It always surprises me how much bias there is in the world, and of course, it shouldn't. We all have a bit of prejudice in us about something.
It was James Lincoln Warren's post over at Criminal Brief on Monday that started this particular ball rolling through my mind. http://criminalbrief.com/?p=14018 He's pretty much of a mind that a mystery story should be about the puzzle, about solving the crime and finding justice at the end of the story. He believes that writers who write stories from the criminal's point of view are just lazy writers who are "romanticizing the worst in human behavior" and he feels cheated as a reader.
Then Brian Lindenmuth's posts at Mulholland Books http://mulhollandbooks.com/2010/09/23/in-search-of-crime-fiction%e2%80%99s-shadow-cabinet-adventures-of-a-long-tail-reader/ and Spinetingler http://www.spinetinglermag.com/2010/09/23/in-search-of-crime-fiction%e2%80%99s-shadow-cabinet/ about stories that don't fit into the perceived mystery/crime fiction slots. He wants stories that aren't just about the crime but stories that press emotional buttons that make us feel something for the characters or the situation. Stories that go beyond the accepted rules of a genre. He's not looking for a puzzle but a human story.
Now, both of these gentlemen are passionate about their beliefs in what makes a good mystery/crime novel. What I find sad is that major publishers and the reading public seem to agree with Mr. Warren. They want the puzzle, not the humanity. They don't want to dig deeper into the whys of a story. And that's too bad because while the puzzle mysteries are great fun, they're no more filling than cotton candy. Forgotten in the time it takes to melt in your mouth.
And that's where my bias lies. I want more meat on my stories. I want to understand the hows and whys of people's actions. Of course, I like a puzzle in my story, but it's the puzzlement of human nature more than the solving of a crime that I look for.
Russel D. McLean sums it up much better than I can in his post over at Do Some Damage today. http://dosomedamage.blogspot.com/2010/09/fiction-and-uncomfortable-truths.html
16 comments:
I don't think there is any way to declare what "readers" want, as if "readers" was a homogeneous group. I wish people would just stop trying and accept that there are as many flavors of books as their are readers. (Well, not so much in mystery, where imho, the genre struggles like the Catholic church to be modern and relevant enough to entice new interest. But that's a separate issue.
Okay, so I kind of got distracted in my response... I don't know if publishers want thing over another. Some editors/ agents/ readers want character over crime, others want mystery over character.
Publishers, for the most part, do realize this, even as they try to make wise business decisions by guessing what 'readers' really want.
I think most readers will accept even their less-preferred mode of story telling (either character- or puzzle- dominated) if the story is told well-enough.
Yes, it is more complicated, Clair, but I do think that those on the business end of publishing tend to homogonize stories so no one will be offended.
But the problem with "cleaning up" fiction is that life is offensive at times and trying to ignore that fact in a story is just another form of fairytale storytelling.
Hi, Sandy. "Lazy" writer checking in here! Writing from the investigator's point of view is not my speciality. I'm much better writing from the perspective of the person stuck in a situation who finds a way out (perhaps through illegal methods). I'm not in school, and I don't have to write like someone else wants me to just to impress him. Some people like my work - enough so that I've been nominated for the Agatha Award twice. That's good enough for me, even if my writing style does make me lazy in someone's skewed perspective. Isn't the mystery tent big enough to accommodate all types of stories? Why try to force all writers to write one type of mystery or nothing at all? Doesn't make sense to me.
Exactly Barb, readers cheat themselves out of some great books by saying they'll only read noir, or cozy or PI or some such. Mystery/Crime is so much more. We should wallow in everything, instead of sticking in a rut.
So, if a writer uses multiple POV in telling a story, with one pov being a hero-type and the other being a criminal, is the writer being half lazy?
As far as romanticizing criminals if the story is written from their pov, i think it can and does happen, but it doesn't have to happen. Richard Stark's PARKER series and character does romanticize crime and the criminal. We want Parker to make the heist, to get away, etc, but the books are also "kinda light" in that they are pure escapism and I don't consider them real world.
Contrast that with Thompson's THE KILLER INSIDE. No romance here, just a chilling portrayal of a sociopath, or is that a psychopath? That story could not be written effectively any other way than how Thompson wrote it.
Bottom line, i never feel cheated when i read either type book. Likewise, i read and love stories that feature a strong hero working to solve a crime or right a wrong. It's all story-telling. No wrongs here, IMO.
I agree with you, Frank, it's the storytelling that counts. If a writer can draw you into the story it doesn't matter whose pov the story is written from.
I dig puzzles. But I dig the other side, the human stories, too. I guess good writers just pull it off. Doyle's Holmes short stories are little puzzles but give us a really engaging and unique character.
