Ruling Passion
Ruling Passion is a 1973 crime novel by Reginald Hill, the third novel in the Dalziel and Pascoe series. The novel opens with Detective Peter Pascoe arriving at what should have been a reunion of old friends. Instead he walks in on the scene of a grisly triple-murder. To solve the crime, Pascoe needs both his superior officer, Andy Dalziel and his romantic partner—and Dalziel's feminist antagonist—Elli.[1]
 First edition | |
| Author | Reginald Hill |
|---|---|
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Language | English |
| Series | Dalziel and Pascoe series, #3 |
| Genre | crime novel |
| Publisher | Collins Crime Club |
Publication date | April 1973 |
| Media type | Print (Hardcover) |
| Pages | 255p. |
| ISBN | 0-00-231710-9 |
| OCLC | 746618 |
| 823/.9/14 | |
| LC Class | PZ4.H64856 Ru PR6058.I448 |
| Preceded by | An Advancement of Learning |
| Followed by | An April Shroud |
Publication history
- 1973, London: Collins Crime Club ISBN 0-00-231710-9, Pub date April 1973, Hardback
- 1987, London: Harper Collins ISBN 0-586-07260-8[2]
- 2008, New York: Felony & Mayhem Press ISBN 978-1-934609-17-0, Pub date September 2008.
gollark: - the replication crisis does exist, but it's not like *every paper* has a 50% chance of being wrong - it's mostly in some fields and you can generally estimate which things won't replicate fairly well without much specialized knowledge- science™ agrees on lots of things, just not some highly politicized things- you *can* do RCTs and correlation studies and such, which they seem to be ignoring- some objectivity is better than none- sure, much of pop science is not great, but that doesn't invalidate... all science- they complain about running things based on "trial and error and guesswork", but then don't offer any alternative
gollark: The alternative to basing things on science, I mean. The obvious alternative seems to basically just be guessing?
gollark: What's the alternative? Science is at least *slightly* empirical and right. Also, the video is wrong.
gollark: Fast video encoding is less space-efficient and/or worse quality.
gollark: Because you're wrong, obviously. More data → more good.
References
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.