if I hadn't already read AMMONITE (and SR), i would've been put off by the noir and mystery labels… But the lesbian tags might've gotten me in. And there are tons of 'lesbian mystery' novels that I have absolutely no interest in touching.
Nicola said in response to Alexandra:
One day I'd love to see all three Aud novels published as a matching set with luscious paintings on the covers. I think these are rich, complex books which have been mischaracterised as spare, noir novels.
—>>>Reading your response to Alexandra's post got me all a twitter; no pun intended. All through the piece are these words that are making me nearly faint from joy. Well not faint really and maybe joy isn't the right word either but I guess you could say it's like sex, you have all these things going on and the absolute touching and loving and whatever other euphoric things can be said that really can't describe the actual feeling, that's how I feel from the words and their placement in your statement, thanks! I'm not even sure how I can be typing.
Part of it is the something to look forward to, wow a matching set of the first three Aud books with lucious paintings on the covers, yummie. I want ten, I have people I may have missed over the years who need to be reading these books. Then of course new people come into even a reclusive sort like me's, life. I have two like that now.
You went on to say:
They're not noir, in my opinion. They're luxuriant, and, even at their emotional nadir, lit by hope. At least I think so but, hey, the readers are the ones who really count. So what do you think? Lean mean noir machines, or sensuous and luxuriant deliciousnesses?
Anyway, when that happens–the matching set–it would be tempting to change TBP to Thaw, just to have all three be nifty one-word titles. But my guess is that would confuse and annoy readers. So I imagine it will be TBP for all time. I'm reconciled to that. Mostly.
(excuse me while I swoon, luxuriant? oooof)
—>>>I like Thaw and the idea of all one world titles, it's a nice notion. I'm not so sure that you need to worry about confusng readers. Look at all the mystery novels with more than one title based on where it's released. Talk about confusing it makes me wonder how many copies people have on their shelves of the exact same book without even knowing it?! It's crazy so why not do it if you want to but I don't think you have to. I think you should tag along with your muse she would never steer you wrong.
Oh and the noir thing, I think you summed it up best but to me it's noir when somebody is killed, doesn't matter what book it is, I think the answer is somewhere between TBP and Always. It was very noir in my opinion the shocking death of Julia and then we were lifted onto a plane of light with the events of the very humane Always with the struggle of acceptance and grieving process in Stay in the middle.
To this day these books are at the top of my list for a complete mental, emotional trip. Granted more could be added but that would be gravy where these are on their own, complete. Okay I guess I'll just go away now and enjoy my afterglow from your words. By the way that's my new favorite song, Afterglow by Kyler England. Sly
Who can argue with an impassioned comment like that, Sly? (not me!)
But it was Julia that helped Aud into the light. Dead or not. Julia that said, “Stay.” And Julia that gave her the knowledge/power/strength/heart/hope and Love to do that. Noir? No fucking way.
I was introduced to both Aud and Nicola when I read The Blue Place – a title that I actually love. I have been in a novel with a lesbian tizzy ever since. The book is one of my all time favorites. I've read it three times already and imagine I will read it many more times. And yes. It is rich in every way imaginable. It is complex and even the darkness is not simply dark or even self hatred. The Blue Place does it for me….and so does Aud.
jennifer, sly, wow, thank you–for the passion and the work.
steadycat, I'm always so pleased when someone rereads my work. That's what I do with my favourite novels–and it absolutely delights me to think my work gives others that kind of pleasure.
re: Jennifer
jennifer d said…
Who can argue with an impassioned comment like that, Sly? (not me!)
But it was Julia that helped Aud into the light. Dead or not. Julia that said, “Stay.” And Julia that gave her the knowledge/power/strength/heart/hope and Love to do that. Noir? No fucking way.
—>>>I can see that, I don't have a definitive answer for the noir thing. It goes on over at my book discussion list from time to time what it is, especially when we get new members who think we may not have evr talked about that.
I just finished leading a discussion over there for a book I didn't like very much. The discussion didn't go very well I'm not sure why there wasn't more activity for it. I could see what didn't work for me very clearly and mixed it up with the positive stuff. It was what I call a gritty mystery. The book was Lush Life by Richard Price.
Anyway back to the discussion about noir here, I'm inclined to agree that Nicola's Aud books are not noir in the sense of how I usually think about or read noir. Which is my preferred reading, I'm not much for the softer end of the genre I've already read all of Agatha Christie and Ngaio Marsh books I just don't really read very much soft-boiled stuff.
I do read more of it than I used to a few years ago before I found a couple of really busy book lists where I've found not so hard boiled beautiful books. So now I call myself a reader and an apreciator of talent. I'm really trying to do away with as many labels as I can ditch in my life. So if you say that the Aud books are not noir then that's okay whatever but if I were to label them I would say they are a brilliant group of stories with a character to match. Edgy maybe but smooth, they go down like a good brandy or a lovely glass of well made Pinot Noir. (really no pun intended she says laughing because it is funny)
Sly