Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GAdetection] Patrick Quentin

Expand Messages
  • Mark McGlone
    I m a fan too. I ve been reading the Jonathan Stagge s lately and like them a lot, but now I ve read all the affordable ones. I wish someone would republish
    Message 1 of 24 , May 11, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm a fan too.

      I've been reading the Jonathan Stagge's lately and like them a lot, but now I've read all the affordable ones. I wish someone would republish them.

      I read some of the ones written under the Patrick Quentin name a few years back and liked them too, but just recently I read PUZZLE FOR PILGRIMS for the first time and didn't like it at all. Too dark, not enough mystery and populated by unlikable characters feeling bitter and sorry for themselves.

      Mark McGlone


      On May 11, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Last Century Detective wrote:

      >
      >
      > I'm a fan. This group was pretty one-note in recommending Patrick Quentin when I asked for American Golden Age mystery writers, prompting me to order a few of their books, and thought DEATH AND THE MAIDEN and BLACK WIDOW were absolute gems.
      >
      > I still have PUZZLE FOR PILGRIMS and RUN TO DEATH on the pile, but I'm afraid to touch them because they are apparently all noir without the cleverness of the earlier books.
      >
      > --- In GAdetection@yahoogroups.com, "Vegetableduck" <praed_street@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > I do. I think most who have read him do!
      > >
      > > Curt
      > >
      > > --- In GAdetection@yahoogroups.com, luis molina <lrmolina47@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I have finished reading the Dr. Westlake novels The Scarlet Circle,Death, My Darling Daughters,���Death's Old Sweet Song.
      > > > I enjoyed them. Who else likes quentin?
      > > >
      > > > ���
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Patrick O
      Nick, I m sending this e-mail off-list to you because it s very much off-topic and I d prefer not to start a public free-for-all. (I m also wondering if you
      Message 2 of 24 , May 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Nick,

        I'm sending this e-mail off-list to you because it's very much off-topic and I'd prefer not to start a public free-for-all. (I'm also wondering if you accidentally sent it to the whole list...)


        Basically, your wording makes it sound as if you equate a lack of critical faculty with religious faith. I'm a devout Catholic myself (right down to the no meat on Friday thing, though I am thankful that fish doesn't count as meat or else I doubt I'd have survived to this day). I am also a science student who wishes to become a pharmacist. I also think my critical faculties are in pretty good condition. And I see no contradiction whatsoever.My love of reason springs precisely from my faith, and like you I have little patience for people who reject that annoying little thing called logic.There's sadly a lot of hateful bigots in the world who cloak themselves in religion as their moral justification, but they do not influence me or my religious beliefs-- I'm very embarassed to be even remotely associated with such people. But there are also many anti-religious bigots, but hell, I don't want to start a list of so-and-so said this-and-that. Ignorance is
        everywhere under the sun and stupidity isn't proportional to religious beliefs.


        Hopefully I'm just being over-reactive and that wasn't what you meant, but I did feel like I should address it.

        Best,
        Patrick



        ________________________________
        From: Nick Fuller <nicodemus_au@...>
        To: "GAdetection@yahoogroups.com" <GAdetection@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 4:09:17 AM
        Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Edgar Box/Gore Vidal, Death in the Fifth Position (1952) (The Passing Tramp)


         
        What?  I've been an agnostic for the last few years!    I never surrendered my critical faculties either.

        OK, I was an Anglican from 2004 to 2006 - largely, I suspect, because I was at a very low point in my life, & wanted some sort of structure.  The church I attended was liberal - the priest was an intellectual & eminently sensible woman who thought that the Bible was largely allegory, & whose sermons were thought-provoking.  (I attended a few Protestant services at a friend's church, but thought they were inane - biblical literalism coupled with a lot of simplistic talk about love & hellfire.)

        My attitude even then was that the Bible was an attempt by human beings to understand the workings of the numinous through history; that Jesus was probably not divine, but a human being in touch with the divine; & that a good life had nothing to do with people's faith, but with their actions.  (The Spong theory.)  I couldn't accept the idea of penal substitution, or damnation, unless God was a cosmic sadist.  I knew more about Christianity than any other religion, & it made sense to attend a church that was part of my cultural heritage; had I been of Arab or Indian background, I would have attended a mosque or a Hindu temple.

        However, I realised that I couldn't make an intellectual commitment to Christianity.  Although the story is powerful, the New Testament is historically dubious, inconsistent, & draws on various myths from around the region.  This had been an issue even before I converted: the New Testament relies on the assumption that the Old Testament is true; however, much of the Old Testament is fiction - if the Fall & the Covenant never happened, then where does that leave the New Testament?  And what proof was there for the existence of God at all?

        Now, I will cheerfully admit that there are many religious people who have done good in the world, and who are pleasant, intelligent human beings.   However, I was frustrated by the way in which religion led to intolerance & ignorance.  A lot of devoutly religious people are bigots*, believe it is their duty to proselytise, want to remodel society on theocratic principles, believe that man is nothing but a lowly worm unworthy of God's love, and dismiss scientific truth.  (I have little patience with people who reject reason, objectivity, & evidence - which is why I don't have much time for either Post-Modernism or Buddhism.)  Their lives & the decisions they make are governed not by common sense & intelligence, but by the dictates of their faith.  And such people are often dangerous.
        *: The character of the worshippers, of course, neither proves nor disproves religion.

        So, in conclusion, I would call myself an agnostic, leaning towards Dawkins & Hitchens.

