--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Kevin Burton Smith <kvnsmith@...> wrote:
> In email@example.com, "jacquesdebierue" <jacquesdebierue@> wrote:
> > Commercial success is not really something to discuss, I would say. It's a fact in the case of Parker.
> Commercial success is not something to discuss? On a list devoted to a genre of popular literature? Do you ever read any of the posts on this list? Do you ever read your own? The commercial success (or failure) of everyone from Chandler and Hammett to Jim Thompson and Erle Stanley Gardner has been discussed at length on this list. By numerous people.
> If, as you say, you're not the moderator of this list, stop nagging me every time I post. And telling me what I should and should not discuss.
> > What attracted me to Parker's work initially was the broad spectrum of subjects he t
I meant that there is nothing to discuss. Parker was commercially successful. Beyond that lies... his work. We should concentrate on his work, what's good about it.
Your comment about sales was part of your implicit rant against those who don't like Parker. It't not very illuminating. I bet people don't like or dislike Parker because of his sales. At least, I've never read any comments here to that effect. And lots of writers who sell a lot are discussed daily here (most recently Leonard), together with writers who were not very successful commercially (like Willeford), so I would say it's immaterial.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 Jan 2010 EST