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)

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)