Close! Same line!

Also read a Harley Quin short story or two. As far as I know Agatha's only foray into the supernatural, and genuinely chilling. The non-supernatural character Mr Satterthwaite is sort of scary/pathetic as well if you think about him too much.

I really think Christie is underrated; she did so much innovative and experimental stuff.

DH doesn't read a lot of pop culture stuff, and he never really did not even as a kid. And so not a mystery reader. his ' trash' reading is scifi that takes a lot of concentration. But he like harry potter and a few other authors that write really good stories , but that in no way shape or form could anyone consider high literature. and he does agree with me about 'lit fic' - a lot of it has a very perfectible and mundane plot.

A lot of PhD candidates are not readers first. They are critics. I am glad that I did not go to my first choice college ( yours, David) . I think I really found my relationship to books where I went. I like to know where books stand in their historic context. Unless I am reading a trashy romance -- then it is just fun

And I now have a sudden urge to reread Christie

We read at least one Sherlock Holmes story in 8th grade English, I think as an aside to Poe's Dupin stories.

I can see where mysteries wouldn't turn up much at college/university because [insert academic sneering at pulp stories here], but if you're going to talk about literature you need some familiarity with the development of various genres, and... how do you leave out Poe?

Plus, isn't Paul Auster beloved by the academic set? Or has that ship sailed? Or is it localized to NY?

I do remember a junior in one of my college lit classes who was bummmed about finally having to read Shakespeare. And I thought "Why are you an English major if you don't want to read Shakespeare?" but... perhaps this is hypocritical of me since I've never read Austen and apparently that's fairly outrageous.

I was another English lit major who didn't read Austen until I was well out of college. As for my Victorian Lit class, I didn't read either Stevenson or Doyle there, but I did read Carlyle, Carroll, and lots of Browning and Tennyson, as well as many others I can't remember offhand.

I do remember a junior in one of my college lit classes who was bummmed about finally having to read Shakespeare. And I thought "Why are you an English major if you don't want to read Shakespeare?"

In my college Shakespeare class (only a requirement for English majors, so supposedly students in it were either majoring or there because they were interested in the plays) there were students who brought the Cliff notes for the plays to class. And then they wondered why the professor seemed less than thrilled with them. Dude. At least hide it behind the text book.

I have an English degree without having read a lick of Dickens, so I could kind of see where one could not have read mysteries.

Frankly, I found the whole academic pursuit almost killed my love of reading. It wasn't until I finished my first degree that I realized I don't have a brain that is naturally or happily into detailed analysis--so academic papers were a lot of work for me. Both my English and Library degress required a level of anal fury that either left me no time for or killed a love of reading for me.

My favourite English prof actualy discouraged me from light reading. She would say "There are so many books in the world, Sue. Don't read crap." Which I believed for years. What I really decided is that crap is a relative term, crap runs across all genres, incl lit fic, and good writing does too

Count me on the surprised bench with Amy. Possibly because there are so many YA books that are mysteries. I think I actually read through the entire mystery section at my library. I guess it is a prejudice to think of someone with a PhD as someone who would have been a voracious reader as a child, but I cannot imagine someone who was a voracious reader as a child not reading one mystery, ever.

Frankly, I found the whole academic pursuit almost killed my love of reading. It wasn't until I finished my first degree that I realized I don't have a brain that is naturally or happily into detailed analysis--so academic papers were a lot of work for me. Both my English and Library degress required a level of anal fury that either left me no time for or killed a love of reading for me.

This is why I realized I could not do a graduate degree in English, and that in fact my love of reading made me better suited to a history degree, because what I tended to love were the historical details and the insights books gave us into how people lived in certain times and places.

Although I did really enjoy digging apart Ulysses for literary references to other texts.