What Makes a Book A Thriller?

[Jude Hardin]

I think the word is used a bit too liberally these days. Some mystery/suspense authors label their books thrillers because thrillers sell better than mysteries.

I think we all know a thriller when we see one, though.

Here's my definition:

A fast-paced drama pushing the envelope of credibility with situation and character (the protagonist often possessing or attaining nearly or downright superhuman qualities and/or a super sense of duty/morality, pitted against a villain of equal or greater strength), where the stakes are increasingly raised and ultimately include a large group of people or even the entire world.

As opposed to the gritty realism of the harboiled/noir detective or the cute incompetence of the cozy's amateur sleuth, where one or a handful of lives are at stake, thrillers play more with suspension of disbelief and global consequences.

James Bond, for example, is the perfect hero. He's fast, witty, clever, a chick magnet, physically strong, an expert at EVERYTHING...

He's a super man, his world has a completely different set of rules than ours, and he's thrown into battles that are seemingly impossible to win.

That's what makes a thriller, IMO.

Thoughts?

What makes a book a thriller?

[Daniel Hatadi]

So, does that mean erotica falls under the thriller label? ; )

Umm, yes? Okay, maybe not. I suppose trying to define thriller or even noir is like trying to define 'quality'. I know of at least one man that went mad trying to do just that.

[Jude Hardin]

Right, Sandra! EVERYTHING's a friggin' thriller these days. Consumers aren't that stupid, are they? How long will it take the average buyer to figure out that the "thriller" label is as meaningless as the latest diet craze?

Wait a minute. Maybe consumers are that stupid. :(

[Jude Hardin]

Right, Daniel. Kris's post got me thinking about it, and I thought it might be interesting to see what the folks here had to say.

While I would agree some mysteries are thrillers, some suspense novels etc., I think a lot of books are being marketed as thrillers when they're simply not. As a reader, shopping for new authors to try, the label has become a misnomer so much of the time I've pretty much stopped paying attention to it. It's like new and Improved triple-action laundry detergent, or breath mints with some magical ingredient that makes us irresistable to the opposite sex. Just because the commercial says so doesn't necessarily make it true.

[Daniel Hatadi]

It feels like 'thriller' will be used as a label for decades to come. Maybe it's time we tried to come up with a new one ourselves.

How about 'grabber?'

Tee hee. It makes me giggle already.

[Jude Hardin]

Good point, Jon.

I guess it's all part of this crazy little business we call publishing. A lot of it doesn't make sense, but it's all we have so we just carry on and hope for the best or throw up our hands and say fuck it.

Since we're still here, I suppose we're still carrying on and hoping for the best. :)

[I. J. Parker]

Back to erotica? As in "bodice ripper"?

[I. J. Parker]

This comment referred back to Daniel's proposal of "grabber" and a previous post on erotica. I was being facetious. And I do know the difference -- though it is more one of degree. Still, I'm always grateful for instruction.

[I. J. Parker]

Okay, this thread gets a bit confusing. REBECCA is by no means part of the literary canon. And JANE EYRE is, though not at all like FRANKENSTEIN. I simply suddenly saw the Bronte book sparking a following much in the same way the Jane Austen novels have. And the connection is not via plot, but rather via atmosphere and melodrama. (Speaking as professor of English literature here, a momentary aberration, so I beg everyone's pardon. I don't do this very often and it's not really relevant to mysteries).

[Sandra Ruttan]

Well, I tried to post a comment last night, but it didn't work...

I agree with you, Jude, and I do think one of the problems is actively pursuing non-thriller writers as members of thriller organizations. I guess in that sense, I'm putting more of the blame on the thriller organizations for the problem. There should be a clear definition, for one thing, and full membership should be limited to those who write thrillers. I'm of the same mind where MWA is concerned - I don't think people who've never published a mystery (and don't have one under contract) but publish... fantasy... should be considered Mystery Authors. With many of these organizations some promotional aspect is involved, the perk for membership. Pushing your book in the newsletters, or whatever. So you end up getting books that aren't thrillers touted as hot new thrillers...

Of course, I'm not going to be popular for saying all that, but I honestly think it should be categorized differently. If I joined RWA (and I don't even know if they have this, but assuming they do some sort of newsletter promotion) I'd like to see them have "Hot new romance titles" and then a section for "New works by associate author members" and distinguish between associate authors and just associate members.

It's just my opinion. But I do think that when you have an organization that is supposed to be the representative of a certain subgenre lumping non-thrillers in with the thrillers, or non-mysteries in with the mysteries, or non-romance in with the romance, it's confusing and misleading for readers who aren't following the latest discussion on how to define a thriller/mystery/romance.

Honestly, I'm not ashamed that WHAT BURNS WITHIN is a police procedural, and that's why I was happy to have it reported as mystery/crime. I know that it also is a thriller (action-packed, intensely paced with ticking clock and lives on the line) but I love police procedurals, and I'm proud to have two coming out next year. And I wish my books would be shelved in mystery here, but they won't be. Sure, some might say that I'll get higher sales this way, but I would much rather reach the people passionate about what I do and let word of mouth go from there, than be hit and miss with a wider audience that may or may not like procedural books.

[I. J. Parker]

A lot of series "mysteries" newly titled "thriller" are shelved under mystery in libraries here. But I do see some best-selling mystery or thriller authors now in general fiction, and their books are simply identified as "novel." This appears to be a prestige sort of thing -- as if the more serious readers go to the general fiction shelves.

I have, as I said before, a more generous definition of thriller, as well as a notion that ITW was formed as a refuge for authors who felt unwelcome at MWA. And, I suppose, I should admit that I share that feeling. Perhaps we need another organization for mystery writers.

[Sandra Ruttan]

Well, I'm not a member of MWA or the ITW, and can't really speak about the MWA. However, it seems to me the ITW has actively gone after pulling everyone into the boat with them, not just the thriller writers, so I think they share some responsibility for the ambiguity surrounding the thriller label.

I'm not overly fond of the term mystery, in general, because mystery is actually a subgenre of crime fiction. That's part of the reason why thrillers don't get shelved in mystery here - they aren't seen as a whodunnit but a how-will-we-stop-whodunnit, in the very basic sense. That is why I prefer the term crime fiction. Then again, our national organization is the Crime Writers of Canada, and in the UK it's the Crime Writers Association. I suppose in the same way that thrillers branched off in the US, there's the potential of every subgroup branching off. We could probably debate endlessly whether or not that's a good thing. Ultimately, organizations are run by people, who make mistakes, and some have agendas, and my own experience being vice president and program chair of one group only serves to convince me I don't want the headaches of being on the board of another group. The agendas and political posturing are enough to drive you mad. It wasn't mystery vs thriller, but mystery vs romantic suspense, and published vs unpublished, with unpublished authors thinking the authors should be obligated to teach sessions and that more of the program should be geared to the unpublished because there were more unpublished vs published...

Just thinking about it gives me a headache. You can't please everyone. But groups that want to encompass a wide membership should actually do their part to make everyone welcome, I suppose...