        Nick

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Patrick O
        Deepest apologies to all for the email. My computer apparently decided to hell with this reply-to-sender nonsense...
        Message 3 of 24 , May 11, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Deepest apologies to all for the email. My computer apparently decided to hell with this reply-to-sender nonsense...


          ------------------------------
          On Fri, 11 May, 2012 7:03 PM EDT Patrick O wrote:

          >Nick,
          >
          >I'm sending this e-mail off-list to you because it's very much off-topic and I'd prefer not to start a public free-for-all. (I'm also wondering if you accidentally sent it to the whole list...)
          >
          >
          >Basically, your wording makes it sound as if you equate a lack of critical faculty with religious faith. I'm a devout Catholic myself (right down to the no meat on Friday thing, though I am thankful that fish doesn't count as meat or else I doubt I'd have survived to this day). I am also a science student who wishes to become a pharmacist. I also think my critical faculties are in pretty good condition. And I see no contradiction whatsoever.My love of reason springs precisely from my faith, and like you I have little patience for people who reject that annoying little thing called logic.There's sadly a lot of hateful bigots in the world who cloak themselves in religion as their moral justification, but they do not influence me or my religious beliefs-- I'm very embarassed to be even remotely associated with such people. But there are also many anti-religious bigots, but hell, I don't want to start a list of so-and-so said this-and-that. Ignorance is
          > everywhere under the sun and stupidity isn't proportional to religious beliefs.
          >
          >
          >Hopefully I'm just being over-reactive and that wasn't what you meant, but I did feel like I should address it.
          >
          >Best,
          >Patrick
          >
          >
          >
          >________________________________
          > From: Nick Fuller <nicodemus_au@...>
          >To: "GAdetection@yahoogroups.com" <GAdetection@yahoogroups.com>
          >Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 4:09:17 AM
          >Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Edgar Box/Gore Vidal, Death in the Fifth Position (1952) (The Passing Tramp)
          >
          >

          >What?  I've been an agnostic for the last few years!    I never surrendered my critical faculties either.
          >
          >OK, I was an Anglican from 2004 to 2006 - largely, I suspect, because I was at a very low point in my life, & wanted some sort of structure.  The church I attended was liberal - the priest was an intellectual & eminently sensible woman who thought that the Bible was largely allegory, & whose sermons were thought-provoking.  (I attended a few Protestant services at a friend's church, but thought they were inane - biblical literalism coupled with a lot of simplistic talk about love & hellfire.)
          >
          >My attitude even then was that the Bible was an attempt by human beings to understand the workings of the numinous through history; that Jesus was probably not divine, but a human being in touch with the divine; & that a good life had nothing to do with people's faith, but with their actions.  (The Spong theory.)  I couldn't accept the idea of penal substitution, or damnation, unless God was a cosmic sadist.  I knew more about Christianity than any other religion, & it made sense to attend a church that was part of my cultural heritage; had I been of Arab or Indian background, I would have attended a mosque or a Hindu temple.
          >
          >However, I realised that I couldn't make an intellectual commitment to Christianity.  Although the story is powerful, the New Testament is historically dubious, inconsistent, & draws on various myths from around the region.  This had been an issue even before I converted: the New Testament relies on the assumption that the Old Testament is true; however, much of the Old Testament is fiction - if the Fall & the Covenant never happened, then where does that leave the New Testament?  And what proof was there for the existence of God at all?
          >
          >Now, I will cheerfully admit that there are many religious people who have done good in the world, and who are pleasant, intelligent human beings.   However, I was frustrated by the way in which religion led to intolerance & ignorance.  A lot of devoutly religious people are bigots*, believe it is their duty to proselytise, want to remodel society on theocratic principles, believe that man is nothing but a lowly worm unworthy of God's love, and dismiss scientific truth.  (I have little patience with people who reject reason, objectivity, & evidence - which is why I don't have much time for either Post-Modernism or Buddhism.)  Their lives & the decisions they make are governed not by common sense & intelligence, but by the dictates of their faith.  And such people are often dangerous.
          >*: The character of the worshippers, of course, neither proves nor disproves religion.
          >
          >So, in conclusion, I would call myself an agnostic, leaning towards Dawkins & Hitchens.
          >
          >Nick
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Vegetableduck
          Don t worry about it, Patrick, I take the blame for starting the topic, lol! I sent you a private reply. Really. ;) I m sure Gore Vidal would be smiling over
          Message 4 of 24 , May 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Don't worry about it, Patrick, I take the blame for starting the topic, lol!

            I sent you a private reply. Really. ;)

            I'm sure Gore Vidal would be smiling over all this!

