Reduced to writing thrillers

[Jim Gracie]

Anybody care to comment on this story from an English newspaper published in January 2008? (Forgive me if it's been posted before - I'm new to Crimespace).

http://meggardiner.wordpress.com/2008/01/26/crime-writing-duhhhhhhhhh/

It made my blood boil.

[John Dishon]

http://meggardiner.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/

There has been a topic on this. Hasn't been too long ago, I think. But yeah, Brady was misquoted and/or taken out of context.

[I. J. Parker]

Well, you know, the important thing is to stay flexible. You can move from literary to thriller (or mystery, as another famous literary writer just did, again), or you can move from genre to literary.

Or do you lose entree after slumming among the mysteries and thrillers?

[Jim Gracie]

I thought this might have come up before.

But I'm fascinated by it. In what way was she misrepresented?

And in hindsight, does anyone know if her reputation suffered, or she lost money? Going by money alone, I would have thought she would have made more money from a crime book or a thriller.

I once attended a lecture where a professor of literature did actually state that the writing and reading of crime novels and thrillers should be discouraged, as they were (and I quote) 'transparent, and didn't lend themselves to academic study'.

[John Dishon]

Uh, did you read the link I posted? Where Brady says that she never said she was dumbed down and how it was offensive to thriller writers to even suggest it? That's how she was misrepresented, according to her.

[Patrick Balester]

Yeah, I saw that story in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago and even placed the article link on my blog. According to John Dishon, she's innocent, but when I read the story in the NY Times, it did make her look bad. I read John's link as well, and to be fair, she could easily have been misquoted. Everyone can read both articles and decide for themselves I suppose.
It still leaves unanswered a question in my mind...whether the reputation of genre fiction has improved or not. Here's the link to the Times Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/weekinreview/03mcgrath.html?ex=13...

[Jim Gracie]

Having read all the links now (sorry about that John) I am even more confused than ever. If, as she states, her 'mental faculties haven't deteriorated', and crime/thrillers is 'a remarkable genre where much of the best writing is done', why did she sue? And nowhere in any of the reports I've read has any newspaper claimed that you need to be stupid to write thrillers, as she says they did.

Very curious.

I can't make my mind up if it has done genre writing any harm, or any good. Probably the latter, but perhaps that's only my prejudices peeking out. I've been in too many situations where genre fiction is dismissed out of hand.

I've already told of one academic'sview of mystery/crime fiction. Here's another tale. I had a friend who lectured in literature in a local university, and wrote short stories. One of his colleagues was highly critical of Mills and Boon romance novels, so my friend challenged her to write one. She took up the challenge, and couldn't get her book published anywhere. So she wrote another one, and a third one, and still no one would publish them. She gave up eventually, but her view never changed that they were trashy and easy to write.

[Angie]

She sued because she ended up with nerve damage as a result of breathing in the toxins of the glue used by the shoe factory. She has still not recovered fully, and (if memory serves) has been told some of the damage is permanent. There was also some legal action against the town.

Look, the woman was misquoted and promptly villianized in the genre community. The ongoing back and forth over perceived (and sometimes real) slights against crime fiction marches on, but this author was not bashing thrillers or thriller writers. I suspect she was more interested in her physical health than a genre vs. literary fiction debate.

[carole gill]

And yet she's still disdainful! I suppose looking down on something is a sport rather enjoyed by a lot of so-called intellectuals. Yawn. I happen to think that crime fiction (even historical c.f.), reflects the world we all live in. and weaving a plot with twists and suprises is far from easy. who cares, we don't need the snobs. Let them curl up with "the great works of literarure," while the rest of us have fun reading and writing!

[I. J. Parker]

Crime fiction could be a great deal better if people didn't write formula to turn out 3 or 4 titles a year. Some crime fiction is as strong as the better literary fiction.
However, I don't think John Banville should write mysteries. Besides, I don't much like it that he uses a pseudonym when he does.

[carole gill]

as always, you raise a good point. I didn't think of the stuff by formula. too right. and as for using a pseudonym when writing crime fiction-not exactly admirable or heroic.

[Angie]

Actually, there's a long tradition of writers using pseudonyms in crime fiction and not because they feel particularly ashamed or embarrassed about what they are producing. Some contemporary writers do this either because a) it's fun or b) as a way to keep different branches or styles of their writing distinct. This last can be helpful in the current publishing state of hyper-marketing awareness.

Banville has been particularly ambivalent about his crime fiction books and does seem to think they are somehow inferior to his 'literary' work. That's not terribly common across the history of the genre and those who use/d pen names, though.

[carole gill]

Good to know. I see what you mean. Thanks. I did't think of that. I'd like to call myself Ed McBain but I don't suppose it would work!