A
smart writer doesn’t criticize critics. Smart or not, I haven’t and won’t. On a
few occasions I’ve disagreed with a reviewer’s take on something he or she has
written about other writers and about my work.
To be fair, there also were times when I thought a reviewer had given
me the benefit of the doubt.
Agatha Christie, Cozy or Soft boiled? |
One
of the very few times I was bothered by a review was when it was clear that the
expectations the reviewer had were ones that I didn’t set. It was kind of like
complaining that Marcel Marceau failed to project his voice adequately. The
reviewer had pegged me as a writer of hard-boiled detective fiction. And in the
book under review I hadn’t met the criteria.
The thing is I never considered myself to be hard-boiled and I never
tried to write hard-boiled fiction. I like it, but it’s not how my brain
works. Then again, maybe I don’t know
what “hard-boiled” is. Did I write it and not know it? The truth is I never
thought about categories of mysteries or crime fiction. I read what I read and I wrote what I wrote.
Hardboiled Mickey Spillane |
After
failing to meet what I thought to be the reviewers “hard-boiled” expectations,
I started looking around, reading blogs and paying attention to reviews of
other writers. More important, I think, I began to think of the crime books I
read as falling into one category or another. None of them, the ones I read after I started
writing books of my own, seemed to fit what I understood “hardboiled” to be, though
that’s how many of them are described.
In the early days I couldn’t get my fill of books by Gregory Mcdonald, Stephen Greenleaf and Robert
Campbell. Not a lot of gore. And the
P.I.s weren’t really all that tough. To me the common denominator in what I was
drawn to was humor and the vulnerability (lack of pure heroism), something I liked
on television as well, with shows like The
Rockford Files. Shanahan, my first series, certainly isn’t noir. None of my
books are. I like noir but I don’t write it. Also I can’t see the Shanahans as
hard-boiled — though it has its moments. Parts of Asphalt
Moon are tough enough, I suppose. And Good
to the Last Kiss, a non-series book, could easily fall into the category.
For the most part, I see what I write as having a less sensational, but more
probable plot with, I hope, a heavy dollop of humor. Still, I’m not 100 percent
sure where my books fall. But what do I
know? I mean that seriously. Can we see ourselves clearly? Can we judge our own work?
But
back to the subject — crime fiction categories.
There are a number of ways to go about this, I think. The first may be
dividing crime fiction into mysteries, thrillers and suspense with the
knowledge that they may all cross over into each other. These categories may be further delineated
into medical, legal, supernatural, romantic, professional sleuth, amateur
sleuth, police procedural and noir. Again, happily, there are mongrels here as
well. It wasn’t long ago that what we call “crime fiction” was under the
“mystery” category. I think calling it
“crime fiction” was a smart move. A
mystery, to me, is a whodunnit.
Dashiell Hammett, Noir |
But
the basic breakout always seemed to be “cozy,” “soft-boiled,” “hard-boiled” and
“noir.” There are those who lump “cozy”
and “soft-boiled” together and still others where the term “medium boiled”
slips in between the other two eggs.
So,
someone could look for a soft-boiled, amateur medical mystery. Maybe there could be a hard-boiled, legal,
police procedural with professional sleuth overtones, as in Michael Connelly’s The Lincoln Lawyer. Possibly James
Lee Burke’s Creole Belle could be
a professional sleuth police procedural noir with supernatural touches. This must drive librarians and bookstore
owners crazy. Though for these two
books, one might simply put them in the bestseller section and forget anything
else. Do that and still the question of
categorization remains. And it’s not
easy to answer.
JB Dickey, owner of the 22-year-old
Seattle Mystery Bookshop illustrates how thin the lines between categories can
be. I had always assumed that Agatha Christie was a writer of cozies.
“I
wouldn't call Christie's Poirot books cozy,” Dickey said. “… guess they'd fall
into more of a 'classic' or 'traditional' school, whereas you could make a case
for her Marple books to be cozy mysteries due to their setting and tone. Same
author, same time period, slightly different 'category.'”
Seattle Mystery Bookshop |
If
“medium-boiled” is a valid term — and it’s not legit for many knowledgeable
people — then I suspect it is where most of my books belong. And it might explain many things. I write about private eyes, which is at the
moment, not the most popular of protagonist types. And as the trends show at
the moment, I see that readers tend to go either to the least or most violent, while
I occupy the land in between.
In
other ways, today’s tastes seem to be broad.
And the ease of publishing — which, like most advancement, can be
helpful and detrimental — has broadened the concept of crime fiction still
further.
“Years
ago,” Dickey said, “the rage was
medieval mysteries, then the Southwest, then conspiracy/codes and now Scandinavian.
Readers will follow a certain type for a while because a certain author becomes
popular.” He cites Ellis Peters, Tony Hillerman,
Dan Brown and Henning Mankell. But there
is always something on the horizon, he says.
“Werewolves and vampires are big right now. Some are very dark and
bloody —Scandinavian books or Urban Fantasy — and some are light cozies.”
It’s
constantly evolving. Maybe the proliferation of categories makes the whole idea
of categories unhelpful. Add to this the
reissues of everyone’s early books (mine included) as well as the classics.
“Rue
Morgue and Felony & Mayhem are bringing back whodunnits from the Golden Age
and people are discovering them, or rediscovering them,” Dickey said.
Yes,
yes, all that’s old is new again and we now have “urban fantasy” and “rural
noir.” It’s kind of like the soda pop world or the number of flavors and colors
of Yoplait yogurt. I searched the Internet for the definitive set of
categories. All of them, so far, seem
insufficient. Maybe we can’t get that
categorical, after all. But I’d love to
hear your thoughts. What do you write
and read? Why?
4 comments:
Stephen Greenleaf, whom you mention, was a particular favorite of mine. Others were read, but I especially awaited each new Greenleaf. Why?
Vulnerability, you say. Yes, there was that, and in The Rockford Files too. But also the tone and the fine writing, it seems to me now, and especially because the writing voice was so civilized.
Perhaps I had an easier time identifying with the protagonist. Reading Greenleaf was always a comfort read because it let me know, yet again, that there were other decent, civilized minds out there.
Thanks for commenting. I hadn't thought of the writing in terms of civility. I can see it. A writer's style is personal, I think. And it is this notion of "comfort" that really hits home. Spending time with a book, especially a series book, becomes like very much like being with a friend. There is a level of comfort that means a lot.
You are not hard-boiled. You are not soft-boiled. You are poached, resting easily on a slice of Canadian bacon, lavished with Hollandaise and nestled on an English muffin. And mysteries, like Eggs Benedict, don't get any better.
Thanks, Teri. I was thinking I was a little more scrambled than that......
Post a Comment