            Curt

            --- In GAdetection@yahoogroups.com, Patrick O <go_leafs_nation@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Deepest apologies to all for the email. My computer apparently decided to hell with this reply-to-sender nonsense...
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------
            > On Fri, 11 May, 2012 7:03 PM EDT Patrick O wrote:
            >
            > >Nick,
            > >
            > >I'm sending this e-mail off-list to you because it's very much off-topic and I'd prefer not to start a public free-for-all. (I'm also wondering if you accidentally sent it to the whole list...)
            > >
            > >
            > >Basically, your wording makes it sound as if you equate a lack of critical faculty with religious faith. I'm a devout Catholic myself (right down to the no meat on Friday thing, though I am thankful that fish doesn't count as meat or else I doubt I'd have survived to this day). I am also a science student who wishes to become a pharmacist. I also think my critical faculties are in pretty good condition. And I see no contradiction whatsoever.My love of reason springs precisely from my faith, and like you I have little patience for people who reject that annoying little thing called logic.There's sadly a lot of hateful bigots in the world who cloak themselves in religion as their moral justification, but they do not influence me or my religious beliefs-- I'm very embarassed to be even remotely associated with such people. But there are also many anti-religious bigots, but hell, I don't want to start a list of so-and-so said this-and-that. Ignorance is
            > > everywhere under the sun and stupidity isn't proportional to religious beliefs.
            > >
            > >
            > >Hopefully I'm just being over-reactive and that wasn't what you meant, but I did feel like I should address it.
            > >
            > >Best,
            > >Patrick
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >________________________________
            > > From: Nick Fuller <nicodemus_au@...>
            > >To: "GAdetection@yahoogroups.com" <GAdetection@yahoogroups.com>
            > >Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 4:09:17 AM
            > >Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Edgar Box/Gore Vidal, Death in the Fifth Position (1952) (The Passing Tramp)
            > >
            > >
            > > 
            > >What?  I've been an agnostic for the last few years!    I never surrendered my critical faculties either.
            > >
            > >OK, I was an Anglican from 2004 to 2006 - largely, I suspect, because I was at a very low point in my life, & wanted some sort of structure.  The church I attended was liberal - the priest was an intellectual & eminently sensible woman who thought that the Bible was largely allegory, & whose sermons were thought-provoking.  (I attended a few Protestant services at a friend's church, but thought they were inane - biblical literalism coupled with a lot of simplistic talk about love & hellfire.)
            > >
            > >My attitude even then was that the Bible was an attempt by human beings to understand the workings of the numinous through history; that Jesus was probably not divine, but a human being in touch with the divine; & that a good life had nothing to do with people's faith, but with their actions.  (The Spong theory.)  I couldn't accept the idea of penal substitution, or damnation, unless God was a cosmic sadist.  I knew more about Christianity than any other religion, & it made sense to attend a church that was part of my cultural heritage; had I been of Arab or Indian background, I would have attended a mosque or a Hindu temple.
            > >
            > >However, I realised that I couldn't make an intellectual commitment to Christianity.  Although the story is powerful, the New Testament is historically dubious, inconsistent, & draws on various myths from around the region.  This had been an issue even before I converted: the New Testament relies on the assumption that the Old Testament is true; however, much of the Old Testament is fiction - if the Fall & the Covenant never happened, then where does that leave the New Testament?  And what proof was there for the existence of God at all?
            > >
            > >Now, I will cheerfully admit that there are many religious people who have done good in the world, and who are pleasant, intelligent human beings.   However, I was frustrated by the way in which religion led to intolerance & ignorance.  A lot of devoutly religious people are bigots*, believe it is their duty to proselytise, want to remodel society on theocratic principles, believe that man is nothing but a lowly worm unworthy of God's love, and dismiss scientific truth.  (I have little patience with people who reject reason, objectivity, & evidence - which is why I don't have much time for either Post-Modernism or Buddhism.)  Their lives & the decisions they make are governed not by common sense & intelligence, but by the dictates of their faith.  And such people are often dangerous.
            > >*: The character of the worshippers, of course, neither proves nor disproves religion.
            > >
            > >So, in conclusion, I would call myself an agnostic, leaning towards Dawkins & Hitchens.
            > >
            > >Nick
            > >
            > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
          • Nick Fuller
            Yeah, I thought Death and the Maiden was brilliant.  Still haven t got round to reading Murder at Cambridge yet.  Why aren t they as well known as, say, Carr
            Message 5 of 24 , May 11, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Yeah, I thought Death and the Maiden was brilliant.  Still haven't got round to reading Murder at Cambridge yet.  Why aren't they as well known as, say, Carr or Queen?



              ________________________________
              From: Vegetableduck <praed_street@...>
              To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2012 5:21 AM
              Subject: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin


               
              I do. I think most who have read him do!

              Curt

              --- In GAdetection@yahoogroups.com, luis molina <lrmolina47@...> wrote:
              >
              > I have finished reading the Dr. Westlake novels The Scarlet Circle,Death, My Darling Daughters, Death's Old Sweet Song.
              > I enjoyed them. Who else likes quentin?
              >
              >  
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • curt evans
              They never seem to have been elevated that category. Probably the multiple authors didnt help! People like to have something of a persona. Curt From: Nick
              Message 6 of 24 , May 12, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                They never seem to have been elevated that category. Probably the multiple authors didnt help! People like to have something of a persona.

                Curt

                From: Nick Fuller
                Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:52 PM
                To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin


                Yeah, I thought Death and the Maiden was brilliant. Still haven't got round to reading Murder at Cambridge yet. Why aren't they as well known as, say, Carr or Queen?

                ________________________________
                From: Vegetableduck <mailto:praed_street%40comcast.net>
                To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2012 5:21 AM
                Subject: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin



                I do. I think most who have read him do!

                Curt

                --- In mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com, luis molina <lrmolina47@...> wrote:
                >
                > I have finished reading the Dr. Westlake novels The Scarlet Circle,Death, My Darling Daughters, Death's Old Sweet Song.
                > I enjoyed them. Who else likes quentin?
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ronald Smyth
                Yes, the multiple authors doubtless explains why Ellery Queen never became well known.  :) Ron Smyth ________________________________ From: curt evans
                Message 7 of 24 , May 12, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes, the multiple authors doubtless explains why Ellery Queen never became well known.  :)
                  Ron Smyth


                  ________________________________
                  From: curt evans <praed_street@...>
                  To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:40:28 AM
                  Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin



                   

                  They never seem to have been elevated that category. Probably the multiple authors didnt help! People like to have something of a persona.

