On Jul 16, 4:33=A0pm, Blue Sow <janet.r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > I note in today's THE TIMES that Ben
> > Hoyle (Arts Re****ter) believes "...the cult
> > of the detective peaked with the creation
> > of Sherlock Holmes".
>
> > I can't see this go unchallenged, much as
> > it is quite cleverly couched. Has the guy
> > never read any Isaac Asimov? Or any of
> > the countless other works of detective fiction
> > which still sell more than Conan Doyle?
>
> *SNIP
>
>
>
> > And nor can the "cult" of the detective have
> > peaked a century ago: purely in numeric terms
> > there are far more narratives in far more media
> > now than ever before. And folk still visit Lodnon's
> > Baker Street daily to see the door of 221B.
>
> Thus proving Mr Hoyle's point that the detective cult peaked with the
cre=
ation
> of Sherlock Holmes, which I doubt you intended to do.
John Napier was an apocryphologist.
Define "cult". Define "peaked".
> Admittedly, many people visit Oxford to see the haunts of Inspector
Morse=
but,
> as you say, people still go to see 221b even after all this time.
St Mary Mead is a fictional place. Baker Street is not.
Sentient robots do not yet exist. And so forth.
> You seem to be thinking of sales of detective fiction peaking in which
ca=
se,
> have you allowed for population growth, improved access, etc.?
There is little point--they are irrelevant metastatistically.
I take it you do not consider W Peter Blatty's "The
Exorcist" to be detective fiction. Or Poe's "The Gold
Bug". Or are they fluenza non grata as this is in the
news:uk.culture.* hierarchy?
> Isaac Asimov? =A0You do have a sense of humour.
> --
> Blue Sow
|
