Publishing Crime: where the money is

The Literati

Click to expand...

I think these people -- whoever they are -- are idiots.

Willowmound said:

I think these people -- whoever they are -- are idiots.

Click to expand...

Not idiots--just people who seem to have a blinding arrogance, which can be idiotic to me in a literary context. Be careful, though, there's a huge difference between calling a person an idiot and saying that person is doing something idiotic. I do idiotic things all the time, but I don't think I'm an idiot. Others may disagree, but hopefully their opinions are based on solid data.

Oh don't worry, NeuroFizz. I'm calling them idiots.

The artist in me thinks these writers are being idiotic for writing in a genre that they are not passionate about, just because the genre sells and "is acceptable."

The living-paycheck-to-paycheck-woman in me thinks they should write what they want, as long as they are writing well, and kudos if they sell good volume.

I rarely read crime novels, anyway, so that's about all I can offer.

Unfortunately, Ursula LeGuin's excellent and scathing essay, "On Despising Genre" is no longer available online. Wonder how long it will take them to quit looking down their noses at SF and Fantasy, or *gasp*, romance?

I'm probably betraying my plebish roots here, but I've never understood the whole Literati thing, given that most literature falls within a genre, whether that's romance, crime, thriller, horror or SF/fantasy.

P. D. James and Ian Rankin were both very active throughout 2006 in sounding the trumpet for crime novels as deserving respect (and in one interview with The Times, they both made the point that SF/fantasy gets even less respect than crime fiction). They deserve some kudos for doing it.

I'm an Ian Rankin fan, if only because it's fun to read about places I've been...I also watch Rebus on telly and play 'spot the pubs I've drunk in'!

aruna said:

Danuta says in this article that literary writers are turning to crime because that's where the money is.

Click to expand...

It's a common misconception that literary writers are so skilled they could easily write genre fiction if they wanted to. Genre fiction is an entirely different animal from literary fiction; each has its own difficulties and skill sets. Very few can write both well, although there are some who can.

It's like saying a brilliant classical violin player could do equally well at playing jazz, or that a jazz player could be a rock star if only they cared about money. Again, there are a few who can cross over, but mostly not. Ever see the movie where Pavarotti tried singing "I Left My Heart in San Francisco?" (Dreadful film) Laughable. He's certainly a great singer in his own idiom, but Tony Bennett he's not.

Genre

I don't know. It's never been a secret that the mystery genre has a close relationship with literary writers, and it's always been acceptable for literary writers to write mystery novels.

Pure mystery writers have never really been considered full-fleged members of the literati family, but quite a few have been considered kissing cousins. Mystery has been called the "literary genre," and all that has stopped it from being a full member has been the Mickey Spillane type of mystery that, while entertaining, is certainly not beautifully written.

Ignoring such novels, mystery writers have always been considered a cut or two above other genre writer, and such writers really have been much more likely to have a literary background.

John Updike has written science fiction, and what I can only describe as fantasy (The Witches of Eastwick), and Joyce Carol Oates has written horror.

I don't think it's genre the literati rails against, it's mediocre writing, and plots and characters that have little resemblance to real life. And they do have a point. Great writing, realistic characters, and believable plots are not the first things an agent or editor looks for in most genre fiction, they're the last. Great if you can get them, but not something you demand or expect.

I'm all for literary writers writing mystery fiction. In fact, they always have. I wish more literary writers would write in all the genres. It certainly wouldn't harm the overall quality of genre fiction.

There's just as much snootiness and snobbery within the throngs of genre writers as ever existed within the throngs of literary writers, and honestly, it doesn't matter a damn whether any genre writers accept literary writers into the ranks. What matters is only whether the reading public accepts them, and where mystery writing is concerned, they always have.

And people seem to forget that in the not so distant past literary and genre writers were one and the same. A writer was a writer, and books were not divided into genre as they are now. Good writers wrote whatever they wished to write, and it was judged purely by quality. It was the explosion of publishing thanks to modern technology, along with associated changes in distribution and the way bookstores and modern libraries work that caused books to be broken into many genres, and the separation of literary and genre writers.

I think the snootiness and snobbery needs to vanish on both sides. I don't care what anyone thinks of literary fiction, there is no doubt that many of the best writers in the world are literary writers. I'd love to see the barriers come down on both sides.

rugcat said:

It's a common misconception that literary writers are so skilled they could easily write genre fiction if they wanted to. Genre fiction is an entirely different animal from literary fiction; each has its own difficulties and skill sets. Very few can write both well, although there are some who can.

