Authors I Miss
Carl Zager
Ian Fleming
John D. MacDonald
Ross MacDonald
Charles Willeford
Arthur Upfield
Sara Paretski
Ellery Queen
Arthur Conan Doyle
Agatha Christie
Raymond Chandler
Earl Daerr Biggers
--
Carl Zager
http://www.mccsc.edu/~czager
kb9...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
BLIND 321
KS
Chrgr351945344
(Authors I Miss:)>Rex Stout
>Ian Fleming
>John D. MacDonald
>Ross MacDonald
>Charles Willeford
>Arthur Upfield
>Sara Paretski
>Ellery Queen
>Arthur Conan Doyle
>Agatha Christie
>Raymond Chandler
>Earl Daerr Biggers
Yes, of course, though some of the series dectectives are carried on in
pretty competent hands (with Sherlock it's a mixed bag, but even the
incompetents are usually fun), and then, some of these authors have been so
INSPIRATIONAL to Those Who Came After. (I can't remember the name of the
anthology in which lots of famous authors contributed Philip Marlowe stories in
Chandleresque style--but try to find it! It may have been edited by Robert
Parker (*Spenser*), who has finished some unfinished Chandler stories, like
*Poodle Springs* [not a cozy, dispite the title!]).
But, tell me please: So many of the above authors are deceased--what
about Sara Paretsky? Haven't been able to find anything new for some time, but
I thought she was still with us--??
Also: Is there any reliable news about CHARLOTTE MACLEOD's health (a.k.a.
Alisa Craig)? One humor-challenged reviewer website that didn't much like her
books (fooey) said that they were told she'd entered a nursing home. I love
her (Peter & Helen Shandy, especially) books and share so many of her opinions,
so I hate to think of any misfortune felling this noble lady, especially any
deterioration of a mind so much sharper and funnier than all but a tiny few of
the vast herd.
Pray for your mystery writers, God bless 'em!
And--not totally selfish: Pray that when the original authors can no
longer make your favorite series characters go on, worthy continuers will be
found to take up the flag. (St. Nancy Drew, intercede for us...?)
Keep investigating!
Chris Grayle
I'm brand-new to this site, so please forgive me if you've already covered my
questions.
No Doze !
>
> Rex Stout
> Ian Fleming
> John D. MacDonald
> Ross MacDonald
> Charles Willeford
> Arthur Upfield
> Sara Paretski
> Ellery Queen
> Arthur Conan Doyle
> Agatha Christie
> Raymond Chandler
> Earl Daerr Biggers
>
> Carl Zager
Um....if you miss Sara Paretsky, you should pick up her new book-Hard
Time.
Jon
And I miss these other folk too.
Ed Grabau & Pam Jacoby
>
> Rex Stout
> Ian Fleming
> John D. MacDonald
> Ross MacDonald
> Charles Willeford
> Arthur Upfield
> Sara Paretski
> Ellery Queen
> Arthur Conan Doyle
> Agatha Christie
> Raymond Chandler
> Earl Daerr Biggers
>
> --
> Carl Zager
> kb9...@my-deja.com
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Re Paretsky, are you saying you miss her original style?
I'd like to add
Helen MacInnes
Dorothy L. Sayers
Phoebe Atwood Taylor
Margery Allingham
Charlotte MacLeod (yes, she's living, but not writing)
Elizabeth Daly
Dasheill Hammett
M.M. Kaye
Richard Lockridge
Kate Ross
Maj Sjowall/Per Wahloo
Patricia Wentworth
Arthur Conan Doyle
Pam
Carl Zager
post I read on my ISP newsfeed but to which is a pain to post, but so
far it hasn't shown up on this Deja feed (all this is an aside for our
discussions on how one "dates" a message <grin>) -- and No Doze said I
should look for her newest _Hard Times_.
To be honest, I thought she'd stopped writing!
Now, to deal with chrgr351945344's comment about continued series, hmmm.
Want to get a thread started? Ask the Nero Wolfe fans what they think of
Goldsborough. John Gardner is not Ian Fleming. Parker's two Chandlerian
efforts were respectfully done. I don't think he had any intent of
picking up the characters. He just felt a homage needed to be paid.
No. I miss those AUTHORS. Not their series. Not their characters. The
authors. That doesn't mean I don't have contemporary favorites. I will
not risk the ire of some of our talented folks who post on RAM by naming
Jane and not Sparkle <grin>.
In article <20000714131554...@ng-ff1.aol.com>,
--
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> ...I can't remember the name of the anthology in which lots of famous authors
> contributed Philip Marlowe stories in Chandleresque style--but try to find it!
> It may have been edited by Robert Parker (*Spenser*), who has finished some
> unfinished Chandler stories, like
> *Poodle Springs* [not a cozy, dispite the title!]...
RAYMOND CHANDLER'S PHILLIP MARLOWE, A CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION, edited by Byron
Preiss. Great book--wish I could remember WHICH box it was in out in the garage...
Speaking of missing-but-not-dead authors, anyone know of anything new from (or even
rumors about) Rob Kantner (whose Ben Perkins series was among my absolute faves)
and Benjamin Shutz (whose quirky Leo Haggerty was left dangling about five years
back)?
--
Regards,
Mark Luebker
On AIM: mluebker
Bill Deeck
Lamb Worthington, eight years old in the first book in the series and about
14 in the most recent one, was published in 1992.
"Carl Zager" <kb9...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8kncoe$hio$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Rex Stout
> Ian Fleming
> John D. MacDonald
> Ross MacDonald
> Charles Willeford
> Arthur Upfield
> Sara Paretski
> Ellery Queen
> Arthur Conan Doyle
> Agatha Christie
> Raymond Chandler
> Earl Daerr Biggers
>
JaneHadd
>Alisa Craig)? One humor-challenged reviewer website that didn't much like
>her
>books (fooey) said that they were told she'd entered a nursing home. I love
Yes, there is reliable news about Charlotte's health. Unfortunately, it's
all bad.
She has, indeed, entered a nursing home, as she now needs round the clock
care.
She is not expected ever to recover sufficiently to work again.
Jane Haddam
Bill Deeck
"Bill Deeck" <Bill...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:srJb5.4956$tI4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Brwencino
Pam K
She has Altzheimer's.
Pam K.
JaneHadd
Well, I miss him too.
Jane Haddam
M.E.Tonkin
Carl Zager wrote:
>
> Rex Stout
> Ian Fleming
> John D. MacDonald
> Ross MacDonald
> Charles Willeford
> Arthur Upfield
> Sara Paretski
> Ellery Queen
> Arthur Conan Doyle
> Agatha Christie
> Raymond Chandler
> Earl Daerr Biggers
>
>
Yes, and
Georgette Heyer
Elizabeth Daly
Eleanor Boylan
Sara Woods
Dorothy L. Sayers
Patricia Wentworth
Margery Allingham
Phyllis A. Whitney
MET
No Doze !
>
> Kate Ross.
>
> KS
BIG TIME!
