Talk:Crime fiction

books to add here -- plus a PS

Hmmm, I know I wrote this somewhere else but you didn't reply. The question is whether we add what *we* think are famous books, which might mean adding 25 Hercule Poirots and 16 James Patterson, etc., with everyone in the world adding what he/she considers to be "famous". Or, what *I* personally think, is that there should be *one* per character at the most. One for Poirot, one for Miss Marple, sure. But only one for Sherlock. My own suggestion would be to list the *first* appearance of their famous detective (if there *is* one, of course). Someone like Patricia Highsmith is tricky: "Strangers on a Train" or "The Talented Mr. Ripley"? But I *definitely think we shouldn't have three Poirot books here. I myself like Carter Dickson's Sir Henry Merrivale better -- I'd want to list three of *his* books. Plus three by John Dickson Carr about Dr. Fell. Etc. This way lies madness....

PS -- the problem is: there's a discussion going on at Discussion and this one here at Talk. What a dumb system! Hayford Peirce 01:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(ad PS) We discussed "prominent" authors. I did not notice this remark. I think that at least discussions on particular books belong there. While discussing "policy" may fit here.

I definitely agree that this list is only useful when it only contains a selection (lists of all booka with one character or by one author belong to the article on the character or author). But what book (or how many)? For some authors it will be justified to have more than one book (Christie: Poirot, Miss Marple, and certainly also "Ten little niggers" - I am not so sure about a Tuppence novel). To take the first novel would be a clearly defined rule, but not fit the "famous books". It is better, I think, to choose a book which is famous and could be the most famous. Sometimes, in exceptional cases, even two books could be tolerated, I think. (I would not use the number of sold books as the only criterion.) This may be not allowed on WP, but I think CZ can live with it. --Peter Schmitt 01:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What you say is, of course, very reasonable. Let's say this: on the Famous detectives page we will use the FIRST appearance. For Famous books we will try to use our mature judgment as to what fits. For Christie, I do agree that we should have one Marple, one Poirot, and Ten Little. Tommy and Tuppence really aren't very famous. At some point I imagine we will argue about what "famous" means, but we can let that go for the moment. Hammett should probably have a Thin Man book also. Hayford Peirce 02:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean first written, first published or first in internal chronology? Peter Jackson 10:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For Famous books it's the date of the first book publication, not the date of the first appearance, as in a magazine. For Famous detectives my *proposal* is to list the dates of appearances (in books) for that particular detective, by the publication dates of those books. Ie, for Sir Henry Merrivale, his first book appearance was in 1934, his last book appearance was 1953. Hmmm, I've gotta correct that, there was a short story written about him around 1955 and that story then turned up in a collection of short stories around 1960 or so. I'll have to look it up and change it in the Catalog.... Hayford Peirce 16:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is useful to distinguish between book and magazine appearance. Perhaps for "famous books" (but I would say that there is no need to change the title even if magazine dates were used.)

But for "famous detectives" I would take the first and the last appearance (anywhere) -- with "unpublished" (but later) stories counting when they were written.

In addition, I think that the place (and time) where they are active should be added, too.

--Peter Schmitt 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right -- I got confused by the Famous book catalog. Even without martinis or Scotch it's hard for me to keep all these damn catalogs straight sometimes.... The appearance dates of the detectives is what counts, so if Bob Smith only had book appearances between 1965 and 1975 but dozens of short stories about him in EQMM during the 1980s, then the dates should be 1965-1989, say.... Hayford Peirce 00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Choke! Splutter! Growl!

Sayers a yawner?! Them's fighting words, Peirce! Aleta Curry 02:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the WP article about her? I'm the guy, years ago, who put in the comments by Edmund Wilson -- I think they're still there. Fifty years ago, when I was reading all of them, I thought he was crazy. Then 20 years later I realized that he was absolutely right.... (Yawn, gotta go off to bed, just *thinkin'* of Bunter, his Lordship, Harriet, and the others makes me almost comatose....) Hayford Peirce 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Mr Wilson's comments; I shall have to check 'em out. 'Tis best to know the enemy...! Aleta Curry 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what: you write an article about Dorothy, maybe only the necessary 50 words to get started, and *I* shall put in a couple hundred well-chosen words by Mr. Wilson, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's *wicked*! You think I'm not up to the challenge? :) Aleta Curry 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my dear old hat! I feel absolutely giddy at the prospect, doncha know, wot, wot? (Lord Peter-type talk....) Hayford Peirce 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Touche, but you know I couldn't let that lie! Aleta Curry 01:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, well, I'll be polishing up my Edmund Wilsonisms.... Hayford Peirce 01:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Wilson was a myopic git. Reminds me of Simon Cowell's borderline racist comments when Fantasia Barrino turned in a stylish, elegant performance on American Idol some years ago (back when AI was still novel and good). Those of small mind and weak understanding always expect others to be one-trick ponies! Aleta Curry 02:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, ladies are always permitted to have the last line, and I have to agree with you that E. Wilson sure had his faults. (Including being a drunk and slappin' his wives around.) I sure *hated* his assessments of mystery stories 50 years ago! (PS, you tried to Edit Conflict me out by adding your indent -- which I had already fixed!) Hayford Peirce 02:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops! If it makes you feel any better, I've been on the receiving end of a good few Edit Conflicts the last two days! It's a GOOD thing! Aleta Curry 02:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)