It's like saying a brilliant classical violin player could do equally well at playing jazz, or that a jazz player could be a rock star if only they cared about money. Again, there are a few who can cross over, but mostly not. Ever see the movie where Pavarotti tried singing "I Left My Heart in San Francisco?" (Dreadful film) Laughable. He's certainly a great singer in his own idiom, but Tony Bennett he's not.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think it is a misconception. Literary writing and genre writing have far, far more in common than any of teh comparisons you make, and there was a time when literary and genre writers were one and the same. The division has always been an artifice set up by publishers, bookstores, and distribution. In reality, most literary writers can cross over with remarkable ease. With the exception of mystery, they just haven't wanted to do so, and it's hard to blame them.

aruna said:

literary writers are turning to crime because that's where the money is.

Click to expand...

So are a lot of politicians and business executives.

caw

Jamesaritchie said:

No, I don't think it is a misconception. Literary writing and genre writing have far, far more in common than any of teh comparisons you make, and there was a time when literary and genre writers were one and the same. The division has always been an artifice set up by publishers, bookstores, and distribution. In reality, most literary writers can cross over with remarkable ease. With the exception of mystery, they just haven't wanted to do so, and it's hard to blame them.

Click to expand...

If you look around you'll find a fair number of "literary" writers whose work includes things easily fitting "genre" shelves. Bernard Malamud's last novel is an allegorical fantasy. Bret Lott has a mystery in his stable. J. G. Ballard has done distinguished work in SF and Fantasy as well as stuff normally considered "literary". Among earlier writers now revered as great literary novelists, Edith Wharton and Henry James dabbled in ghost stories, and pretty good ones, too; Wharton's "Afterward" is often nominated as the finest ghost story ever written.

JAR is exactly right; the division is largely an artifice of marketing.

caw

Jamesaritchie said:

I think the snootiness and snobbery needs to vanish on both sides. I don't care what anyone thinks of literary fiction, there is no doubt that many of the best writers in the world are literary writers. I'd love to see the barriers come down on both sides.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with everything in your post, except that I think the snobbishness flows mostly one way. I’ve written both mysteries and fantasy, but I read lots of literary fiction. There’s some truly amazing writing out there and I’m in awe of great writing ability no matter what the vehicle.

But the idea that genre writers, with a few exceptions, are not real writers, is a idea I see promoted far too often even among people who should know better.

As a Literary Genre Author, whose work is both "literary" and "genre", I was often quite surprised at the words that came out of the mouths of some of my professors.

But, that's okay. The thing about the smarter people I knew was that they approached each author with open eyes regardless of where that author was placed in the store.

James Patterson gets placed in the Literature/Fiction section. William Gibson is in SF?

Smart people don't worry about the marketing stuff. Intelligent people might.

Jamesaritchie said:

In reality, most literary writers can cross over with remarkable ease.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I don't think it's that easy. Yes, they have the skill, just as a classical player has the skill to play in a rock band. Each possesses a certain level of competency and won't produce anything unreadable or unlistenable.

Literary fiction can explore character and theme in a deep and meaningful way, in a fashion not usually available to genre. To continue the music analogy, it’s absurd to compare the Bach Cello Suites to a Jimi Hendrix album. They’re both music, but they are doing vastly different things. Bach is operating on a creative level almost beyond our comprehension.

But sometimes you just want to listen to some rock and roll. And as a jazz player, I can tell you it's simple, but it's not easy.

rugcat said:

To continue the music analogy, it’s absurd to compare the Bach Cello Suites to a Jimi Hendrix album. They’re both music, but they are doing vastly different things. Bach is operating on a creative level almost beyond our comprehension.

Click to expand...

Um... But so is Jimi.

I think you'd be surprised to know the number of "literary" writers that have "slummed" with pseudonyms to make a few thousand dollars for a few months work.

Also, every single real trumpet player I ever knew (and I marched drum corps with some of the original cast of "Blast!", including the original blues trumpet soloist Andy Smart) had full knowledge of jazz, classical, new age, and rock, and just about everything else that a trumpet plays.

Bach slummed, too. His version of slumming was being a choral director. He was doing it for money, after all.

Regardless, the distinction is really not there. The level of craftsmenship is what we're really talking about, and you don't have to write genre to be a hack. Nor does a genre writer necessarily have to be a hack.

rugcat said:

Literary fiction can explore character and theme in a deep and meaningful way, in a fashion not usually available to genre.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that in the least.

Doing the above in a meaningful way is what makes good writing. Everything else is slush (published or not, genre or not).

rugcat said:

Literary fiction can explore character and theme in a deep and meaningful way, in a fashion not usually available to genre. To continue the music analogy, it’s absurd to compare the Bach Cello Suites to a Jimi Hendrix album. They’re both music, but they are doing vastly different things. Bach is operating on a creative level almost beyond our comprehension.

Click to expand...

