I completely agree with Charles. Moreover, to use statements
like "I really don't know why you want to confuse this very
simple issue" is pejorative, and underlines the need for some
of these tangential discussions to continue off-list. I have
already put some filters in for this list, and I would really
like to not put any more.
Pat
hardcasecrime wrote:
>
> It does seem to me that there is a basic difference
between
> discussing the death penalty (or any other topic) as
it appears in or
> relates to fiction and discussing it purely as an
issue in the real
> world. I'm not saying one's better or worse than the
other -- it's
> not -- but there are different places where each is
appropriate.
>
> If this were a mailing list about cooking, and
people used it to
> compare recipes, discuss cooking techniques, share
menus, review
> restaurants and chefs, etc., and someone started a
protracted
> diatribe about cruelty to animals, would that be
appropriate? It
> would be a perfectly reasonable topic to discuss --
but not in that
> location, since that's not the purpose of that
discussion group.
>
> Similarly, a protracted discussion of the Anthony
Pellicano case
> would not (I think) be appropriate on Rara-Avis --
he's a detective,
> but he's not a detective in *fiction*, which is what
we're here to
> talk about. Now, if someone wrote a novel about
Pellicano, fine; if
> someone said, "What novels resemble the Pellicano
case?" fine; if
> someone wanted to talk about books that raise issues
similar to those
> raised in the Pellicano case, fine. But to just talk
about a non-
> fictional case itself, at length, for message after
message after
> message, with nary a reference to fiction along the
way? I doubt I'm
> the only person here who finds that annoying and
disruptive. It's a
> conversation I might well be interested in taking
part in somewhere
> else -- but not here.
>
> Just my 2 cents, obviously, and if the broad
sentiment is otherwise,
> so be it. But this is not what I, at least, come to
Rara-Avis for.
>
> --Charles
>
> P.S. To avoid any misunderstanding, I am not
complaining at all about
> the *content* of anyone's comments. It's not that I
am offended by
> one or the other sides in the death penalty debate,
or that I am
> bothered by the discussion of sensitive topics, or
anything of the
> sort. I only object to polluting a crime fiction
list with an
> extended discussion of a topic other than crime
fiction. Talk about
> the *connection* between fiction and the real world
all you want --
> but when you start talking *only* about the real
world, you're doing
> in the wrong place.
>
> --- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com>,
Michael Robison
> <miker_zspider@...> wrote:
> >
> > Curt Purcell wrote:
> >
> > So does brutal interrogation, but I hardly see
the hot
> > lights and rubber hoses of a Gold Medal classic
as an
> > appropriate jumping-off point for a debate
about
> > Abu-Ghraib or Gitmo. Why? Because fiction
is
> > fiction. It's make-believe, no matter how
"realistic"
> > it pretends to be. That's why I read
it.
> >
> > ***************
> > Not much I can say to this. To me, the
connection
> > that fiction has to the real world is what
makes it
> > vital and relevant.
> >
> > miker
> >
> >
__________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Oct 2007 EDT