                  Curt

                  From: Nick Fuller
                  Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:52 PM
                  To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin

                  Yeah, I thought Death and the Maiden was brilliant. Still haven't got round to reading Murder at Cambridge yet. Why aren't they as well known as, say, Carr or Queen?

                  ________________________________
                  From: Vegetableduck <mailto:praed_street%40comcast.net>
                  To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2012 5:21 AM
                  Subject: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin

                  I do. I think most who have read him do!

                  Curt

                  --- In mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com, luis molina <lrmolina47@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I have finished reading the Dr. Westlake novels The Scarlet Circle,Death, My Darling Daughters, Death's Old Sweet Song.
                  > I enjoyed them. Who else likes quentin?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • curt evans
                  LOL Ron, right! But the Ellery Queen authors, Lee and Dannay, had a persona, both as EQ and themselves! Who really knew much about the Patrick Quentin authors
                  Message 8 of 24 , May 12, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    LOL Ron, right!

                    But the Ellery Queen authors, Lee and Dannay, had a persona, both as EQ and themselves! Who really knew much about the Patrick Quentin authors (although one of them in the 1970s became quite prominent in the field of the musical)? There was that whole confusing succession. We had a discussion of this here a year and a half ago, where we were trying to untangle the whole authorship question, it was very confusing.

                    And then there were all the different pseudonyms! And, yes, I know EQ had Barnaby Ross! But that was always subsidiary and anyway their authorship of the Ross became known rather quickly, didnt it?

                    Or maybe the EQ books are just that much better than the PQ/QP books, but I do agree with people, they seem rather good to me.

                    Jeffrey Marks and I were throwing around doing a book on the PQ/QP people. Maybe some day....I think they deserve one.

                    Curt

                    From: Ronald Smyth
                    Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 8:38 AM
                    To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin


                    Yes, the multiple authors doubtless explains why Ellery Queen never became well known. :)
                    Ron Smyth


                    ________________________________
                    From: curt evans <mailto:praed_street%40comcast.net>
                    To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:40:28 AM
                    Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin




                    They never seem to have been elevated that category. Probably the multiple authors didnt help! People like to have something of a persona.

                    Curt

                    From: Nick Fuller
                    Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:52 PM
                    To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin

                    Yeah, I thought Death and the Maiden was brilliant. Still haven't got round to reading Murder at Cambridge yet. Why aren't they as well known as, say, Carr or Queen?

                    ________________________________
                    From: Vegetableduck <mailto:praed_street%40comcast.net>
                    To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2012 5:21 AM
                    Subject: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin

                    I do. I think most who have read him do!

                    Curt

                    --- In mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com, luis molina <lrmolina47@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I have finished reading the Dr. Westlake novels The Scarlet Circle,Death, My Darling Daughters, Death's Old Sweet Song.
                    > I enjoyed them. Who else likes quentin?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Ronald Smyth
                    Well I like Quentin and Queen but just how and why a particular author or book becomes a smash while another doesn t is very hard to explain. Sometimes it
                    Message 9 of 24 , May 12, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Well I like Quentin and Queen but just how and why a particular author or book becomes a smash
                      while another doesn't is very hard to explain. Sometimes it seems to be nothing more than luck.
                      How else to explain "The Da Vinci Code"? Not that it's a bad book but it isn't better than many
                      others that don't have the phenomenal success it did. Sometimes the planets just align right.
                       
                      Ron Smyth


                      ________________________________
                      From: curt evans <praed_street@...>
                      To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 3:40:48 PM
                      Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin



                       

                      LOL Ron, right!

                      But the Ellery Queen authors, Lee and Dannay, had a persona, both as EQ and themselves! Who really knew much about the Patrick Quentin authors (although one of them in the 1970s became quite prominent in the field of the musical)? There was that whole confusing succession. We had a discussion of this here a year and a half ago, where we were trying to untangle the whole authorship question, it was very confusing.

                      And then there were all the different pseudonyms! And, yes, I know EQ had Barnaby Ross! But that was always subsidiary and anyway their authorship of the Ross became known rather quickly, didnt it?

                      Or maybe the EQ books are just that much better than the PQ/QP books, but I do agree with people, they seem rather good to me.

                      Jeffrey Marks and I were throwing around doing a book on the PQ/QP people. Maybe some day....I think they deserve one.

                      Curt

                      From: Ronald Smyth
                      Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 8:38 AM
                      To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin

                      Yes, the multiple authors doubtless explains why Ellery Queen never became well known. :)
                      Ron Smyth

                      ________________________________
                      From: curt evans <mailto:praed_street%40comcast.net>
                      To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:40:28 AM
                      Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin

                      They never seem to have been elevated that category. Probably the multiple authors didnt help! People like to have something of a persona.

                      Curt

                      From: Nick Fuller
                      Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:52 PM
                      To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin

                      Yeah, I thought Death and the Maiden was brilliant. Still haven't got round to reading Murder at Cambridge yet. Why aren't they as well known as, say, Carr or Queen?

                      ________________________________
                      From: Vegetableduck <mailto:praed_street%40comcast.net>
                      To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2012 5:21 AM
                      Subject: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin

                      I do. I think most who have read him do!

