I'm wrestling with something similar, having returned to science fiction after a long time away. It's probably not so much plots which are hard to get past sci-fi readers, as ideas and premises. My first experience putting stories into a science fiction writers' workshop was sobering in this respect - I found myself thinking quite a lot, 'Well, it's new to ME . . . ' Everything's been thought of, of course, which is why sci-fi readers get a little boisterous when writers like Jeannette Winterson produce a novel which on the one hand they claim is not lowly old SF but something more literary superior, while on the other presenting speculative ideas that were over-used back when Ray Bradbury was in short pants.

What I'm thinking is that maybe there are broadly two routes you can take with genre fiction. One is the mainstream, so to speak, where you take the genre by the horns and put a fresh spin on it. This requires a lot of knowledge of what's already been done in that genre, and a good understanding of what its readership likes; then the skill to produce something that is essentially the same but also a bit different. The other route is to be more concerned with what the special circumstances of a genre allow you as a writer to explore where your own life is concerned. Then, the question of originality is not really appropriate - because you're really using the stuff of your own experience, amplified through genre, to tell the world interesting stuff. In SF, this approach probably lends itself better to so-called 'soft' and 'mundane' SF.

I'm not sure if the same principles apply to crime. If so, I wonder what the crime equivalent is to 'soft' and 'mundane': stories about the man who got 15p more in his change at M&S than he should have, and didn't give it back? The burglar who felt guilty so took nothing and did the washing up before he left?

Terry

Thanks for the compliment, Emma! I was very pleased with a review I had for Gentle Axe from Shots Mag which said the book "even plays fair as a murder mystery". That, to me, was the ultimate accolade coming from a crime fiction afficionado.

Terry, I don't really know what the crime equivalent would be, or if there is one. I'm not sure crime fans would be satisfied with the examples you give. Unless you could find a way of working in some dead bodies. I think there could be a quite funny story about a guy who is guilt-ridden about accepting too much change, but quite blithely commits murder, without giving it a second thought. That would be an interesting character type.

It will be interesting to see what sort of crime books get published by Mills & Boon now they've branched out into this genre. Maybe the cosy end of the market, Midsomer Murders style? I do think there's a tendency to sneer at crime as a genre (like that female author who sued the local glue factory for rotting her literary brain so much she was "forced" to turn out crime books instead - do we think her characters met with a sticky end?) but equally interesting are articles such as that in Mslexia a while ago about literary authors turning to crime to make serious money. It does seem to get treated as a pick'n'mix genre, rather more than others, and I've read some pretty awful crime books by literary authors who think they're dumbing down and clearly just haven't grasped the complexities of plotting etc. Not that I have, either, but at least I acknowledge the fact! I even read one novel by an established writer (I won't say who) whose publisher challenged the reader on the cover with "you'll NEVER guess the twist!" I guessed it at the end of chapter 1. Not because I'm a genius, simply because any serious reader of the genre knows a red herring when she reads one, and every crime reader knows the old 'least likely suspect ruse'.

Tiger

Banville has become quite schizophrenic since he began writing crime novels under the pen name Black. There was a very funny/perculiar interview he gave on The Book Show as Banville/Black, as thougth talking about two completely different authors, with 'Black' denigrating 'Banville's' writing style. .

We've often had the argument here, about literary vs genre fiction. To me, though, Sturgeon's Law applies to all forms of fiction, i.e. that 'Ninety per cent of everything is crap'. It's just that literary writers sometimes seem to think it doesn't quite apply to their genre - maybe twenty-five per cent at a pinch but never ninety, surely? But the truth is that most fiction is comfort food, and doesn't stretch its readers too much - either because the author can't or won't or isn't even aware that stretching is possible. Similarly, in every genre there are writers who produce fresh, challenging, brilliant stuff, too, working in that ten per cent not-crap zone. What's probably harder still to accept is that ninety per cent of what each of us writes is crap too. Then again, it would probably be hard to run a business on honest compliance with Sturgeon's Law - Waterstones with signs hanging everywhere, reminding customers that ninety per cent of their books are crap; even providing nice lumimous red covers for the ones that aren't, to save everyone's time and money. Or authors themselves, helpfully pointing out which of their books can be safely ignored, and which nine out of ten short stories to not bother reading.

Terry

It's an intriguing thought, Terry. I could go for a Writer's Amnesty Day. Right now, I'll happily name the 9 out of 10 stories (of mine) which aren't up to scratch, providing the one that is gets read. I imagine this is the sort of thing agents discourage, so better get me to shout out before I get snapped up.



Tiger

I think a lot of writers think crime writing is easy and get unstuck because crime readers are exceptionally well read. I believe strong crime writers have a very deep sense of respect for the reader.
The plot and structure have to be beyond tight, the MC has to be believable and the narrative has to be succinct. It also helps if the dialogue is punchy and funny. This is a tall order to do well but there's some fab stuff out there...Walters, McDermid,Slaughter, Billingham are all masters.
HB x

Thanks, HB, that's a useful list.

Tiger

get unstuck because crime readers are exceptionally well read.

I think this is true - you're very conscious of how it should work, and departing from that has to be very, very well done indeed before you get away with it.