Oh please. This is throwing me back to hours of listening to incomprehensible lectures about incomprehensible writings and trying to appear to be in the know. After a certain point you get a little tired of it all and call crap well, crap. I'm not calling Bach crap but even Bach at one point wasn't classical and I'm sure he was trying to be popular to some point. I never understand this idea that popular means bad. I'm sure even art film makers a trying to impress their friends if no one else. Whatever.

Os.

After doing my stint in the land of the ivory towers ...

"Canon", "literature", "literary", "classic" ... all great terms, all great concepts, each with some very valuable things to teach people.

But, at the same time, it does breed a certain type of cultural product, in and of itself. The literary novel is a genre. The art film is a genre. The experimental "art for art" art of any sort is ... a genre.

Where the high brow consumables get their cultural cache is, essentially, from exclusivity. If you "need" 4-6 years of college in order to "properly understand" a certain piece of work, that gives the work capital. You're excluding people from the club, so to speak, and that's what makes the club special ... that people want in that can't get in.

Popular culture is pretty much the opposite of that. So, of course, those who place value on the cache of exclusivity are creating THEIR OWN VALUE in that exclusivity. What makes THEM important is that their consumables aren't available to other people.

Of course then you get into building cultural capital by adopting certain popular media into the academic circle. Sometimes I think that's really the key ... the academic establishment is about a decade beyond the rest of the world. They're studying the consumable while others are ... consuming it.

In his time, Shakespear was pop culture. My favorite Shakespear play is Titus Andronicus, mostly because it was a blatant grab for a little cash from a popular genre.

Oddly, some of the writers I most respect are those that make a grab for a little cash writing what people want to read.

I grew up on David Eddings' fantasy novels. I read somewhere once that he got into writing fantasy because, walking through a store in the 70s, he saw that the Lord of the Rings was in its bazillionth printing. So he decided to write some sword-and-sorcery romances. Because they sold.

At the end of the day, I think writing is a craft. It's something you work at. I have no pretenses at artistry. The only success I desire is that ... people want to read what I write. I want to sell books. I want to write books that sell. If that means I'm writing crime drama ... cool. If that means I'm writing sword-and-horses ... also cool. I just want it to be solid, readable, enjoyable text that people pick up and walk through the check-out and pay for ... and come back a few days later and pick up another. I would like people to seek out my name(s) on the shelf expecting a good read ... and getting it.

If nobody writes their doctoral thesis about my prose twenty years down the road, I don't think I'll lose any sleep.

--fje

oswann said:

I'm not calling Bach crap but even Bach at one point wasn't classical and I'm sure he was trying to be popular to some point.

Click to expand...

Just to be difficult here: Bach (J.S., that is) was baroque, not classical. Classical music had not yet been invented when he started his career, although it was virtually pushing him out the door by the time he finished. But I definitely agree with your main point, that being popular doesn't mean it's poorly done. My ultimate dream as a writer would be to produce works that could be commercially successful and with enough depth that the literary types could enjoy it too, even if only under the covers with a flashlight. Shakespeare is probably the prime example of someone who managed to be commercially successful, yet oozed artistic integrity. If I could just figure out how he did it...

Judg said:

Shakespeare is probably the prime example of someone who managed to be commercially successful, yet oozed artistic integrity. If I could just figure out how he did it...

Click to expand...

It helps being first. The theatre was just 50 years old when Shakespeare did his thing.

If you're the first one with major talent, you get to set the bar. And no one can of course ever be first again.

Take Romeo and Juliet. It's an archetypal love story. Shakespeare was there early enough to be the first to tell it well. Same with other plays of his. Remove Shakespeare from history, and some other highly talented writer would have been the first to tell the archetypal stories well. And we would have been talking about him.

The theatre has been going on long and strong since before ancient rome. It may not have been somewhere like the "globe", but morality plays and various stage storytelling techniques existed since the dawn of Wesern Civilization.

Just because it wasn't at a theatre called "The Globe", with a stage built this particular way and stories structured around this or that audience is no reaso to exclude such things.

However, the real trick of Shakespeare (and Bach and Mozart and Jimi) is that experiencing their art is like hearing something for the first time that is the "beginning".

Ah, but the point is -- and has been stated repeatedly -- craftsmanship knows no genre.

Mostly, I'm grateful that literary writers aren't ACTUALLY turning to CRIME. That would be horrible.

They would leave these notes saying they'd done it, and no one would have any idea what the hell they said in the note.

Still, better than horror authors turning to crime. Or even worse, romance authors.

PeeDee said:

Mostly, I'm grateful that literary writers aren't ACTUALLY turning to CRIME. That would be horrible.

They would leave these notes saying they'd done it, and no one would have any idea what the hell they said in the note.

Still, better than horror authors turning to crime. Or even worse, romance authors.

Click to expand...

Yes a romance novelist would either be so vendictive as to commit the most gruesome of crimes in an act of revenge or they would bore us to death with the details.