----- Original Message -----
From: "JIM DOHERTY" <jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com>
To: <rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 9:00 AM
Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: Definition of Thriller
> Al.
>
> Re your comments below:
>
> "A definition of 'thriller' that excludes vast numbers of recognised
> thriller writers (Michael Crichton, Alastair McLean, Peter Benchley)
> seems seriously flawed to me."
>
> Who said the correct definition exlcudes them?
>
> Didn't Crichton write ODDS ON, SCRATCH ONE, EASY GO, ZERO COOL, THE VENOM
> BUSINESS, the Edgar-winning A CASE OF NEED, the Edgar-nominated GRAVE
> DESCEND (recently reprinted by Hard Case), the
> adapted-into-an-Edgar-winning movie GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, BINARY, RISING
> SUN, and STATE OF FEAR?
>
> Didn't MacLean write THE SECRET WAYS (aka THE LAST FRONTIER), NIGHT
> WITHOUT END, FEAR IS THE KEY, THE GOLDEN RENDEVOUS, THE SATAN BUG, WHEN
> EGIHT BELLS TOLL, PUPPET ON A CHAIN, etc?
>
> Didn't Benchely write THE DEEP, THE ISLAND, Q CLEARANCE, and RUMMIES? I'd
> even count JAWS, since it's essentially a police procedural, though the
> murderer is an animal rather than a human.
>
> "The term 'thriller' can be applied to just about any genre as
> far as I can see . . ."
>
> So can the term "romance," "western," "fantasy," "swords-and-sorcery,"
> etc. The question is, is a given term being applied CORRECTLY.
>
> ". . . 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."
>
> I've already said that JAWS might just qualify based on its police
> procedural credentials. But as for "trying to prevent something
> unpleasant," that's just way too broad. For crying out loud, Lizzie and
> Mr. Darcy try to prevent something unpleasant in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (the
> public disgrace of the Bennets by Lizzie's ne'er-do-well kid sister). Are
> you seriously suggesting that P&P is a thriller, because , given a strict
> application of your definition, it qualfies.
>
> Given a strict application of the correct definition (which is to say, MY
> definition) it doesn't.
>
> JIM DOHERTY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09 Feb 2009 EST