In fact, I'd say at least 10% of my casual reading time is dedicated to scanning various author blogs. Some of them I go to just about every day, (I pretty much start off every morning before the day job gets hectic scanning Patti Abbott and Bill Crider's little slices of Internet pie.) others I'll only check out once every couple of days to see if there's an interesting article or interview I may have missed, and some of them I only go to once in a blue moon because a particular piece of writing catches my eye.
Today was one of those blue moon days when I decided to head over Sandra Ruttan's blog, on life & oth
er inconveniences.First off, let me tell you that I dig Sandra. I like her novels, I like all the shit she's involved in like Spinetingler and BSCReview. She's a serious asset to the writing community.
And no, I'm not here to slam Sandra.
I'm here to praise her, and here's why:
Sandra's been slapping the living shit out of the complainers lately.
Let's face facts, gang, most writers are a bunch of bitches.
And this seems to be especially true of crime/mystery writers.
It seems to me every time I turn around someone is complaining about some shit or other that just shouldn't even matter, (This is particularly true of a certain social network set up especially for crime/mystery writers that shall remain nameless, but which I refuse to participate in any longer because all that seems to go on there is a handful of writer's complaining about the lack of money in the crime/mystery genre, or how their agents aren't working hard enough to sell their latest James Crumley/Ross MacDonald pastiche. And folks, I know you need to vent sometimes, but seriously give the bitching a rest.) like writer's who normally don't write crime novels having the sheer audacity to tackle the genre.
Case in point: John Banville aka Benjamin Black.
Case in point: Dennis Johnson
Case in Point: Michael Chabon
and the newest case in point:
Thomas Pynchon.
Mr. Pynchon's most recent effort is his (I'm sure) surreal take on the P.I. genre, and there are some folks who're more than a little pissed that America's most reclusive novelist (outside of Salinger, that is) decided to write a crime novel.
From a personal stand point, I could care less, in fact, I am down right excited Pychon followed up so quickly after his last effort, Against the Day
Same thing goes for the three novelists listed above.
True, I'm not the biggest fan of Banville (as far as post structureless novelists are concerned, I'm really more of a Delillo/McCarthy man.) but I do really like his Benjamin Black novels. And I can honestly give a shit less if the man said he was slumming when he was writing as Black.
But neither Johnson (who, let's face facts, is a crime writer) or Chabon has stated that they were slumming when they wrote their fine examples of hardboiled fiction. In fact, both writer's have professed a deep love of the genre; and yet, the mystery/crime complainers found a reason to give these two highly (and justly) decorated novelists a rash of shit.
What the fuck?
And then what pisses me off even more is when the complainers go after crime novelists who decide to try their hand at writing in genres outside of the one they'd become well known in.
Truly great writers such as Dennis Lehane, George Pelacanos, James Ellroy, etc.,
Once again, what the fuck?
Yeah, there's a point to all this ranting, gang, and here it is.
I don't give a shit.
I don't give a shit about genre.
I don't give a shit about the little niches we put writers in.
As far as I'm concerned, fuck the audience! And fuck the boundaries they try to hold you down with.
I don't give a shit what other writers write as long as the author is happy with the end result and tell the best story they can.
And I've gotta tell you, every day I'm starting to have more and more respect for novelists like Joe Lansdale and Tom Piccirilli who've never pigeon holed themselves and write whatever the Hell they want. Yeah, they might not have the biggest audiences on the planet (Although they both should, because both gentlemen have some serious chops.) but at least they write the kind of story they want to tell and can care less what the bitchers and the whiners and the complainers want.
Whew!
Yeah, Sandra's posts got me kind of worked up today, so thanks lady!
Anyway, before I wrap it up for the night, I wanted to throw out a quick plug for an upcoming author event I'll be attending at the Poisoned Pen on August 13th at 7 PM.
The event will be featuring Sophie Littlefield promoting her debut novel, A Bad day for Sorry.
The Poisoned Pen is billing the event "A night for the Ladies." in their e-mail newsletter. Well, I've got a bit of a surprise for the ladies who'll be attending the event, because Sophie is about as hard-boiled as the
y come. Seriously, Sophie appeared alongside me and Frank Bill in Pulp Pusher with her story, Granny Panties, back in March and made both me and Frank look like a couple of sissies.My guess is Sophie is going to be scaring the shit out of some suburbanite house wives on the 13th.
Yes, I will be there with the web cam and hopefully Sophie will be willing to sit down with me for a minute or two so I can conduct one of my "shirtless" interviews (This is a term the Nerd of Noir came up with--trust me, I'm fully clothed-- personally I still prefer my original title of the Crider routine.) and take a couple of pictures with me as well.
Speaking of Mr. Bill Crider, the gentleman himself ran this little book trailer for Pynchon's newest novel, Inherent Vice, earlier today and I felt it was worth rerunning. So please enjoy. From what I understand, Pynchon is providing the narration.
I'm off to read Sandra's column in a minute. But I agree with you re: Lansdale (can't speak to piccirilli). I'm working on a story with cowboys and dragons. Where the heck am I going to send that? At this point, I don't care. I'm writing the story I want to write. Period. And folks who think they're slumming when they write *any* genre fiction lessen their own credibility. Writing a romance novel is hard. Writing a crime/SF novel is hard. Hell, writing *any* novel is hard. So, here's a raised mug of beer to your rant. Here, here.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your rant to a certain degree and all any crime writer has to do is go to any bookstore to see how our genre is marginalized (why don't they just go ahead and put us behind the curtained room like your local video store does with the X-rated videos while they are at it?). So keeping that in mind, there is no room for us to complain on this part of the subject, knowing full and well that when you sign up for this, you will be treated like a red-headed stepchild. It's automatic.