                      Curt

                      --- In mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com, luis molina <lrmolina47@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I have finished reading the Dr. Westlake novels The Scarlet Circle,Death, My Darling Daughters, Death's Old Sweet Song.
                      > I enjoyed them. Who else likes quentin?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Last Century Detective
                      Ron, It also helped that THE DA VINCI CODE was available in every bookstore around the world, which, I think, explains the obscurity of a lot of Golden Age
                      Message 10 of 24 , May 13, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ron,

                        It also helped that THE DA VINCI CODE was available in every bookstore around the world, which, I think, explains the obscurity of a lot of Golden Age writers not named Agatha Christie. Dedicated fans are still aware of them, but will someone who has only read the Crime Queens grab a Patrick Quentin or Pat McGerr mystery or go for that unread Margery Allingham or Ngaio Marsh novel – and that's just when they happen to rummage around in a secondhand bookstore instead of ordering them directly online.

                        What's baffling me more and more is not their obscurity but the people who say they love (classic) detective stories, but have almost no idea what's out there except for the familiar (and usually still available) writers. It's something that is especially rampant among specialized fans, like Sherlock Holmes and Detective Conan fans. I once asked on a popular Holmes forum what there favorite mystery novels were and only one other member read GAD fiction other than the Crime Queens. But even more baffling is the lack of knowledge displayed by Detective Conan fans, who are introduced in each volume to a new (neo-)GAD detective/writer and in spite of this most of them don't get any further than Christie, Doyle and Leblanc.

                        You can read it for yourself (I have never been of member of this forum but used to lurk there for a brief period):

                        Mystery novel topics on a Conan forum:

                        <http://forum.dctp.ws/index.php?topic=41.0>
                        <http://forum.dctp.ws/index.php?topic=1057.0>