Jon
Carol Schwaderer Dickinson
He should have started writing sooner or lived much longer
Pearl Buck
Lucy Maude Montgomery
C.S. Forester
Carol
Lawrence Lundigan
> Ian Fleming
> John D. MacDonald
> Ross MacDonald
> Charles Willeford
> Arthur Upfield
> Sara Paretski
> Ellery Queen
> Arthur Conan Doyle
> Agatha Christie
> Raymond Chandler
> Earl Daerr Biggers
Ross Thomas
--
"On guard, you musty sofa"
Larry
Lcdumas
>
>KS
>
YES!
Linda D.
Arthur Nelson
"Carol Schwaderer Dickinson" <dd...@alaska.net> wrote in message
news:396FEE...@alaska.net...
> Graham Landrum
Chris Grayle
news--albiet most unwelcome--about wonderful Charlotte MacLeod.
Before Alzheimer's was discovered, and to avoid the nasty sound of "senile
dementia", people spoke of the dotage of the elderly as "returning to Second
Childhood"...Not only because of their sometime childlike need for care, but
because the memories most retained by them were the ones from childhood,
longest impressed on the brain.
Do the worlds created by authors--especially authors of series--impress
themselves most deeply on the brain?
If precious Ms. MacLeod is a mere visitor to this-world while still
physically in it, I hope she resides mentally in her ideal created world of
Balaclava College and Lobelia Falls, and is perhaps now having tea with Peter
and Helen and their friends on the green Circle at the charming brick house
between the Blue Spruces.
We'll still be visiting, Ms. Charlotte.
There with you,
Chris Grayle
Arthur Nelson
"Chris Grayle" <chrgr35...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000715135933...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
Stuart Shiffman & Andi Shechter
Andi, puzzled
Carl Zager wrote:
>
> Rex Stout
> Ian Fleming
> John D. MacDonald
> Ross MacDonald
> Charles Willeford
> Arthur Upfield
> Sara Paretski
> Ellery Queen
> Arthur Conan Doyle
> Agatha Christie
> Raymond Chandler
> Earl Daerr Biggers
>
> --
> Carl Zager
> http://www.mccsc.edu/~czager
> kb9...@my-deja.com
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Rosc...@home.com
http://members.home.net/roscoe10/
http://members.home.net/roscoe10/tshirts.html
"Better Living Through Cross-Hatching"
Stuart Shiffman & Andi Shechter
Andi
--
MarinerC
<rosc...@home.com> writes:
Tell me more about Kate Ross -- Never heard the name, but seems to be getting a
positive reaction here.
Ann in Ottawa
GPSvo
Ian Fleming
John D. MacDonald
Ross MacDonald
Charles Willeford
Arthur Upfield
Sara Paretski
Ellery Queen
Arthur Conan Doyle
Agatha Christie
Raymond Chandler
Earl Daerr Biggers
--
Carl Zager
Carl, that's the wonderful thing about books. You can always revisit your
favorite authors. I read a lot and I re-read a lot, especially when I run out
of fresh material. -- Gary
GPSvo
> She is not expected ever to recover sufficiently to work again.
>
> Jane Haddam
She has Altzheimer's.
Pam K.
Very sad, but she's left a part of herself that will live on for a long,
long time. -- Gary
desh...@ix.netcom.com
<larr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Carl Zager" <kb9...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8kncoe$hio$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> Rex Stout
>> Ian Fleming
>> John D. MacDonald
>> Ross MacDonald
>> Charles Willeford
>> Arthur Upfield
>> Sara Paretski
>> Ellery Queen
>> Arthur Conan Doyle
>> Agatha Christie
>> Raymond Chandler
>> Earl Daerr Biggers
>
>
>Ross Thomas
>
>
>--
>"On guard, you musty sofa"
>Larry
>
>
Yes, he was/is my favorite.
Dave
Jim Barker
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> Now, to deal with chrgr351945344's comment about continued series, hmmm.
> Want to get a thread started? Ask the Nero Wolfe fans what they think of
> Goldsborough. John Gardner is not Ian Fleming. Parker's two Chandlerian
> efforts were respectfully done. I don't think he had any intent of
> picking up the characters. He just felt a homage needed to be paid.
I didn't mind the Goldsborough Nero Wolfe pastiches, and I was disappointed
when they stopped. While they weren't Rex Stout (maybe Stout Lite, if there
could be such a thing...), they were decent entertainment, with characters
that i already knew and enjoyed. I'm not sure that putting them out as
hardcovers was the best idea--they struck me more as deserving to be PB
originals, but what do I know about publishing?
As for the RBP Chandler pastiches, I thought they stunk. Even in it's
original form, Chandler's "Poodle Springs" fragment was weak broth, and
Parker reinterpreting Marlowe as more Spenser-like just didn't sit well with
me. And the coy business in PERCHANCE TO DREAM, where Parker withholds any
details or descriptions that would tell the reader precisely WHEN the story
was supposed to be taking place just struck me as too cute by half.
That Byron Preiss Marlowe anthology from 1988 had some good stuff in it, but
it was plagued by wildly inconsistent quality from story to story.
However, I can't get enough of Sherlock Holmes pastiches, although they too
vary widely in quality. The good news is, there are SO many of them that you
can pretty much always track down SOMETHING new and worthwhile.
In the end I guess I DO like the continuing characters as much (or more)
than I like the authors who created them, as long as the stories are
well-written, the characters are at least reasonable facsimiles of
themselves, and the author's hand remains relatively unseen.
But when an author feels the need to assert his own voice and style (to the
degree that Parker did on his Marlowe pastiches) so much so that it becomes
almost as important as the characters about whom he's writing or the story
being told, then I start to lose interest fast.
I read to be entertained, not as an adjunct to some cult of personality
built around my favorite authors. The words on the page, and whether they
hold my interest and entertain me are all that matter.
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> Oops. I forgot Bill DeAndrea.
The last Matt Cobb I got my hands on (a few years back, IIRC) was KILLED IN
THE FOG. Have there been any since then? And does anyone know what's
happened to DeAndrea that he doesn't seem to be writing any more?
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> From the SF Field : Bob Shaw
He was another of my faves about 15-20 years ago. What became of him?
JaneHadd
>happened to DeAndrea that he doesn't seem to be writing any more?
>
>--
>Regards,
Um....yes.
He died of cancer in 1996.
Jane Haddam
(Mrs. William L. DeAndrea)
Constance S Marshall
"Carl Zager" <kb9...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8kncoe$hio$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Rex Stout
> Ian Fleming
> John D. MacDonald
> Ross MacDonald
> Charles Willeford
> Arthur Upfield
> Sara Paretski
> Ellery Queen
> Arthur Conan Doyle
> Agatha Christie
> Raymond Chandler
> Earl Daerr Biggers
>
Jim Barker
It really isn't yourday, Mark. He also died of cancer a few years back.
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> It really isn't yourday, Mark. He also died of cancer a few years back.
I guess I stopped keeping track of authors I liked around the same time
that I stopped working in the college bookstore--late 1988. But it seems
that too many of the ones that I wasn't through enjoying have moved off the
stage without me hearing about it until long after:
--William DeAndrea (what were his last published books, anyway?)
--Edward Mathis
--Dave Pednau
--Bob Shaw
Why is it the media doesn't seem to pick up on some of these folks'
passing?
