Hi Brian:
"Brian Thornton" <tieresias@...> wrote:
>
> Point of order regarding "Test of Time": that was
Doherty taking one
thing I said in the course of a looooong discussion on
Spillane . . .
>
Apologies for the tweak. I've been on Rara-Avis for 7 or 8
years, and I used to groan, but now cheer, when Doherty
school is in session.
"Test of time" was a good new one.
> And I don't claim any objectivity where Pelecanos is
concerned. I
don't like his work, test of time, or not.
That's why I said you shouldn't read it. Life's too short for
us to annoy ourselves. As for your critical method (which I
think I follow - you do go on a bit), hey, it works fine for
you, but I'm less interested in fault-finding. If I like 'em,
I like 'em.
> I'm not suggesting anyone change their opinion based
on my
experience, merely offering mine as yet another one to help
complete a picture of the writing of that author.
Me too. I apologize for suggesting that Pelecanos detractors
try the new one. Pelecanos detractors should not try the new
one.
> I guess I'm just not much for love-fests.
>
Well, ok then. But my initial post was inspired by an unusual
book reading and book release date party in a bar, a pretty
good setting for a love-fest. I guess I'm just into
love-fests.
Too nice a day to be in front of the computer,
Bob V in NYC
PS: Miker - to prove I'm balanced, the Pelecanos you've got
lined up, Down by the River . . . is probably his weakest.
Generally speaking, later is better.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Aug 2006 EDT