moonshine/ blood and thunder

[vil]

Dear teachers,

Would you be so kind to share with me your opinion about the interpretation of the expressions in bold in the following sentences?

Often, like myself, we deplore the blood and bones atmosphere and wish the detective novelist were not so conventional about offering us murder all the time.

Here are these two shelves of novels – none of them by standard authors – all just moonshine or blood and thunder.”(S. Lewis, “Selected Short Story)

moonshine = phantasmagoria

blood-and-bones = blood-and-thunder = boulevard-sensational; blood-melodrama; thriller

Thanks for your efforts.

Regards,

V

[Gillnetter]

Dear teachers,

Would you be so kind to share with me your opinion about the interpretation of the expressions in bold in the following sentences?

Often, like myself, we deplore the blood and bones atmosphere and wish the detective novelist were not so conventional about offering us murder all the time.

Here are these two shelves of novels – none of them by standard authors – all just moonshine or blood and thunder.”(S. Lewis, “Selected Short Story)

moonshine = phantasmagoria
Moonshine = an illegal whiskey. I fail to understand how you can derive your meaning of this word.
blood-and-bones = blood-and-thunder = boulevard-sensational; blood-melodrama; thriller

Thanks for your efforts.

Regards,

V

Gil

[vil]

Hi Gillnetter,

Do you really think that your trivial interpretation answers the purpose in the present case? This is not the right word here.

Reading between the lines — and this is most important in literary study — presupposes an accurate and comprehending reading of the lines themselves.

moonshine = Informal. Foolish talk or thought; nonsense.

moonshine: Definition from Answers.com

moonshine = nonsense, rubbish, phantasmagoria, (yellow backs , cheap novels) sl. a penny-dreadful


V

[5jj]

Do you really think that your trivial interpretation answers the purpose in the present case? This is not the right word here.

Reading between the lines — and this is most important in literary study — presupposes an accurate and comprehending reading of the lines themselves.

So that's you properly put in your place Gilnetter!

[Gillnetter]

So that's you properly put in your place Gilnetter Gillnetter!

No, I do not believe that I have been properly put in my place (whatever or wherever that is). The meaning of moonshine that I provided is the most usual one – it is in no way “trivial”. If I was “properly” put in my place, the poster had to write in a proper manner and provide proper proof. To say that, “This is not the right word here.” When referring to the meaning of a word (not a word alone, as the sentence is written) takes this out of the realm of being proper (Do you really think that your trivial interpretation answers the purpose in the present case? This is not the right word here.”.) If things were proper, then the following line should have been written with more care – “Reading between the lines — and this is most important in literary study — presupposes an accurate and comprehending reading of the lines themselves.” – substitute comprehensive for comprehending and the sentence may make sense, though the accuracy of the sentence is dubious at best.

The question turns to what is the interpretation of the following – “Here are these two shelves of novels – none of them by standard authors – all just moonshine or blood and thunder.”(S. Lewis, “Selected Short Story)”.
I see that “foolishness” is listed as informal speech. This could be true, though I am not familiar with that meaning in American English. Combining “moonshine” with “blood and thunder” seems to rule out the oblivious meaning of “moonshine” – the light emanating from the moon. Foolishness may make sense with blood and thunder. Moonshine (illegal whiskey) combined with blood and thunder seems to work quite well together. It is difficult to say with any certainty as the exact books are not listed. Sinclair Lewis is noted for writing about the common people and used dialog that would have been used by these people. The meaning of the word may well be akin to being foolish but this admission in no way detracts from my contention that I have in no way been chastized in a proper manner. I had asked a serious question of the poster – how did you derive this meaning for the word. I have still not received a proper rely to this question.

[5jj]

No, I do not believe that I have been properly put in my place [...] I had asked a serious question of the poster – how did you derive this meaning for the word. I have still not received a proper rely to this question.

My comment about your being put in your place was meant to be a sarcastic dig at Vil, Gillnetter (I apologise for spelling your name incorrectly.)

I thought that his response to someone who had attempted to assist him, "Do you really think that your trivial interpretation answers the purpose in the present case? This is not the right word here", was offensively dismissive, particularly as your question was reasonable.

Unfortunately, you appear to have taken my words seriously.