In a recent post Anthony wrote:
Without a universally excepted definition of just what
hard-boiled is ...
it is hardly dismissive or short-sighted at all from a
factual standpoint.
Unless of course you feel that your definition is the only
possible one to
be correct. Personally, I do not find it conducive to further
discussion
when an opposing viewpoint receives such a dismissive
response to what is
purely a subjective manner to begin with.
If you don't like the definition I've offered, which I
admitted was a
"little broad" (which, just to avoid confusion, I meant in
the sense
of covering a broad spectrum, not in the sense of a vulgar
expression
for women), suggest one of your own. Until a definition is
agreed
upon, I stand by my opinion that the female writers I
mentioned are
acceptable subjects for this list. Dismissing female nystery
writers
like Dorothy L. Sayers or Agatha Christie from a discussion
of
hard-boiled writers is one thing; dismissing female mystery
writers
like Sue Grafton or Sara Paretsky is something else. Even
without
carefully stated definitions, that seems obvious on its
face.
If I stated my opinion too forcefully, I apologize. Any
offense was
unintentional. - Jim Doherty
--UNS_gsauns2_2926996187--
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.