JaneHadd
>passing?
Well, Bill hardly had the kind of rep that would merit attention on ET, but
his death made the NY Times, the Washington Post and the cover of The Armchair
Detective, as well as most of the other mystery magazines.
That's why I was so bemused that you didn't know what had happened to
him.
If you see what I mean.
Jane Haddam
Jim Barker
JaneHadd wrote:
Word for word, you could almost say the same about Bob, who was a good friend and
with whom I collaborated on several fannish projects.He wasn't well known to the
man in the street, but his death was reported widely in SF newszines and groups.
Did you know that John Brunner, James White and John Sladek also passed away
recently?
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> >Why is it the media doesn't seem to pick up on some of these folks'
> >passing?
>
> Well, Bill hardly had the kind of rep that would merit attention on ET, but
> his death made the NY Times, the Washington Post and the cover of The Armchair
> Detective, as well as most of the other mystery magazines.
>
> That's why I was so bemused that you didn't know what had happened to
> him.
>
> If you see what I mean.
Well, I was out of the country (working at the Embassy in Mexico City) for nearly
four years, and although we DID get the NYT and the POST, I rarely got to see
them--too many folks in the press office eager to take them home as soon as they'd
served their "official" functions.
When I moved back to the States, I spent a couple of years in a small town in
Texas, then moved up here to Indiana, where I've been pretty much of out of touch
with fellow mystery fans (until I discovered this newsgroup).
And I have to confess that I never really read ARMCHAIR DETECTIVE or any of the
other mystery mags--I've always found the stories themselves to be a lot more
interesting than the critical analyses, behind the scenes stuff and the interviews,
and since I prefer the series characters, the short stories in ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S
and ELLERY QUEEN'S MYSTERY MAGAZINES never appealed to me either. (I'll confess to
having tracked down a bunch of back issues of the AHMM and EQMM in order to get
those Rob Kantner short stories that I keep blabbing about, along with some Loren
D. Estleman and Jeremiah Healy short stories that I didn't know had seen print
there. And there is one kind of magazine--the newsletter that Uncle Edgar's Mystery
Bookstore puts out every few months--that I couldn't do without.)
Anyway, as I said, it seems I've missed a lot of info about what's going on with
the various writers in the past few years.
As for my interest DeAndrea, I'd discovered his KILLED IN... series somewhat late,
after finding one in an English-language used bookstore in Mexico City, then asking
Jeff Hatfield up at Uncle Edgar's to see if he could track down copies of as many
of the others as possible for me.
I thoroughly enjoyed the Matt Cobb series, particularly KILLED IN PARADISE, with
all the thinly-disguised mystery authors. Then, a year or so ago when I stumbled
across a remaindered hardcover copy of KILLED IN THE FOG, I was thrilled to have
the opportunity to get "reacquainted" with the characters at "the network."
I passed KILLED IN THE FOG along to my wife, Kathleen, who generally prefers female
PIs, and she read and enjoyed it on a business trip to London. She subsequently
took the rest of the series with her on other trips, and we both had been looking
forward to any new entries in the series. Now that I know that's not going to
happen, can someone direct me to a bibliography of DeAndrea's work so I can at
least be sure that we've read everything that WAS published?
Finally, to Jane: While I realize this comes late, I'm sorry to hear of DeAndrea's
passing--I just enjoyed the heck out of his writing--and I'm more sorry for your
personal loss.
--
Sincerely,
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> In rec.arts.mystery, Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> <mlue...@home.com> scratched in the sand and wrote:
>
> ]--William DeAndrea (what were his last published books, anyway?)
> ]--Dave Pednau
>
> these two, at least, i KNOW are on Books 'n' Bytes, Mark.
I'm acting like a dummy.
I KNEW your site would have the info I needed, but my sieve-like brain
didn't come up with that when I was asking for a DeAndrea bibliography
in my last note.
However, I just went to your site and got what I needed. I had no idea
that I'd missed a Matt Cobb (KILLED IN FRINGE TIME) or that there were
sequels to THE HOG MURDERS. Lotta out of print stuff, so I guess I'll be
haunting the used bookstores.
> glad to find another Pednau fan.
I just hope HE made it to Myrtle Beach--it seemed to me that Whit
Pynchon never quite made it to the retirement he'd planned there...
--
Regards,
James Nicoll
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax <mlue...@home.com> wrote:
>Jim Barker wrote, RE: Bob Shaw:
>
>> It really isn't yourday, Mark. He also died of cancer a few years back.
>
>I guess I stopped keeping track of authors I liked around the same time
>that I stopped working in the college bookstore--late 1988. But it seems
>that too many of the ones that I wasn't through enjoying have moved off the
>stage without me hearing about it until long after:
>
>--Dave Pednau
>--Bob Shaw
>
>passing?
>
There's a very moving essay in Michael Swanwick's _Moon Dogs_
about the year all the old SF authors died. There was a cohort who
lost a lot of members in the late 1980s.
--
"Sure, Len, just because something is old doesn't mean it's
engraved in stone. We know a lot more about entertainment now than they
did back then. Look at Lawrence Olivier! You think he was in any of
Shakespeare's original productions? No! They added him years later!"
GPSvo
>passing?
>
to run a one-inch story when Lawrence Sanders died, and I guess we're lucky
they did that much. Novelists, especially mystery writers, don't seem to be
held in much regard by the media. -- Gary
JaneHadd
>held in much regard by the media. -- Gary
They don't have audiences that are large enough.
When they do, the media does report on what happens to them--note what
happened when Stephen King was hit by that van.
But even most "bestselling" novelists sell only about 150,000 hardcovers
and maybe 250,000 to 300,000 paperbacks, if that many.
And a commercially successful novelist who isn't a "bestseller" will do
about 20,000 to 50,000 copies hardcover and maybe 50,000 to 150,000 paperback.
In a country of 260 million people, that doesn't make much of a dent.
Jane Haddam
Carol Schwaderer Dickinson
> you'll be more successful than 90% of all the mystery authors out there.
>
> Not enough people in this country read, and even fewer read mysteries.
Jane what are the figures for paperback originals. Many of my favorites
aren't published in hardcover and for those that are, I buy the
paperbacks because of the arthritis factor in my hands.
carol
JaneHadd
>
>@vicki
Oh, hell. I was estimating on the high side.
If you can produce a mystery that sells 11,000 to 15,000 copies hardcover,
you'll be more successful than 90% of all the mystery authors out there.
Not enough people in this country read, and even fewer read mysteries.
Jane Haddam
Brigid73
Not to argue, but if mystery readership is that low, how come I was wait-listed
number 40 for Jane's new book at my local library? I finally finagled one out
of the hands of the librarian restocking the new books shelf at a different
branch (loved it, BTW). I wish I could afford to buy new hardcover books, but
until that day.... which will be soon if I get the job I'm applying for......
Brigid
JaneHadd
>wait-listed
>number 40 for Jane's new book at my local library?
Where's your library? Will it adopt me? This has never happened to me
before!!!
Anyway, I wasn't making a comment on my sales/readership in particular,
only in what the number expectations were for a genre mystery.
And they're dismal.