                        --- In GAdetection@yahoogroups.com, Ronald Smyth <ronsmyth2005@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Well I like Quentin and Queen but just how and why a particular author or book becomes a smash
                        > while another doesn't is very hard to explain. Sometimes it seems to be nothing more than luck.
                        > How else to explain "The Da Vinci Code"? Not that it's a bad book but it isn't better than many
                        > others that don't have the phenomenal success it did. Sometimes the planets just align right.
                        >  
                        > Ron Smyth
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From: curt evans <praed_street@...>
                        > To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 3:40:48 PM
                        > Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >  
                        >
                        > LOL Ron, right!
                        >
                        > But the Ellery Queen authors, Lee and Dannay, had a persona, both as EQ and themselves! Who really knew much about the Patrick Quentin authors (although one of them in the 1970s became quite prominent in the field of the musical)? There was that whole confusing succession. We had a discussion of this here a year and a half ago, where we were trying to untangle the whole authorship question, it was very confusing.
                        >
                        > And then there were all the different pseudonyms! And, yes, I know EQ had Barnaby Ross! But that was always subsidiary and anyway their authorship of the Ross became known rather quickly, didnt it?
                        >
                        > Or maybe the EQ books are just that much better than the PQ/QP books, but I do agree with people, they seem rather good to me.
                        >
                        > Jeffrey Marks and I were throwing around doing a book on the PQ/QP people. Maybe some day....I think they deserve one.
                        >
                        > Curt
                        >
                        > From: Ronald Smyth
                        > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 8:38 AM
                        > To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin
                        >
                        > Yes, the multiple authors doubtless explains why Ellery Queen never became well known. :)
                        > Ron Smyth
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From: curt evans <mailto:praed_street%40comcast.net>
                        > To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:40:28 AM
                        > Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin
                        >
                        > They never seem to have been elevated that category. Probably the multiple authors didnt help! People like to have something of a persona.
                        >
                        > Curt
                        >
                        > From: Nick Fuller
                        > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:52 PM
                        > To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin
                        >
                        > Yeah, I thought Death and the Maiden was brilliant. Still haven't got round to reading Murder at Cambridge yet. Why aren't they as well known as, say, Carr or Queen?
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From: Vegetableduck <mailto:praed_street%40comcast.net>
                        > To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2012 5:21 AM
                        > Subject: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin
                        >
                        > I do. I think most who have read him do!
                        >
                        > Curt
                        >
                        > --- In mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com, luis molina <lrmolina47@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > I have finished reading the Dr. Westlake novels The Scarlet Circle,Death, My Darling Daughters, Death's Old Sweet Song.
                        > > I enjoyed them. Who else likes quentin?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • Mr Molesack
                        One of the reasons that Doyle and Christie have loads of young fans who have never read any other crime writers, is that Holmes and Poirot have their own,
                        Message 11 of 24 , May 13, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          One of the reasons that Doyle and Christie have loads of young fans who have never read any other crime writers, is that Holmes and Poirot have their own, ongoing, television series. Their fans see the telly show, they see the tie in editions, and maybe they go to something like the dreadful Agatha Christie website. It's quite possible to go that far and never even know that there are any other crime writers. It's also true that, quite often, they're not detective story fans as such. They're fans of the particular characters or the actors playing them, but they're not going to move beyond that (A Holmes site that I'm a member of created a new section for Jeremy Brett fans some years back. The JB posts were drowning out everything else). Sites like this are great because they can introduce people to authors that they had not previously been aware of, but it's sort of 'Catch 22', in that I had already read a load of GA or Trad authors and wanted to find some new stuff. Those DetectiveConan fans are mostly just fans of DetectiveConan. They're not mystery fans.
                          --- In GAdetection@yahoogroups.com, "Last Century Detective" <lastcenturydetective@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Ron,
                          >
                          > It also helped that THE DA VINCI CODE was available in every bookstore around the world, which, I think, explains the obscurity of a lot of Golden Age writers not named Agatha Christie. Dedicated fans are still aware of them, but will someone who has only read the Crime Queens grab a Patrick Quentin or Pat McGerr mystery or go for that unread Margery Allingham or Ngaio Marsh novel – and that's just when they happen to rummage around in a secondhand bookstore instead of ordering them directly online.
                          >
                          > What's baffling me more and more is not their obscurity but the people who say they love (classic) detective stories, but have almost no idea what's out there except for the familiar (and usually still available) writers. It's something that is especially rampant among specialized fans, like Sherlock Holmes and Detective Conan fans. I once asked on a popular Holmes forum what there favorite mystery novels were and only one other member read GAD fiction other than the Crime Queens. But even more baffling is the lack of knowledge displayed by Detective Conan fans, who are introduced in each volume to a new (neo-)GAD detective/writer and in spite of this most of them don't get any further than Christie, Doyle and Leblanc.
                          >
                          > You can read it for yourself (I have never been of member of this forum but used to lurk there for a brief period):
                          >
                          > Mystery novel topics on a Conan forum:
                          >
                          > <http://forum.dctp.ws/index.php?topic=41.0>
                          > <http://forum.dctp.ws/index.php?topic=1057.0>
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In GAdetection@yahoogroups.com, Ronald Smyth <ronsmyth2005@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Well I like Quentin and Queen but just how and why a particular author or book becomes a smash
                          > > while another doesn't is very hard to explain. Sometimes it seems to be nothing more than luck.
                          > > How else to explain "The Da Vinci Code"? Not that it's a bad book but it isn't better than many
                          > > others that don't have the phenomenal success it did. Sometimes the planets just align right.
                          > >  
                          > > Ron Smyth
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ________________________________
                          > > From: curt evans <praed_street@>
                          > > To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 3:40:48 PM
                          > > Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >  
                          > >
                          > > LOL Ron, right!
                          > >
                          > > But the Ellery Queen authors, Lee and Dannay, had a persona, both as EQ and themselves! Who really knew much about the Patrick Quentin authors (although one of them in the 1970s became quite prominent in the field of the musical)? There was that whole confusing succession. We had a discussion of this here a year and a half ago, where we were trying to untangle the whole authorship question, it was very confusing.
                          > >
                          > > And then there were all the different pseudonyms! And, yes, I know EQ had Barnaby Ross! But that was always subsidiary and anyway their authorship of the Ross became known rather quickly, didnt it?
                          > >
                          > > Or maybe the EQ books are just that much better than the PQ/QP books, but I do agree with people, they seem rather good to me.
                          > >
                          > > Jeffrey Marks and I were throwing around doing a book on the PQ/QP people. Maybe some day....I think they deserve one.
                          > >
                          > > Curt
                          > >
                          > > From: Ronald Smyth
                          > > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 8:38 AM
                          > > To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin
                          > >
                          > > Yes, the multiple authors doubtless explains why Ellery Queen never became well known. :)
                          > > Ron Smyth
                          > >
                          > > ________________________________
                          > > From: curt evans <mailto:praed_street%40comcast.net>
                          > > To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                          > > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:40:28 AM
                          > > Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin
                          > >
                          > > They never seem to have been elevated that category. Probably the multiple authors didnt help! People like to have something of a persona.
                          > >
                          > > Curt
                          > >
                          > > From: Nick Fuller
                          > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:52 PM
                          > > To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                          > > Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin
                          > >
                          > > Yeah, I thought Death and the Maiden was brilliant. Still haven't got round to reading Murder at Cambridge yet. Why aren't they as well known as, say, Carr or Queen?
                          > >
                          > > ________________________________
                          > > From: Vegetableduck <mailto:praed_street%40comcast.net>
                          > > To: mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com
                          > > Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2012 5:21 AM
                          > > Subject: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin
                          > >
                          > > I do. I think most who have read him do!
                          > >
                          > > Curt
                          > >
                          > > --- In mailto:GAdetection%40yahoogroups.com, luis molina <lrmolina47@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > I have finished reading the Dr. Westlake novels The Scarlet Circle,Death, My Darling Daughters, Death's Old Sweet Song.
                          > > > I enjoyed them. Who else likes quentin?
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          >
                        • Ronald Smyth
                          I m sure that they didn t print all those copies in the first print run. It was because the book sold so well that they printed so many. But why did it sell so
                          Message 12 of 24 , May 13, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I'm sure that they didn't print all those copies in the first print run. It was because the book sold
                            so well that they printed so many. But why did it sell so well in the first place?
                             
                            There are of course difficulies obtaining many GAD authors, even in libraries. I hope
                            ebooks and reprints will change that, certainly it has for me. Rue Morgue Press among others
                            has intoduced me to quite a number of authors, many I have only heard of and many are entirely
                            new to me. And I've been a huge mystery fan for fifty years. But simply finding the time to
                            read all the GAD authors even when you can get the books is a major difficulty. That's on top
                            of the current writers who are as good as the  previous generations, even if the style has changed
                            so much.
                             
                            I've read most of the Christies and all of the Sayers but only a few Allinghams and not more
                            than two or three by Marsh. And I recently read my first J J Connington. This despite access to a
                            first class library system and reading four or five mysteries a week for five decades. (Not limited
                            to GAD writers). But I've read almost all by Phoebe Atwood Taylor, Dashiel Hammett, Arthur W
                            Upfield, Craig Rice, Raymond Chandler, Erle Stanley Gardner, John Dickson Carr (my favourite
                            bar none), Arthur Conan Doyle, Clayton Rawson, Edmund Crispin and swaths of H C Bailey, Gladys
                            Mitchell, Rex Stout, Stuart Palmer, Melville Davison Post, Edgar Wallace, Cyril Hare, Leslie
                            Charteris, Manning Coles and yes even Mickey Spillane and Carroll John Daly. I've read hardly
                            any Freeman Wills Croft or John Rhode.
                             
