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).

...do thrillers count as mysteries? I read a lot of trashy thrillers. There is usually a mystery of who the crazy serial killer is...

Nevada Barr is mysteries, right? I've read her.

But stereotypical mysteries are not my thing. Though I did read a lot of Trixie Belden growing up! :)

See, I wouldn't assume they are a big reader, as weird as that sounds. When I wanted fluff reading in school I turned to Regency romances. Most people there didn't get that at all. Not just the romance thing, but that I'd want to read for fun. I wish I were kidding. I had lot of conversations about "books," but not about reading.

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.

And I feel like you're still missing my point. As KIDS, that's what PhDs are like?

As an English grad student, I read mysteries to get the taste of Henry James out my head.

do thrillers count as mysteries?

They are distinct but related in my head. I'd shelve them together for marketing purposes, I think.

Nevada Barr is definitely mysteries.

That can't be grammatically correct, but I'm leaving it.