But--I really hope you get that job.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>aren't published in hardcover and for those that are, I buy the
>paperbacks because of the arthritis factor in my hands.
>
I'd really have to bring this up to date by asking around, but about 1992
at Bantam, they considered 25,000 about "standard," and 50,000 "good."
Like I said, the numbers are dismal.
Jane Haddam
M.E.Tonkin
vickij wrote:
> In rec.arts.mystery, "M.E.Tonkin" <met...@erols.com> scratched in the
> sand and wrote:
>
> ]Georgette Heyer
> ]Elizabeth Daly
> ]Eleanor Boylan
> ]Sara Woods
> ]Dorothy L. Sayers
> ]Patricia Wentworth
> ]Margery Allingham
> ]Phyllis A. Whitney
>
> are all of these really DEAD????????
I don't think Whitney is dead, but she is very elderly so I don't know
what her health is like - she hasn't published anything since
_Amethyst Dreams_ in 1997. Boylan also is elderly, and she too
hasn't published anything for several years(she's Daly's niece,
and wrote a series of mysteries featuring a supporting character
from her aunt's novels as detective, which vicki probably already
knows :-).
The rest are indeed dead.
MET.
Carl Zager
the Wolfe series -- although I appear to be in the minority on the
Wolfe-list maillist.
I suppose continuations depend so much on the expectations of the
reader. Yes, I enjoy the various styles in the Holmes pastiches -- some
more than others. Yes, I enjoyed some of the Chandlerian stories more
than others. Since I am a Parker fan, I probably enjoyed his two efforts
more than you did.
Some continuations get so formulaic, though, that I feel only slightly
removed from the book-a-month efforts of those western and male
adventure series who change authors every few years.
In article <39720541...@home.com>,
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax <mlue...@home.com> wrote:
> --
> Regards,
> Mark Luebker
> On AIM: mluebker
>
>
--
Lawrence Lundigan
"Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax" <>
>
> However, I just went to your site and got what I needed. I had no idea
> that I'd missed a Matt Cobb (KILLED IN FRINGE TIME) or that there were
> sequels to THE HOG MURDERS. Lotta out of print stuff, so I guess I'll be
> haunting the used bookstores.
There are sequels to the HOG Murders?!?
Thanks, Mark
JaneHadd
>Thanks, Mark
Yes, The Werewolf Murders and
The Manx Murders.
There are also two books in a newly started series, Fatal Elixir is the
second. And for some reason my mind's gone completely blank on the name of the
first.
Jane Haddam
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> ...Since I am a Parker fan, I probably enjoyed his two efforts
> more than you did.
>
> Some continuations get so formulaic, though, that I feel only slightly
> removed from the book-a-month efforts of those western and male
> adventure series who change authors every few years.
I gotta say (and this is a conversation that we seem to have over and over
again on the Spenser list), that for the past few years it seems like the
Spenser books BY Parker have become terribly formulaic, as Parker seems to
be doing little more than phoning it in. Increasingly, it appears that he's
interested in turning out a LOT of product (with the Jesse Stone, Sunny
Randall and non-series stuff, some of which appear to be little more than
recycled plots and elements from the Spenser books) but apparently not
really putting a whole lot of effort into any of it.
As things stand now, I think I'd welcome someone ELSE writing the Spenser
books, maybe with Parker supervising and keeping them true to the
characters. And as Groucho said, "Outside of the improvement, [you'll] never
know the difference..."
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> There are also two [DeAndrea] books in a newly started series, Fatal Elixir
> is the
> second. And for some reason my mind's gone completely blank on the name of the
> first.
Well, I'm thrilled to discover just how much of his stuff I HAVEN'T read. I've made
up a list and will make a point of looking in the used bookstores for the out of
print books. (It would be great if there was a place where a person could pay a fee
and download that stuff, as one can with Doolittle's out of print Tom Bethany
books--I'd rather pay someone who actually has the rights to the work than a used
book dealer...)
Anyway, I have something to look forward to--thanks for the info, Jane (and also
vicki, who reminded me of what a swell resource "Books 'n' Bytes" is...).
Brigid73
> Where's your library? Will it adopt me? This has never happened to me
>before!!!
Montgomery County, Maryland. I guess we have good taste :-)
The mystery section of my library (which is one of 20 or so branches, and is
also a regional branch so it's a little bigger) is about the same size as the
fiction/literature section. I also think they put a lot of books into
fiction/lit that I consider mysteries. We have looong waiting lists for
anything new and good to read. Not only was I waitlisted for your book, but
I'm still on the wait list for Laurie King, Nancy Pickard and Robert Crais.
But it was a librarian at my branch who recommended that I read one of your
books a couple of years back. It could be that her recommendations are
working! I think she's also behind the bookmarks that say "If you like this
author, you'll like...." I know you're on one of those lists.
Brigid
LHeilb8013
This is scary, I figure it is about a days sales the Who wants to be a
Millionare computer game.......
Lloyd Heilbrunn
JaneHadd
>Millionare computer game.......
>
>Lloyd Heilbrunn
Oh, well, a really hot computer game can do a million copies in a week.
AND it's cheaper to produce than a book, AND the retail mark-up the
store gets is way higher.
I'm just trying to point out that, before you pitch and groan about
those terrible, awful mercenary publishers and those terrible, awful mercenary
chain stores, it might make a little sense to understand what the numbers are
for most books.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
This is so odd. I have cousins in Montgomery County, Maryland. Bethesda,
to be exact.
But none of them is a librarian.
>>>>But it was a librarian at my branch who recommended that I read one of your
>books a couple of years back. It could be that her recommendations are
>working!
Maybe she can adopt me, too.
Tell her thank you from me, though, the next time you see her.
And thank you, too, again.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>>Millionare computer game.......
>>
>>Lloyd Heilbrunn
Oh, yeah. One more thing.
Consider this.
A really hot best seller, say a Stephen King or a John Grisham, ships
about one and a half million copies hardcover.
That's ships--NOT sells.
The sale will be about half what's shipped, if you're lucky. With big
best sellers like that, the sale is often only a third of what's shipped.
So Mr. King and Mr. Grisham sell about 750,000 hardcover of any one title.
They do better in paperback--about 5 million shipped and half that sold in
mass market paperback, and then several thousand or so every year after the
book is backlisted.
That's 2 and a half million copies the first year in paper.
If a popular music CD did the kind of business King and Grisham do in
hardcover, it would be considered close to a failure--
Instead, successful rock and pop CDs routinely sell in the millions of
copies for the same $20 price most book buyers feel is "too expensive" to allow
them to buy a hardcover.
And with videogames, the situation is even more bizarre. People who
complain that mass market paperbacks are "too expensive" at $5.99 to $7.99
routinely pay anywhere from $30 to $60 for a videogame.
And I'm NOT saying that those of you who think you can't afford
hardcover really could--you probably can't.
What I am saying is that books not only do not have the kind of audience
records and videogames have, but the audience they do have is not willing to
pay the kind of prices that would make book publishing and book selling
profitable on the same scale as movies, popular music and video games.