Emma

I'd go even further and say the very best crime writers are those that innovate from within - like a master chef who still produces something new while not ruining a classic recipe.
HB x

I agree, HB. Although it's one of those genres that responds to trends a little too voraciously, in my experience. If I never read another book about savage serial killers and brutalised female victims, it will be too soon. There was a good email from the Crime Writers Association to this effect. I can't link to it, as it's not on their website, so I'm going to quote it here, as quite a few people following this thread will be interested, I think.

Trends and Dangers in Crime Writing by Natasha Cooper Fashion and luck are two of the essentials in successful crime writing, as in most other endeavours. But it's dangerous to fixate on the first and impossible to engineer the second. By the time any writer struck by a current fashion in murderous fiction has plotted and written his or her own version, taste will probably have moved on. And there's nothing more unattractive to editors and critics than last-year's fashion. At one time in the recent past the only crime novels that seemed to excite people with power in the booktrade were those dealing with serial killers. More and more writers created increasingly florid plots about men with twisted imaginations and sadistic impulses. Writers would introduce their readers to a young and attractive woman, of precisely the physical type that tweaked the killer's taste, just in time for her to become likeable to readers. She'd be the junior detective or a reporter, or the wife, girlfriend or daughter of the main sleuth. The serial killer would kidnap and hide her away to take his time torturing her, and readers were supposed to remain breathless with anxiety as they waited to discover whether she would be saved. Guess what? She always was. Boring. Then there was (and, alas, still is) paedophilia. Long, long ago it was genuinely shocking to be made to see that child-abusers are not all grubby little men in dirty raincoats hanging about primary schools. As we now know, there are paedophiles in every social class and every profession. Many real criminals were abused in childhood and have gone on to become abusers themselves, citing the 'it never hurt me, so why make a fuss when I do it?' complaint when accused of their crime. Crime fiction must, I believe, reflect reality, but putting paedophilia at the heart of every novel is silly and tedious. It's also dangerous. You should never use a serious and desperately damaging crime in a way that provokes only boredom. The latest fashion, following on from Dan Browne's astonishing success with The Da Vinci Code, is for novels about conspiracy in high places, preferably the Vatican. Now, whenever I read a blurb that mentions someone powerful trying to stop a world-shattering or religious secret getting out I shudder - in all the wrong ways. As for luck, you'll need it if you're to find a publisher, win prizes, get picked by Oprah or Richard & Judy, see your title at the top of the bestseller list. Your own particular take on the world and the way you write have to fit with what publishers and critics and selectors happen to be looking for at the moment they light on your book. And there's nothing you can do to make that happen. But you can write brilliantly, which will always help. You can plot with care and create characters who are psychologically coherent and credible. You can make readers like at least some of them, which you must do if you want to keep people with you all the way to the last page. And you can generate tension. You must set up huge and important questions and delay the answers. These questions aren't huge in the sense of the mad scientist trying to bring about the end of the world, but huge in the importance they carry for your characters and for the men and women you hope will read your novel. Most of all you must care about what you write. If you don't, no one else will.

Tiger

On paedophilia in crime, I think Andrew Vachss must be an exception to Natasha Cooper's point here, in that his novels do anything but provoke boredom. I don't know how much it's do to with him being driven by his cause, but his writing style is wonderfully economic, keeping his scenes tight and his characters sharply defined. The subject is no gimmick with him, since his day job is prosecutor of some of the worst paedophiles, and he is a tireless campaigner against the crime. You could say he's obsessed - I mean, even his Batman novel was about paedophilia (and has one of the most satisfying scenes ever, where Batman has strapped explosives to a boat containing dozens of paedophiles from the west, about to prey on Thai children and, after only a moment's thought, blows the lot up). I'm not a huge crime fiction fan, but I do think we can all learn from the fantastic economy and use of rhythm of writers like Vachss and Leonard.

Terry

I've not read either of those authors, Terry, so thanks for bringing them to my attention. I have read quite a few of the types of books Natasha describes, though, and there is a numbing effect provoked by a constant battery of brutality, which is at odds (surely) with the author's intention to make you feel for his/her characters. I have no problem with writing that makes me uncomfortable, that makes me ask questions of myself and of society. But books that make me numb, beyond compassion of any kind, are dangerous and I was glad to read Natasha's piece because it made me aware of the fact that not all crime books are expected to be about serial killing etc. So many of them are, that it's easy to fall into the trap of believing that unless you're prepared to write horror at that level, you don't stand a chance in the genre.

Tiger

Thanks for that, Tiger. It's very interesting, though a lot depends, I would think, on how you handle the themes. We are all living in the same time and culture and so we are bound to be influenced by the same ideas and trends. It's called the zeitgeist, I believe. The thing is it takes a certain amount of time to write a book, and a little more time to get it published, so chasing fashions does seem to be a pointless thing to do.

The more you read things like this, the harder the task of writing feels. Which may be no bad thing.

The more you read things like this, the harder the task of writing feels. Which may be no bad thing.

Thank you for saying that, Roger! I was beginning to feel that way, but also to accept that it is no bad thing.

I pawed at both A Gentle Axe and A Vengeful Longing in Waterstone in Stratford-upon-Avon yesterday - such beautiful books!

Tiger