I skipped Trixie Belden because my mom had her Cherry Ames books.

I imagine there are mystery families and not-mystery families, in addition to people.

That baffles me, Raq. I mean, a PhD in ENGLISH! Wow.

Mysteries aren't really on the curriculum. I mean, I had a B.A. in English and never read a mystery until I was well out of college. (Well, excepting Alfred Hitchcock and the Three Investigators and some other juveniles.) I read other things for light reading. Some people don't do light reading at all. I've never read anything by Agatha Christie.

I didn't really read mysteries until I started studying Film Noir then I went back to Woolrich, Chandler, Thompson, Hammett and Willeford.

I didn't mean they'd be on the curriculum. I meant that most people who do a PhD in English simply read a lot, and it surprises me she'd never read any mysteries at all.

I don't think all mysteries are light reading, either, though. I wouldn't say that of Elizabeth George's or most of Minette Walters, for sure.

I wouldn't say that of Elizabeth George's or most of Minette Walters, for sure.

NSM on the curriculum either. I mean, I certainly knew both academics and literary types who read and enjoyed mysteries - both cozy and hardboiled. It was actually much more acceptable than science fiction, and fantasy was beyond the pale. Shit, you should've seen the sneer I got from the department head when I mentioned (the rather erudite - that is, makes regular jokes based on lost Latin texts) James Branch Cabell (a fantasy writer - friend of Faulkner's too).

But it's not hard at all to me to imagine somebody getting a Ph.D. in literature without having ever read a mystery. That's not what they read (generally) or why they read.

They don't value popular literature -- in English departments anyway. There are other cultural studies approaches (like, deconstruction) which are no doubt poking around in Harry Potter, as previous academics dug into Buffy or Madonna or Pee Wee's Playhouse. But that's not the English Department.

But it's not hard at all to me to imagine somebody getting a Ph.D. in literature without having ever read a mystery. That's not what they read (generally) or why they read.

I think you're generalizing. I know (not personally) PhD candidates and professors who read and write romance. Just because your study or work is Chaucer or whatever doesn't mean you might not like some Nora Roberts (or P.D. James) in your downtime.

And most women of a certain age have read at least one or two Nancy Drew books growing up.

That is in no way surprising to me. I love Agatha Christie and collected the entire set of 80+ faux-leather volumes via a monthly book club starting in high school. But, besides ACD, I'm not a mystery reader.

And, for most of my PhD years, I didn't read anything that wasn't somehow related to my work. Most doctorates I know actually just don't read that way.

I think you're generalizing. I know (not personally) PhD candidates and professors who read and write romance. Just because your study or work is Chaucer or whatever doesn't mean you might not like some Nora Roberts (or P.D. James) in your downtime.

Right, but that's not the culture. Certainly there are academics who read popular fiction, but that's a matter of personal taste distinct from their vocation. There's nothing in the process of getting a Ph.D. in English which is conducive to picking up a mystery. To the contrary. Being widely read in serious literature is more likely to be an impediment to reading mysteries than enabling it, I think.

Just to reiterate, I was responding to what Raq said about her step-sister:

My step-sister, who has a PhD in English, just said that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is the first mystery she's ever read.

As I'm sure she hasn't spent her whole life as a PhD candidate, that surprised me, since I assume with a doctorate in English she *is* a big reader, and has been for a while. I wasn't specifically talking about what she read while working on her PhD.

I'm not a big fantasy or science fiction reader, but as someone who loves to read, I *have* read one or two over the years. Same way Jess said she doesn't really like or remember mysteries, but she *has* read one or two.

Maybe that's clearer.

I guess I just don't see Ph.D.'s in English as being that catholic in their tastes or wide ranging in their interests. It's a narrow kind of reading and the people that do get Ph.D.'s don't so much read for fun, and are primarily interested in literary history and theory.

Ph.D. = narrow but deep (to me).