In case you're wondering, if the retail mark up on books was the same as
that on CDs, your normal hardcover would cost about $40 and your normal mass
market paperback would cost about $25.
Jane Haddam
Greenbanks
>copies for the same $20 price most book buyers feel is "too expensive" to
>allow
>them to buy a hardcover.
> And with videogames, the situation is even more bizarre. People who
>complain that mass market paperbacks are "too expensive" at $5.99 to $7.99
>routinely pay anywhere from $30 to $60 for a videogame.
I would guess part of the reason for those differences is that, for most
people, a book is a one-time pleasure. A CD, certainly, and usually a game
will be used many times over the years.
That can be a huge factor in how people choose to spend their entertainment
dollars.
M'Lou
JaneHadd
>people, a book is a one-time pleasure. A CD, certainly, and usually a game
>will be used many times over the year
I agree--but that's a question, too.
Take videotapes and DVDs of movies--which are closer to books in the kind
of content they deliver.
Most people I know won't read books more than once, but they'll buy a movie
and watch it over and over again, and the video costs more than most paperbacks
and sometimes as much as a hardcover.
The question is--WHY don't people read books more than once?
I do--I read things over and over and over again, when I like them. I've
got some books that I read at least once a year, and I go through periods of
rereading everything Christie did, or P.D. James, or whatever.
But I have been told flat out by people at conferences that they "never"
do this with books.
It's almost as if even the people who buy books, and who claim to enjoy
them, look on them as more work than fun.
Jane Haddam
Ila Dalcourt
> The question is--WHY don't people read books more than once?
>
> I do--I read things over and over and over again, when I like them. I've
> got some books that I read at least once a year, and I go through periods of
> rereading everything Christie did, or P.D. James, or whatever.
Jane,
I do this all the time, too. The books I re-read depend on my mood at the time.
Cheers,
Ila :-)
--
Those who do not read are no better off
than those who can not ____ Chinese proverb
Brigid73
>
>> The question is--WHY don't people read books more than once?
>>
>> I do--I read things over and over and over again, when I like them.
>I've
>> got some books that I read at least once a year, and I go through periods
>of
>> rereading everything Christie did, or P.D. James, or whatever.
>
Absolutely! I probably reread some books more than I relisten to CDs (I have
over 500 CDs and several of those haven't been heard in three or four years).
But I reread books whenever my library pile is gone, or my TBR (which is always
small because of $$) is gone. Any book I know don't want to reread goes to the
used bookstore after a few months, and any library book I realize I want to
reread, I will buy at a bookstore.
I only balk at buying hardcover books because I know that I could buy a couple
of paperbacks for the same money, and thus double or triple my reading
pleasure. CDs don't have the same option -- wait a year and then get a cheaper
version (and a more portable one, etc.).
Brigid
JaneHadd
>couple
>of paperbacks for the same money, and thus double or triple my reading
>pleasure. CDs don't have the same option -- wait a year and then get a
>cheaper
>version (and a more portable one, etc.).
>
>Brigid
Oh, I know.
But recently, I've been puzzling out the pricing process.
Books sell for a very tight margin over cost, especially when compared to
other "cultural products."
Do you know how those CD clubs will have deals where members can buy "all
the CDs in this catalogue"--literally hundreds, sometimest thousands, of
albums--for $2.99?
Well, guess what. They're not losing money. A CD is incredibly cheap to
produce, and it sells for something like 100 times its wholesale price when it
gets to the store--
But the wholesale price of a $20 book is $12--even with volume
discounting it would cost the retailer at least $8.
And book buyers would be infuriated if the retail price of books started
to reflect that kind of mark up.
And books would be completely unaffordable.
On the other hand, BECAUSE the difference between wholesale and retail
in book prices is so relatively small, stores--and especially small
stores--have a harder time making money from selling books than they do from
selling videos, video games, CDs, etc.
And then, add this--I don't know what the prices are like where you
live, but up here, a first run movie ticket for an adult costs $7.50 in the
evenings an $6.50 at the matinees.
And that same movie will show up at the second run houses in a matter
of weeks, for ticket prices of only $2 any time of the day or not.
But people still go to see first run movies in droves.
(And note--I'm NOT saying you should buy hardcovers. I'm asking what it
is about books that makes a broad general public think they're not worth much.)
Jane Haddam
Mystmoush
>>people, a book is a one-time pleasure. A CD, certainly, and usually a game
>>will be used many times over the year
>
> I agree--but that's a question, too.
>
> Take videotapes and DVDs of movies--which are closer to books in the kind
>of content they deliver.
>
> Most people I know won't read books more than once, but they'll buy a
>movie
>and watch it over and over again, and the video costs more than most
>paperbacks
>and sometimes as much as a hardcover.
>
>
> I do--I read things over and over and over again, when I like them.
>I've
>got some books that I read at least once a year, and I go through periods of
>rereading everything Christie did, or P.D. James, or whatever.
>
>"never"
>do this with books.
>
> It's almost as if even the people who buy books, and who claim to enjoy
>them, look on them as more work than fun.
>
> Jane Haddam
>
reread books - there's too many new ones out there I want to get at. I also
do not buy videos - if I really want to see a movie again, I'll rent it again.
I prefer the discovery of the new rather than re-visiting the familiar. There
are exceptions, of course, but most books that I buy I wind up giving away.
Eileeeeen from OH
Marga
JaneHadd <jane...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
<snip>
> The question is--WHY don't people read books more than once?
>
> I do--I read things over and over and over again, when I like
> been told flat out by people at conferences that they "never" do this with
books.
>
>
This is an idea that really interests me as I have heard so many people say
the same thing (they tend to look at me strangely when I say I have read
anything more than a dozen times)...and sad to say on this NG, the highest
percentages expressing such amazement to me are ALWAYS those who say they
read "a lot" and most of it is mysteries. Far higher percentages of those I
talk to who read SF or historical fiction and non-fiction (my other "reading
for pleasure" genres) understand the fun of discovering new nuances within a
work or revisiting "old friends" which can only come, IMO, from rereading a
book. Granted Sturgeon's law applies to a lot of what I read, but I've
never understood not wanting to go back, sometimes many times, to those
books that fall into the 5-10%.
So my questions is...Why would this attitude appear to be more prevalent in
the mystery reading community (if Jane's & my experiences are not unique)?.
marga
JaneHadd
>the mystery reading community (if Jane's & my experiences are not unique)?.
>marga
>
Well, to some extent, I would expect that there are a fair number of people
who read mysteries to find out who did it. Once they know who did it, there's
no longer any point in reading it.
I tend to find the whodunnit aspects of mysteries sort of pro forma--I
don't read to find out who did it, but to spend time in an imaginative
landscape--
I think that's a fancy way of saying that I like to star in my own movie
when I write, and I star in somebody else's when I read.
But I've heard the "I never reread books" thing from lots of people who do
not primarily read mysteries--I've heard it said about novels and nonfiction
both.
Jane Haddam
Carol Antrim
tuit, any more. Used to do it a lot when I was a teen and young adult. But
then I can't remember the last time I went to a movie...maybe The Godfather?