                            That's not even counting short stories and authors of only one or two volumes. And I've
                            probably read two or three times as much by modern authors like Tony Hillerman, Ed
                            McBain, Lee Childs, Robert Parker, Robert Crais, George Pelecanos, Kathy Reichs,
                            Ken Bruen, Peter Lovesey, Derek Raymond etc.
                            I have hardly touched Ian Rankin, Boris Akunin, Andrea Camilleri or Peter Robinson.
                            I have yet to read anything by Donna Leon, or even Georges Simenon.
                             
                             One simply cannot read everything. So it is not too surprising to me that more casual readers go
                            with what they are told are the ones that they should read first, that is, the Crime Queens. And 
                            specialized fans would have difficulty keeping up with all the Sherlockiana let alone others. And I
                            myself know absolutely nothing about the Detective Conan series. It is a vast field. I have not
                            even touched here on television and movie crime stories. They all take time and there are so many
                            options in our modern world of personal computers with Netflix and X-boxes and smart phones.
                             
                            Ah, the ancient lament, what's wrong with the modern generation. :)
                             
                            Ron Smyth


                            ________________________________
                            From: Last Century Detective <lastcenturydetective@...>
                            To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 4:02:55 AM
                            Subject: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin



                             

                            Ron,

                            It also helped that THE DA VINCI CODE was available in every bookstore around the world, which, I think, explains the obscurity of a lot of Golden Age writers not named Agatha Christie. Dedicated fans are still aware of them, but will someone who has only read the Crime Queens grab a Patrick Quentin or Pat McGerr mystery or go for that unread Margery Allingham or Ngaio Marsh novel – and that's just when they happen to rummage around in a secondhand bookstore instead of ordering them directly online.

                            What's baffling me more and more is not their obscurity but the people who say they love (classic) detective stories, but have almost no idea what's out there except for the familiar (and usually still available) writers. It's something that is especially rampant among specialized fans, like Sherlock Holmes and Detective Conan fans. I once asked on a popular Holmes forum what there favorite mystery novels were and only one other member read GAD fiction other than the Crime Queens. But even more baffling is the lack of knowledge displayed by Detective Conan fans, who are introduced in each volume to a new (neo-)GAD detective/writer and in spite of this most of them don't get any further than Christie, Doyle and Leblanc.

                            You can read it for yourself (I have never been of member of this forum but used to lurk there for a brief period):

                            Mystery novel topics on a Conan forum:

                            <http://forum.dctp.ws/index.php?topic=41.0>
                            <http://forum.dctp.ws/index.php?topic=1057.0>

                            --- In GAdetection@yahoogroups.com, Ronald Smyth <ronsmyth2005@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Well I like Quentin and Queen but just how and why a particular author or book becomes a smash
                            > while another doesn't is very hard to explain. Sometimes it seems to be nothing more than luck.
                            > How else to explain "The Da Vinci Code"? Not that it's a bad book but it isn't better than many
                            > others that don't have the phenomenal success it did. Sometimes the planets just align right.
                            >  
                            > Ron Smyth
                            >

                            Recent Activity: * New Members 1
                            Visit Your Group

                            Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
                            .



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Allen Askew
                            Ron, I agree with what you said, I read Agatha Christine in my teens, and at that time knew no better, didn t hava clue who else to read. It is really only,
                            Message 13 of 24 , May 14, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ron,
                              I agree with what you said, I read Agatha Christine in my teens, and at that time knew no better, didn't hava clue who else to read. It is really only, a big big thanks to everone involved in this group that has given me so much info rearding all these other wonderful author's and books to read. Of course as you say getting hold of  these  books is hard or expensive, but now thankfully we are seeing them being reprinted, but still many to go.. And as a good example  of reprintedbooks I have just started "The Castleford Conundrum" by JJ Connington, another author bought to my atttention by this group.  I fear I am years behind in my reading of GAD stories wih the rest of this group but at the same time, I guess I ve years of good reading to come.
                               
                                As an example of a book reviewed recently "The Blushing Monkey" by Roman Dougland, just love to read these sort of stories great book I would like this reprinted.
                               
                              best,
                              Allen.
                               
                               

                              ________________________________
                              From: Ronald Smyth <ronsmyth2005@...>
                              To: "GAdetection@yahoogroups.com" <GAdetection@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Sunday, 13 May 2012, 15:17
                              Subject: Re: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin


                               
                              I'm sure that they didn't print all those copies in the first print run. It was because the book sold
                              so well that they printed so many. But why did it sell so well in the first place?
                               
                              There are of course difficulies obtaining many GAD authors, even in libraries. I hope
                              ebooks and reprints will change that, certainly it has for me. Rue Morgue Press among others
                              has intoduced me to quite a number of authors, many I have only heard of and many are entirely
                              new to me. And I've been a huge mystery fan for fifty years. But simply finding the time to
                              read all the GAD authors even when you can get the books is a major difficulty. That's on top
                              of the current writers who are as good as the  previous generations, even if the style has changed
                              so much.
                               