ReplyDeleteYet I don't think that it is fair that any darling on the New York Times list can walk on over to our (expletive) ghetto and have the publisher promote the hell out of their little foray into something "dark." You didn't see a record company shoving Pat Boone down our throats when he decided to go metal.
Even a Crais or a Connelly doesn't quite get prime placement at the book store that they deserve, and the only reason why we know an Abbott or a Swierczynski is because we read the genre. It was not because the publisher did anything outside of giving copies to the right blogs or sites, plus the book tour that was only publicized on the Internet.
I know that I am being naive and that it is all business, but that doesn't mean that I like it.
"Fuck the average reader" -- David Simon
ReplyDelete"Real authors create their own genre." -- Joe Lansdale
You should see what some of our dinner conversations are like :)
Denis Johnson is ABSOLUTELY a crime writer even if he doesn't always self identify as one. I've been saying so for years and am glad to see someone else say so as well.
I did my own little rant the other day. But one of the main reasons I write short stories is the freedom to write whatever the hell I want without getting stuck in a pigeonhole.
ReplyDeleteI think that Pynchon narration was verified by the Wall Street Journal.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking forward to reading the book.
Scott--Cowboys and dragons? I'd love to read that when you're finished up.And writing is hard, no question about it and it doesn't matter what "genre" you're writing in. You have to know the craft, you have to know your material, and as far as "slumming" is concerned, well, I think it was just a poor choice of words when Banville made the comment. As for Piccirilli? His books range from cozy mysteries, to horror, to hard-boiled and everywhere in between. He has an enormous range and is extremely prolific. Check him out when you get the chance.
ReplyDeleteCormac--I'll disagree with you about Connelly and Crias. Every time I walk into a bookstore Mr. Connelly has a prime spot over at the new releases table with the big 30% off sticker right on the cover, and in all honesty, he deserves that spot. Mr. Connelly has worked his ass off to be there.(Plus, the man is an absolute gentleman who's legitimately built his fan base one reader at a time.) But the same thing can be said of Chabon and Dennis Johnson (who, BTW, has never made the NYT or any other bestseller list even though he writes some of the most innovative and readable prose going, and this is a national book award winner we're talking about here.) But here's what I think about so-called "mainstream" writer's tackling darker material and crime fiction: It's bringing attention to our "ghetto" so to speak. (and here's a question right back at you: Don't you think all writers are part of the same neighborhood. I mean, yeah, some of us live in bigger houses, have larger yards, and more time at the computer, but for the most part I tend to think almost all writers--no matter what genre or form they write in--are pretty marginalized in the broad scoop of things.)So what I have to say about the subject is, let's get as many "literary" writer's as we can churning out crime novels, because maybe, just maybe, a few readers will like what they read and want to discover more writers in the same vein as Abbott and Duane (And here's another let's face facts moment, both Megan and Duane are on the cusp of mainstream success, and deservedly so.)
Brian--I would love to be at your dinner table and be in on some of those conversations.
And the Lansdale quote pretty much sums up this entire rant.
And hell YES Johnson's a crime writer! Same thing goes for Cormac McCarthy for that matter.
Sandra--I read that rant and agree 100% (I know, I'm a shit for not commenting) But I think the same attitude should be carried over into the long stuff as well. (And BTW, don't give up those two stories you've been trying so hard to place, they will find a home!)
Mr. Crider--I'm looking forward to it as well. I love Pynchon and I think his take on the P.I. novel will be a site to behold.
Cormac--and that's "scope"
ReplyDeleteMr. Crider--it will be a "sight" to behold
My blog posts and responses are pretty on the fly, so sorry for any misspellings and punctuation errors.
I don't mind them trying their hand at it. I do resent the attention paid to them in newspapers when so many crime writers can't buy, beg, borrow a review just now.
ReplyDeleteThe NYT should institute a rule-no multiple reviews no matter who.
I agree with Patti - I think part of what's fueling the conflict is that these "literary" authors "slum it" and they get all sorts of praise, as though their genre efforts are somehow more worthy than Piccirilli's or Guthrie's or Adrian McKinty's... and that's completely untrue. We can understand some frustration on this one, but what really gets to me is the constant whining about conventions and bickering over reviews (http://www.mysterybookspot.com/sandra/?p=1282) that drives me nuts.
ReplyDeleteWith conventions, it's easy enough to say, "If you don't like how the hard-working volunteers, who've committed their time over the past three years to make this happen, have done things then by all means, run your own event." Of course they won't. But complaining about how things are done means you can blame someone else for the convention not helping you sell as many books as you'd like or whatever.
And arguing over reviews... Ugh. You can state why you disagree and raise the level of discourse, or you can just slam reviewers who write reviews you don't like, which does nothing to raise the level of discourse. For all I know, Reviewer X's readers all hate spinach, and Reviewer X knows this, and so having a protagonist in a book who's a spinach farmer may not be the most appealing to those readers. Of course it's an issue of taste - the majority of what you'll find in most reviews is. If you aren't prepared to handle subjective evaluation then don't become an author, don't become an actor, a director, a screenwriter or a musician. Investing energy in arguing over such things, especially if you do it regularly, comes off as petty.
Brian has an article he's working on that relates to the whole mess, and it's pretty good. And this was a great post as well, Keith. Thanks for the plug. :)