I do remember sitting thru a movie on video at my brothers about 5 years
ago. Good thing television isn't dependent on my viewing time (news, now and
then, and sometimes snips of PBS)...I do read a lot, though not as much as I
used to, (everything takes longer as I grow older!) mostly mysteries, but
because of this newsgroup I find I now have to cruise the fiction aisles
too...
So many books, so little time.
Caro
JaneHadd <jane...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000719112859...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
J.M. Aldrich
> The question is--WHY don't people read books more than once?
Too much mental effort? We were discussing this on absk (stephen king) when
a poster said she'd seen "The Green Mile" and loved the movie but was
finding the book hard going. (If you haven't read it, it's not that
difficult a book to read).
My personal opinion is that there's a whole generation hardwired for visual
images and who find it too hard to "build" the mental scenary an author
describes and would rather the director, cinematographer et al. do the work
for them.
That's my $.02 as far as movies v. books goes, any way. Comments?
jma
J.M. Aldrich
that I remember when I turned 16, my folks took me to a bookstore and said I
could buy $20.00 worth of books. In those days, $2.00 was a pretty
expensive paperback, so I cleaned up. If I did that now, I'd be lucky to
get away with two paperbacks. *sigh*
jma
(missing her dear, dead youth)
"JaneHadd" <jane...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000719073950...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
M.E.Tonkin
JaneHadd wrote:
> >I would guess part of the reason for those differences is that, for most
> >people, a book is a one-time pleasure. A CD, certainly, and usually a game
> >will be used many times over the year
>
> I agree--but that's a question, too.
>
> Take videotapes and DVDs of movies--which are closer to books in the kind
> of content they deliver.
>
> Most people I know won't read books more than once, but they'll buy a movie
> and watch it over and over again, and the video costs more than most paperbacks
> and sometimes as much as a hardcover.
>
> The question is--WHY don't people read books more than once?
>
> I do--I read things over and over and over again, when I like them. I've
> got some books that I read at least once a year, and I go through periods of
> rereading everything Christie did, or P.D. James, or whatever.
>
>
I would love to reread books I've enjoyed, but the lack of time, and the TBR
stack growing with new authors, or even new books by favorite authors, is
a big hindrance. Sure, I may not find anything I like as well as the books I've
already read, but if I don't read new authors, how will I find others I like? It's
a no-win situation.
MET
BLIND 321
>evenings an $6.50 at the matinees.
>
> And that same movie will show up at the second run houses in a matter
>of weeks, for ticket prices of only $2 any time of the day or not.
Answering just the movie part of this, distributors get 100% of the box office
for X amount of weeks, then 80%, then 50%. By the time the first run movie
makes it to the dollar theater, there is a nominal flat rate to the
distributor.
This is why popcorn costs sixteen dollars--that's the only place the theater
owner can make money.
KS
Bill Burgess
BLIND 321 wrote:
Your theater only charges $16?
BLIND 321
shhh--they think I'm eleven.
KS
Stuart Shiffman & Andi Shechter
4 fantastic historical mysteries. Her lead character was a dandy named
julian Kestrel; the books are set in 1820's England. Rich character
work, delves into class issues and well, beautifully written.
Kate died of leukemia at the age of 41.
Andi
MarinerC wrote:
>
> In article <3970F053...@home.com>, Stuart Shiffman & Andi Shechter
> <rosc...@home.com> writes:
> Tell me more about Kate Ross -- Never heard the name, but seems to be getting a
> positive reaction here.
>
> Ann in Ottawa
>
> >Every F*CKin day, dammit. Just reread DEVIL IN MUSIC. Damn, damn, DAMN!
> >Andi
> >
> >"No Doze !" wrote:
> >>
> >> BLIND 321 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Kate Ross.
> >> >
> >> > KS
--
Rosc...@home.com
http://members.home.net/roscoe10/
http://members.home.net/roscoe10/tshirts.html
"Better Living Through Cross-Hatching"
Stuart Shiffman & Andi Shechter
> As for the RBP Chandler pastiches, I thought they stunk. Even in it's
> original form, Chandler's "Poodle Springs" fragment was weak broth, and
> Parker reinterpreting Marlowe as more Spenser-like just didn't sit well with
> me. And the coy business in PERCHANCE TO DREAM, where Parker withholds any
> details or descriptions that would tell the reader precisely WHEN the story
> was supposed to be taking place just struck me as too cute by half.
They stunk I agree. while Parker wrote his doctoral dissertation on
Marlowe and Chandler,e tc. his style is SO distinctive that there was no
match in the writing. I found that he couldn't manage to keep from
doing Spenser dialogue. I thought both books were bad ideas.
Andi
Stuart Shiffman & Andi Shechter
I keep trying Parker, and keep facing disappointment. I've got Hugger
Mugger on reserve at the library cuz someone said "try it, it's like the
old days" so I will but man oh man, I stopped buying a while ago, even
though I used to jump at the chance to get the newest Spenser.
I still reread the first 8 or so books; there is almost no one who can
match him for dialogue, but I think I really gave up with one a whle
back where the margins seemed to be wider than the text.
Andi
> --
> Regards,
> Mark Luebker
> On AIM: mluebker
--
Mark Alan Miller
> complain that mass market paperbacks are "too expensive" at $5.99 to
$7.99
> routinely pay anywhere from $30 to $60 for a videogame.
I think people are looking at the cost of entertainment per hour. Many of
us read a book in 4 or 5 hours, and most books are not reread. Some of
them are handed on to someone else, or resold, but a lot just go onto the
shelf. Most people who buy computer games and video games get at least
tens of hours and often hundreds of hours of entertainment out of them.
The cost of computer games is development, not production. It costs hardly
anything to press a CD and stick it in a box. It takes a team of dozens of
programmers and graphic artists a year or more to produce a cutting-edge
computer game. Presently, putting out a computer game is even more of a
gamble than publishing a book. Only a very small percentage of computer
games recover their development costs, but the payoff when a game hits it
big because the profits are enormous once you've paid off the development
costs. Computer game companies are notoriously bad investments.
Mark Alan Miller
> The question is--WHY don't people read books more than once?
>
> I do--I read things over and over and over again, when I like them.
I've
> got some books that I read at least once a year, and I go through periods
of
> rereading everything Christie did, or P.D. James, or whatever.
>
> But I have been told flat out by people at conferences that they
"never"
> do this with books.
>
> It's almost as if even the people who buy books, and who claim to
enjoy
> them, look on them as more work than fun.
>
> Jane Haddam
I think other kinds of book are more likely to be reread than mysteries.
For many the suspense goes flat and the intellectual challenge of the
puzzle just isn't there the second time around. I rarely reread mysteries
because there are about 10,000 new books out there I know I'll love if I
can just find them. Fortunately, I can afford to buy hardcover, and do,
since delayed gratification is not my thing.
Mark Alan Miller
Mark Alan Miller
the
> evenings an $6.50 at the matinees.
>
> And that same movie will show up at the second run houses in a
matter
> of weeks, for ticket prices of only $2 any time of the day or not.
>
>
> (And note--I'm NOT saying you should buy hardcovers. I'm asking
what it
> is about books that makes a broad general public think they're not worth
much.)
