Jim,
Thanks for your insight. Oddly enough, when I interviewed
Simon Kernick we talked about the fact that there was a lack
of tradition of thrillers in British fiction, and it came up
with I interviewed Mark Billingham as well.* I suppose that
could be a debate for another day.
I actually think your definition of Œthriller¹ might be the
closest to what is actually being used these days. However,
it seems to me that it muddies the waters, and gives an out
to bookstores to move such books out of the mystery section.
(People like me, who don¹t leave the mystery section, fail to
understand their reasoning.) I guess what I¹m thinking is
that if we¹re going to have subgenre categories, shouldn¹t
they work to actually distinguish different styles, instead
of creating an overlapping label that can be applied to
almost everything? When I was getting comments back on my
book people called it a police procedural, a psychological
thriller, crime fiction, mystery, suspense... And I wouldn¹t
say that my book relies more on action, pace and suspense
than cerebration, yet my second choice behind straight
mystery/crime fiction labeling was suspense. The thriller tag
baffled me, but who am I to judge a reader? If that¹s what it
is to them, that¹s what it is. I wouldn¹t tell people they¹re
wrong, it just makes me wonder if they¹ve got different
definitions than I have.
But really, it isn¹t even the thrillers that I¹m intrigued
by. It¹s the discussion about noir. I¹m a babe in the woods
compared to the regulars on this list when it comes to
knowledge of noir and hardboiled fiction, and I don¹t think
I¹d ever realized just how closely connected noir was to
hardboiled. My first exposure to the term Œnoir¹ was being
applied to Rankin¹s work. However, the discussion here about
the history of noir and some of the definitions being
discussed - ³screwed² - make me wonder about how the term is
being applied and whether or not it¹s being applied too
loosely. It seems to me there are a lot of books being
labeled noir that aren¹t. If there is a fundamental optimism
underlying the book, the sense that the protagonist might
actually get their life together and achieve some degree of
happiness, can it be called noir? I wouldn¹t think so.
I thought hardboiled referred to works set among criminals
rather than crime fighters. The discussion has made me think
that most hardboiled novels are also almost always seen as
noir. Is there hardboiled fiction people wouldn¹t class as
noir, or am I getting this wrong?
On that note, we watched Double Indemnity last night. Screwed
sums it up nicely a story where everybody loses. Just what
I needed to counter all this holiday cheer.
Sandra
(I often get called Susan, even if I sign emails ŒSandra¹.
It¹s the curse of having the last name Ruttan and a first
name that starts with S...)
* These interviews were in the fall and winter issues of
Spinetingler Magazine, free online.
On 12/22/06 4:17 PM, "JIM DOHERTY" <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Susan,
>
> Re your comments below:
>
> "For example, with the thriller awards last July
I
> found myself perplexed. Stuart MacBride¹s book
Cold
> Granite while a fantastic piece of fiction
and
> something I¹d class under noir myself was not
what
> I¹d call a thriller. Others I know expressed the
same
> sentiment. This didn¹t stop me from being
> delighted for him to be nominated, but end of the
day
> it left me completely confused at what exactly
is
> considered a thriller anymore, and that¹s
a
> personal bugbear of mine because where I
live
> thrillers are not put in the Œmystery¹ section of
the
> chain bookstores they¹re put in general
fiction.
> Yet Bruen, MacBride, Kernick you¹ll find them
in
> mystery."
>
> Some time ago, I got into a discussion about this
at
> the EMWA e-mail list. Somebody was drawing
a
> distinction between "mysteries" (by which they
really
> meant "traditional whodunits/puzzles")
and
> "thrillers."
>
> I responded that "thrillers" were not
something
> separate from mysteries, but were a TYPE of
mystery,
> and then suggested that if there really was
a
> difference, then "thriller" should be
specifically
> defined in a way that made the difference
clear.
>
> Nobody came up with a work-able definition
of
> "thriller." Later, when the ITW awards were
given,
> one of the comments I heard was that the
eligibility
> requirement were such that virtually any crime
novel
> qualified.
>
> FWIW, it's very common for publishers/booksellers
to
> classify a police procedural about the hunt for
a
> serial killer (like MacBride's COLD GRANITE) as
a
> thriller.
>
> Further, in Britain, I noticed that "thriller,"
"crime
> novel," and "mystery" were virtualy
interchangeable
> terms and that a book by Agatha Christie was as
likely
> to be called a "thriller" as one by Ian
Fleming....
>
> As for what constitutes a "thriller." Try this:
A
> mystery novel that depends less on cerebration than
on
> action, pace, and suspense.
>
> I can already guess what the objections to it will
be.
>
> It's too general and let's too many
"non-thrillers"
> in.
>
> And it's simultaneously too specific and excludes
too
> many books that are clearly should be
included.
>
> JIM DOHERTY
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 22 Dec 2006 EST