A definition of 'thriller' that excludes vast numbers of recognised thriller
writers (Michael Crichton, Alastair McLean, Peter Benchley) seems seriously
flawed to me. The term 'thriller' can be applied to just about any genre as
far as I can see, and is not the exclusive domain of crime fiction. As long
as somebody's trying to prevent something unpleasant -- such as being eaten
by a shark in JAWS -- it's a thriller.
----- Original Message -----
From: "JIM DOHERTY" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Danger abounds in the Captain Aubrey books by Patrick O'Brian, the Captain
> Hornblower books by C.S. Forester, the Colonel Sharpe books by Bernard
> Cornwell, etc. You wouldn't call them thrillers, however, because they're
> not crime fiction.
> Similarly, even in the coziest whodunit, danger abounds. Someone's almost
> always dead, and mortal danger is as dangerous as it gets, and the person
> who made that character dead is still at large, and, therefore, still
> poses a danger.
> No, once more the essential elements are that it be a piece of crime
> fiction ("crime fiction" being synonomous with "mystery," Kerry), and that
> the plot emphasize action, suspense, and pace over cerebration. That the
> appeal, or at least the hoped-for appeal, be visceral rather than
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 Feb 2009 EST