The answer is to make the product cheaper. As much as many of us love the
feel of a hardcover book, e-books are coming and the publishing industry
had better start worrying if they aren't already (I'm sure they are,
actually). When the only cost of production is space on a web server and
transaction costs, prices will start to reflect how much readers value the
product and how much money the author and his publicist, editor, etc.
need/want to charge to keep putting out books. Profit margins will
increase dramatically and authors will benefit from never having anything
go out of print. Currently there are a couple of different competing
e-book formats, and I suspect neither of them will be the one in use in a
few years, but it's coming and sooner than most people expect. Jane, get
those out-of-print books ready so you can be the first on your block. You
have a potential audience right here.
Mark Alan Miller
JinxSpera
Every one I buy gets read by 2 other members of my family, 5 members of my
bridge club, then is passed on to a friend on the other side of town who passes
them on to her friends. I read all the ones they have bought. I buy hard covers
of ones I want to keep.
Looking for Valerie Wolzien's "Star Spangled Murder" to reread because of its
Acadia setting.
Jinx
Mark Alan Miller
"Constance S Marshall" <constance...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:WQrc5.1163$xX3.4...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> sarah Caudwell.
Absolutely. Inimitable. One of a handful of authors I would have liked to
have had over for a dinner party, though I believe she smoked heavily so
she would have had to stay out on the terrace. Anyone who hasn't
discovered her is in for a treat. Too bad she produced so little. Sigh.
Mark Alan Miller
BLIND 321
Well, la-dee-dah. How long do you think it takes to write a book?
And people complain about book prices, not video game prices.
Margaret Mitchell said all told she probably made two cents an hour for writing
Gone With the Wind.
KS
BLIND 321
>1.5-2 hours, max. and a computer game lasts as long or short a time
>as you are willing to give to it. maybe it's the TIME factor that
>people are dealing with?????
I think the point is that people in general do not place as much VALUE on books
as they do movies or games.
At least, that's how it seems to me.
KS
JaneHadd
>books
>as they do movies or games.
>
>At least, that's how it seems to me.
>
>KS
Well, let me throw something out here.
First, the time thing alone doesn't explain much for me--you'd think you'd
be willing to pay more for an experience that lasted longer.
Second, I think it has something to do with a phenomenon I call The Idea
Guy.
Any person who has published a book, or even a few articles or short
stories, has met The Idea Guy.
This is the guy who, when you're introduced at a party, says, "You're a
writer? Listen, I've got a great idea for a book and I'm looking for somebody
to write it for me. I mean, the writing's the easy part, right? It's the
ideas that are hard to come up with."
In other words: a general feeling that writing doesn't take much skill,
it doesn't take much knowledge, and anybody can do it.
Mark Allen Miller is willing to pay more for video games because he's
impressed with the amount of work and difficulty in writing one, and apparently
has no idea that even a so-so book takes at least a year of work and a good
one, if it's the long and complicated kind, can take as much as five years.
Somebody, I don't remember who, used to meet the habitual "You're a
writer? I'm thinking about trying my hand at writing some day" with "You are?
I'm thinking about trying my hand at brain surgery."
If you see what I'm getting at here.
Jane Haddam
BLIND 321
>sitting on their bookshelves 35 years on?
>
>Mique
How many people would spend $60 on a really good book?
KS
bill walsh
> >I think the point is that people in general do not place as much VALUE on
> >books as they do movies or games.
> >
> >At least, that's how it seems to me.
> >
> >KS
Well, at the risk of quantifying, let's look at what values people put on
them by what they're willing to pay (all numbers rounded significant and
fairly arbitrarily):
$50 -- computer game, developed over years by a team of people, avg. 50-60
hrs. of use (but reusable)
$30 -- hardback book, developed over years by one person, avg., 10 hrs. of
use (reusable)
$20 -- DVD/video -- like movie, (reusable)
$8 -- movie, probably fewer years, but more people, avg., 90 minutes of
use (single-use)
$6 -- paperback, one person, several years, say 10 hours. (Reusable, but
bought more often because of disposability.)
So, you could argue that on a scale, hardback books are fairly well valued
in terms of the entertainment dollar. (Measuring book buyers vs.
computer-game or movie buyers.)
BUT, on the other hand, the NUMBER of people who buy books (of any sort)
versus the number who turn out on the first weekend of a big movie (or
watch Oprah, or listen to Rush Limbaugh, or play Pokémon, etc.) is almost
infinitesimal. Books rank very low on Americans' entertainment options.
But it's been ever thus. John Steinbeck was once shocked to see that one
of his novels sold more COPIES in Denmark than the U.S., which had twenty
or fifty times the population at the time.
Maybe at some point, there will be a revival of the "middle-brow",
creating a culturally aspirational mass movement, but I don't see any
signs of it at the moment, when movies and TV seem to be intent on
treating the _vulgus_ to the vulgar.
bill walsh
ott...@mindspring.com
JaneHadd
>creating a culturally aspirational mass movement, but I don't see any
>signs of it at the moment, when movies and TV seem to be intent on
>treating the _vulgus_ to the vulgar.
>
Well, I'd love to think that books are better than that, but the fact is a
number of them are just as vulgar as any movie, and a lot of books are even
more vulgar--think American Psycho.
But yes--people in the US do not read, in general, possibly because
they're taught to do it badly. I teach at a small local university on and off,
and it's breathtaking how much difficulty some of my students have, and they're
hardly bottom of the barrel.
But a number of things interest me about the people who DO read.
One is that, unlike music, movies and even video games, there does not
seem to be a significant segment of the reading public who value writing for
the things writers value it for.
Most of the people I know who are really into jazz, for instance, or
movies, are also really proud to be able to appreciate the form stylistically,
to know something about the aesthetic theory connected to the art, etc. It's
not enough to enjoy the jazz, or the movies. They have to know something about
the form, the history, the history of criticism.
I can't think of a talk I've given anywhere, except once in New York,
that has brought out that kind of focus in an audience. I can't think of a
talk I've GONE to anywhere that's brought out that kind of focus in a book
audience, and that includes some fairly highbrow literary things in the city.
Writers value writing for a lot of things that have to do with the
construction of prose, with inference, with style, with allusions, with
technique, with effect, etc--but readers tend to say "I don't want to be
bothered with all that. I just want to be entertained."
I have no idea why this is so. There doesn't seem to me to be anything
in particular about writing that would make the other kind of approach more
difficult than it is with jazz or movies.
The other thing I wonder is how much of this has to do with heightened
worries about snobbism--
There's a weird undercurrent in American culture that to know too much
about books and literature--to be "too well" educated--is "elitist" and
therefore somehow "bad."
I feel like I'm blithering on here.
But I'm still stuck by a young woman I had in class last term who got
very angry with me for having assigned a short story by Alice Walker because,
"when I read, I want to be entertained. I don't want a downer."
Jane Haddam
Mystmoush
>
>shhh--they think I'm eleven.
>
>KS
Till you open your mouth.
Eileeeen from OH
BLIND 321
>
>KS
Till you open your mouth.
Eileeeen from OH
>>
That's my secret!
KS
Mystmoush
>>books
>>as they do movies or games.
>>
>>At least, that's how it seems to me.