                              I've read most of the Christies and all of the Sayers but only a few Allinghams and not more
                              than two or three by Marsh. And I recently read my first J J Connington. This despite access to a
                              first class library system and reading four or five mysteries a week for five decades. (Not limited
                              to GAD writers). But I've read almost all by Phoebe Atwood Taylor, Dashiel Hammett, Arthur W
                              Upfield, Craig Rice, Raymond Chandler, Erle Stanley Gardner, John Dickson Carr (my favourite
                              bar none), Arthur Conan Doyle, Clayton Rawson, Edmund Crispin and swaths of H C Bailey, Gladys
                              Mitchell, Rex Stout, Stuart Palmer, Melville Davison Post, Edgar Wallace, Cyril Hare, Leslie
                              Charteris, Manning Coles and yes even Mickey Spillane and Carroll John Daly. I've read hardly
                              any Freeman Wills Croft or John Rhode.
                               
                              That's not even counting short stories and authors of only one or two volumes. And I've
                              probably read two or three times as much by modern authors like Tony Hillerman, Ed
                              McBain, Lee Childs, Robert Parker, Robert Crais, George Pelecanos, Kathy Reichs,
                              Ken Bruen, Peter Lovesey, Derek Raymond etc.
                              I have hardly touched Ian Rankin, Boris Akunin, Andrea Camilleri or Peter Robinson.
                              I have yet to read anything by Donna Leon, or even Georges Simenon.
                               
                               One simply cannot read everything. So it is not too surprising to me that more casual readers go
                              with what they are told are the ones that they should read first, that is, the Crime Queens. And 
                              specialized fans would have difficulty keeping up with all the Sherlockiana let alone others. And I
                              myself know absolutely nothing about the Detective Conan series. It is a vast field. I have not
                              even touched here on television and movie crime stories. They all take time and there are so many
                              options in our modern world of personal computers with Netflix and X-boxes and smart phones.
                               
                              Ah, the ancient lament, what's wrong with the modern generation. :)
                               
                              Ron Smyth


                              ________________________________
                              From: Last Century Detective <lastcenturydetective@...>
                              To: GAdetection@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 4:02:55 AM
                              Subject: [GAdetection] Re: Patrick Quentin


                               

                              Ron,

                              It also helped that THE DA VINCI CODE was available in every bookstore around the world, which, I think, explains the obscurity of a lot of Golden Age writers not named Agatha Christie. Dedicated fans are still aware of them, but will someone who has only read the Crime Queens grab a Patrick Quentin or Pat McGerr mystery or go for that unread Margery Allingham or Ngaio Marsh novel – and that's just when they happen to rummage around in a secondhand bookstore instead of ordering them directly online.

                              What's baffling me more and more is not their obscurity but the people who say they love (classic) detective stories, but have almost no idea what's out there except for the familiar (and usually still available) writers. It's something that is especially rampant among specialized fans, like Sherlock Holmes and Detective Conan fans. I once asked on a popular Holmes forum what there favorite mystery novels were and only one other member read GAD fiction other than the Crime Queens. But even more baffling is the lack of knowledge displayed by Detective Conan fans, who are introduced in each volume to a new (neo-)GAD detective/writer and in spite of this most of them don't get any further than Christie, Doyle and Leblanc.

                              You can read it for yourself (I have never been of member of this forum but used to lurk there for a brief period):

                              Mystery novel topics on a Conan forum:

                              <http://forum.dctp.ws/index.php?topic=41.0>
                              <http://forum.dctp.ws/index.php?topic=1057.0>

                              --- In GAdetection@yahoogroups.com, Ronald Smyth <ronsmyth2005@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Well I like Quentin and Queen but just how and why a particular author or book becomes a smash
                              > while another doesn't is very hard to explain. Sometimes it seems to be nothing more than luck.
                              > How else to explain "The Da Vinci Code"? Not that it's a bad book but it isn't better than many
                              > others that don't have the phenomenal success it did. Sometimes the planets just align right.
                              >  
                              > Ron Smyth
                              >

                              Recent Activity: * New Members 1
                              Visit Your Group

                              Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
                              .

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Nick Fuller
                              Patrick, I was not saying that intelligence is incompatible with religion.  (Dorothy L. Sayers, to take a prominent example from our field, was a highly
                              Message 14 of 24 , May 14, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Patrick,

                                I was not saying that intelligence is incompatible with religion.  (Dorothy L. Sayers, to take a prominent example from our field, was a highly intelligent woman.  G.K. Chesterton was a brilliant stylist & plotter, but The Everlasting Man is factually inaccurate in so many ways it's laughable.)

                                Rather, I was stating (possibly too forcefully) that my critical faculties were, and would not be, influenced by my values.

                                One of the (few) things that irritate me are people who substitute ideology for thought.  This applies across the political and religious spectrum.  However well meaning people may be, once they wilfully contradict the facts, they've lost my respect.  Frankly, it's dishonest.

                                I've encountered a lot of people who make their decisions based on their values, rather than on reason and evidence.  Apart from religious fundamentalists (a can of worms perhaps best set aside), universities are full of them.  The humanities departments are dominated by political activists who maintain that the Enlightenment was a tool of Western hegemony, object to reason & objectivity, dismiss the real world as a linguistic construct - and see anyone who thinks otherwise as "naive".  Have you ever tried to argue with someone who believes that evidence & facts don't exist, & everything is subjective?  It's impossible; it turns into semantics, rather than a reasoned discussion.

                                And so I often find myself in the position of stating the bleeding obvious.  The real world exists, independent of my consciousness.  The individual exists.  Reason is the best way of understanding the universe.  Objective truth is a fact.  Theories should be judged against evidence, NOT the other way round.

                                And now I'm off to write a two thousand word essay on Buddhism.

                                Nick

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.