Though I have noticed too that publishers (or at least the big boys) are all about the puzzle business and ignore everything else. Which is a pity. It limits the genre.
Personally I like to write about people who accidentally (or are forced) to interact with criminals or crime. No puzzles here--mainly cause it's not a strong suit for me.
Sandra, I can understand James Lincoln Warren's point to some extent. Making up good puzzles is bloody hard work. And there aren't many writers that are good at that. But like you, I think the puzzle of human nature is far more important. And to write about that without resorting to platitudes is very difficult. But much more rewarding when it's done well.
May I take this opportunity to pick your brain a little? If you had written an 8000 word story with a lot of violent deaths in it, but written in a style that might be called black humour, where, if anyplace, would you submit it?
I've done both, Chris, but find I'm more sucessful placing the stories without puzzles.
Now that's a tricky question, d! Being 8000 words long is going to be the hardest obstacle. If you can't cut back to around 5000 words, you'll either have to submit it as a serial or find an anthology. A horror anthology will probably be the best bet as they like dark humor and dead people don't bother them at all.
A really long shot would be AHMM but you might have to drop your body count along with the word count. Over at duotrope you can put the genre and word count into their search form and they might kick up a market for you.
Plots with Guns might be another option, but I can't remember the top word count over there. Most online zines top out at 3000 to 5000 words.
At some point, puzzles began to seem too formulaic to me, based mostly on the author tricking you, or with a detective coming in at the end and explaining all the things you were not privy to. I rely on the courts to mete justice. I don't need it in what I read.
I will read any genre as long as there is character development. interesting issues and atmosphere as key ingredients. Finding out who did it is my least concern.
Being able to create a puzzle does not make someone a better writer in my mind. Just one who is locked into a particular format.
I think that happens to writers too often, Patti. They lock themselves into a formula and are afraid to step outside of it. After that, the formula rules and the characters tend to die on the page. I find it sad when writers are afraid to experiment, especially with shorts. You never know what kind of writer you can be if you never try something different.
Sorry to be coming so late to the discussion, but I do feel that it is a misrepresentation of what I wrote to say that I believe that the puzzle in a mystery story is more important than the characters. To the contrary, one of the reasons I said I preferred detectives to criminals as protagonists is that a criminal act may require resolve, but to solve a crime requires wit and and character or both. My chief objection to stories that only describe the commission of a crime was that it is much easier to plot such stories than those which require a detective to bring the case to a conclusion. This is usually lazy writing, but it's not always lazy writing, and I did point out exceptions.
A strong plot does not mean poor characters. If anything, it gives the writer more scope to explore the characters.
Welcome to the Corner, James, and it's never too late to comment. I'm sorry if you feel that I misrepresented your statement. What I was trying to point out is how people are biased in their reading preference - You prefered puzzle type stories and Brian preferred character driven.
You're right that a good plot can bring out the best in characters but a good plot doesn't always have to revolve around a puzzle being solved.
I've reached a point in my reading where I'm looking for something more in a story than just chasing clues and my writing is following that direction. If anything, I find unfolding a story that doesn't drop a trail of breadcrumbs to get to the end more difficult to write.
I like exploring a character's mind, both the good and the bad guys. The hows and whys of what they're doing interest me. Besides if we all wrote the same kinds of stories it would be a very boring reading world.
It is an error to think that the solution of a crime is simply a matter of gathering factual clues and assembling them, especially in detective fiction. For example, criminal profilers in mysteries are detectives, but the leads they follow are pyschological and thus go directly to character.
The "Contemporary British" mystery, i.e., one in the manner of P.D. James or Ruth Rendell, deals mostly with the repercussions of criminal acts, and the solution to the crime almost always involves the detective having to minutely examine the lives of the characters, and not just their actions or where they were on the evening of the 18th. This makes these kinds of stories particularly rich, in a human sense. But the detective is still going after the culprit!
For the record, I not prefer "puzzle" stories to "character driven" (that much-abused term!). In the first place, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. In the second place, I'm every bit as dedicated to hard-boiled as I am to fair-play stories in my own oeuvre. Hard-boiled stories are not puzzles, they are travelogues, journeys of discovery, if you will.
Don't get me wrong, because I do love a good puzzle story, too. My objections "committing the crime" stories are not based on the presence or absence of good characterization. Many stories relating the commission of crimes fall way short in characterization, too — as you might expect from a writer being lazy.
I wonder if the confusion when we consider puzzle mysteries is that they're considered by most to be cozy mysteries? As you point out, there are a great many puzzle mysteries that are hard-boiled or noir. I think the way stories are tagged can bias readers and keep them from enjoying a good story. And yes, I agree that with either type of story if the writer doesn't do his job properly all you have is cardboard characters and not much else.
Post a Comment