>>
>>KS
>
a friend who does voiceovers - commercial and industrials. You can bet he
gets the "I could do that. What an easy way to make a living." crap all the
time. And he gets barraged with people who want to know 'how to get started'
because someone somewhere told them they had a great voice. Takes a helluva
lot more than that. He's always gracious (or more gracious than I would be,
tho that ain't tough.)
Eileeeeen from OH
LHeilb8013
never understood not wanting to go back, sometimes many times, to those
books that fall into the 5-10%.>So my questions is...
Why would this attitude appear to be more prevalent in
>the mystery reading community (if Jane's & my experiences are not unique)?.
>marga
Perhaps, because when you know the ending it is no longer a mystery?:):)
Lloyd Heilbrunn
LHeilb8013
>complain that mass market paperbacks are "too expensive" at $5.99 to $7.99
Haddam
Yea, I was astonished at paying almost $30 two days ago for 3 PBs (even tho one
was a $13 Black Lizard). I don't know if one gets a comparable entertainment
$$/Hr. for books compared to the average computer game tho........most PBs
probably take me about 10-15 reading hours and most computer games give 50 +
hrs of play. Both are GREAT deals compared to the $$/Hr. of movies, sporting
events or live entertaiment.........
Lloyd Heilbrunn
JaneHadd
>have
>a friend who does voiceovers - commercial and industrials.
Oh, yeah.
But at least the people who do that have a voice and they talk.
The chief characteristic of The Idea Guy is that he NEVER actually writes
anything. He doesn't want to write anything. He wants you to write it for
him.
Because writing isn't important, only Ideas are.
Jane Haddam
LGH
> Most of the people I know who are really into jazz, for instance, or
> movies, are also really proud to be able to appreciate the form stylistically,
> to know something about the aesthetic theory connected to the art, etc. It's
> not enough to enjoy the jazz, or the movies. They have to know something about
> the form, the history, the history of criticism.'
Snip
> Writers value writing for a lot of things that have to do with the
> construction of prose, with inference, with style, with allusions, with
> technique, with effect, etc--but readers tend to say "I don't want to be
> bothered with all that. I just want to be entertained."
>
I was an English major; my degree is in English. I know about the form, the
history, the history of criticism (or I used to anyway). And though I could
analyze away (at that time) in regard to all those things of which you speak, I
always felt afterward that I was left with an eviscerated corpse. For me, it is
the highest praise that a book (or a piece of music or a movie or a play)
entertains me. So few things do these days. When I'm with people who leave the
theatre or a concert, scalpels poised, prepared to analyze the piece to death, I
run in the opposite direction as fast as I can.
That said, I would suspect, though, that I would find NO book entertaining if it
did NOT contain good writing, well-constructed prose, and attention to style,
technique, allusions, etc. I'm sure I'd notice real fast were those things not
there. I just don't want to have to think about it. (Which, of course, is why
authors like Jane Haddam are on my "A" list.)
Lois
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> ...while Parker wrote his doctoral dissertation on Marlowe and Chandler,etc. his
> style is SO distinctive that there was no match in the writing. I found that he
> couldn't manage to keep from doing Spenser dialogue. I thought both books were
> bad ideas.
I tracked down a copy of his dissertation some years back. YIKES! Talk about dull,
dry reading! (But aren't they all?)
As for Parker not being able to write anything but Spenser's dialogue no matter
whose mouth it's supposed to be coming out of, I suspect he COULD have done a LOT
more credible Marlowe in his earlier years, before Spenser had become such a
distinctive voice, and when Parker himself was still exhibiting more of Chandler's
influence in his own fiction writing.
Nan Eklund
Well, I do. Sometimes many, many times.
I have all of Dick Francis and probably reread most of them annually. Just
came across Hanson (Dave Brandstetter, insurance investigator) in the library
and took all of them out and reread them..Good, too. I ran across some
reference to Dorothy Sayers recently and pulled out Gaudy Night and Busmans
Honeymoon. Again - wonderful to revisit.
If we like steak, we eat it often, don't we?
If we like flowers, do we get tired of smelling roses?
Mark Luebker & Kathleen Fairfax
> I keep trying Parker, and keep facing disappointment. I've got Hugger
> Mugger on reserve at the library cuz someone said "try it, it's like the
> old days" so I will but man oh man, I stopped buying a while ago, even
> though I used to jump at the chance to get the newest Spenser.
I, too, used to be there the day the new Spenser came out in hardcover, and I
recall one time even reading the entire book while I sat in my car in the parking
lot outside the mall. That had to be nearly 20 years ago, though.
Now, I not only pass up the hardcovers, I don't even bother to get on the waiting
list at the library. I just wait for the paperback, and it usually sits in the TBR
pile until I've gotten through stuff that I'm more anxious to read.
That said, I still enjoy Parker's writing, and I find myself enjoying the Spenser
books in a mild kind of way that may have more to do with familiarity than with
gripping storytelling.
Anyway, as for HUGGER MUGGER, the reviews on the Spenser list have been pretty
lukewarm over all, with one of the major complaints being no Hawk. Obviously, I
haven't read it yet, but none of the talk about it has encouraged me to change my
plan to wait for the PB.
Meanwhile, the Spenser listers are going to reread the entire Parker Spenser
oeuvre in order, beginning with THE GODWULF MANUSCRIPT in August. THAT, I'm
looking forward to!
> I still reread the first 8 or so books; there is almost no one who can
> match him for dialogue, but I think I really gave up with one a whle
> back where the margins seemed to be wider than the text.
There seems to be a growing consensus among both fans and former fans that
Parker's in his twilight years and cranking the stuff out for the money these
days. Any real departure from the formulas of the past 10-15 years would risk
alienating his core readership, and you know he's not going to do that.
Greenbanks
> I ran across some
>reference to Dorothy Sayers recently and pulled out Gaudy Night and Busmans
>Honeymoon. Again - wonderful to revisit.
>Nan Eklund
There are a few authors, Sayers among them, who I plan to reread... one day.
But there are so many things I haven't read yet, that I can't count on visiting
many books a second time...
As a child and a teen I did read favorites over and over... I have, in my adult
years, read one novel three times. I have several on my shelves which I hope
to get around to again, but many more which must be read for the first time.
And these lovely authors just keep writing more!
M'Lou
No Doze !
I stretch my book money by buying used and remaindered books. I still by
ny favorites new, but there are far too many books I want to read to pay
retail. Most cities have some good used book stores and even thrift
stores can turn up good finds for cheap. Tonight I found and bought the
29 volume set of Crime and Punishment for ten bucks. All sorts of true
crime fun.
Jon
David Spera
"Cheryl L. Perkins" wrote:
> I know people who don't re-read, too, though. I can't understand it. If
> you really enjoy a book, why not re-read it? I find a lot depends on my
> mood - sometimes, nothing in my TBR pile or my in use pile really appeals
> to me, so I pick out a suitable old favourite.
>
Several reasons.
Most of the books I read are passed on to others or returned to others.
The main reason thought is that I have to many books in my TBR stack and too many new
arthors to discover. I also have to work! Too bad I'm not rich enough to retire yet!