In your opinion . . .

[B.R.Stateham]

In your opinion, list the authors who have lifted the genre called mystery/detective up into the rarified air called 'Art.'

Most of us, I think, would put Raymond Chandler up there. But who else? And why? And while you're at it, explain why Chandler is so deified and somone like Ed McBain isn't.

[Joe Barone]

I think art can occur in mystery novels. In fact, I think Dashiell Hammett is one of the greatest American writers, on a par with people like Twain and Faulkner. But Hammett never thought so.

[B.R.Stateham]

Naomi,

I bow to your reasoning. And I agree.

[B.R.Stateham]

No attacks here, I.J. But isn't the function of art both to entertain and express beauty? By your reasoning, would it not be true portrait of a woman by a master painter is just another portrait of a woman--but a true artist takes the confining limitations of portrait painting and somehow overcomes those limitations.

So too would be a great detective novel. Overcoming the limitations is the definition of art.

[Joe Barone]

I just finished reading what I take to be a part of Batya Gur's opinion about detective stories and art. In her book MURDER DUET, A MUSICAL CASE, her main character Michael OHayon tells one reason why he doesn't like detective novels. He says, "Everything serves the plot, the mystery. There's no room to breathe, no beauty. No digressions from the central concern. Everything is functional. A conversation like this, between us now, couldn't take place in a detective story."

By and large, I don't think OHayon was an Agatha Christie fan.

[I. J. Parker]

Re why not art: Mystery is hedged in by the requirements not only of its form, but also by the fact that it is expected to please a large public by distracting them from their personal troubles and making them feel better about their own dull lives. That leaves too little room to follow up worthwhile themes, confront human nature, face up to inevitable tragedy and injustice, and other unpleasant things that artists generally take an interest in. In addition, you can find in almost any mystery devices to trick the reader onward. Many of these are cheap tricks (not art), for example, cliffhanger chapter endings, or a bloody violent scene in the first paragraph.
Now, don't attack me over this. I've used both devices in my books. :)

[B.R.Stateham]

Eric!

You might be one of the few who would lift Hammett up there (or past) Chandler. I can see the arguements both ways. I really enjoy Hammett--but truthfully, I really am ambivalent about equating him superior to Chandler. Equal--yes. Superior?

[Eric Christopherson]

I think Hammett was a better novelist than Chandler and is under-appreciated on style points. I'll mention Poe, Simenon, le Carre and Thomas Harris too.

[B.R.Stateham]

I agree with the Eco description, I.J. But tell me, why not use Art as a description in this genre?

[I. J. Parker]

Will have to check out Morell.

I'm not sure that I would ever use the word art for some of the incredibly fine and effective mysteries that have been written. Among them (and the list is certainly incomplete) would be Dorothy Sayers, R.D. Wingfield, John Mortimer, Colin Dexter, Henning Mankell for some books, Ian Rankin for at least one, Cruz Smith's GORKY PARK, Connelly's THE LINCOLN LAWYER, Robert Van Gulik, -- and I'm drawing a blank, but there are more. (I do not include Umberto Eco, who's simply too heavy-handed and boring.)

[John Dishon]

David Morrell. At least for First Blood. I haven't read any of his other novels. Of course, it's not a detective story and I guess it's more thriller than mystery, so maybe it doesn't count for your question.