a genre question
Mar. 23rd, 2010 02:28 pmI've started reading Dorothy Sayers recently, and it made me reflect on something.
In the genre of romance, the vast majority of the writers, and especially the big-name ones, are women -- to the point where (so I've heard) a man who decides to write romance will almost invariably do so under a female pseudonym. In fantasy and science fiction, the big names in genre history skew male instead, and we still have periodic slapfights about insufficient recognition for female writers.
In mystery, it seems to me that there's something more like balance.
You still get splits along subgenre lines; noir is more associated with men, cozies with women. But in the genre as a whole, if you start lining up the big names both past and present, you've got Raymond Chandler and Agatha Christie, Dashiell Hammett and Dorothy Sayers, Elmore Leonard and Sue Grafton, and many, many more. There are a lot of acknowledged and admired female writers, without mystery/crime/detective fiction being viewed as inherently a "female" genre.
Or maybe not. I've taken occasional dips in the mystery pool, but it isn't a genre I read extensively. So tell me if I'm wrong. But it really does seem like mystery, of all the genre categories out there, does the best job of balancing this factor. Does anybody else think the same?
In the genre of romance, the vast majority of the writers, and especially the big-name ones, are women -- to the point where (so I've heard) a man who decides to write romance will almost invariably do so under a female pseudonym. In fantasy and science fiction, the big names in genre history skew male instead, and we still have periodic slapfights about insufficient recognition for female writers.
In mystery, it seems to me that there's something more like balance.
You still get splits along subgenre lines; noir is more associated with men, cozies with women. But in the genre as a whole, if you start lining up the big names both past and present, you've got Raymond Chandler and Agatha Christie, Dashiell Hammett and Dorothy Sayers, Elmore Leonard and Sue Grafton, and many, many more. There are a lot of acknowledged and admired female writers, without mystery/crime/detective fiction being viewed as inherently a "female" genre.
Or maybe not. I've taken occasional dips in the mystery pool, but it isn't a genre I read extensively. So tell me if I'm wrong. But it really does seem like mystery, of all the genre categories out there, does the best job of balancing this factor. Does anybody else think the same?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-23 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-23 10:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-23 11:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 02:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 03:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 03:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 03:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-23 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-23 10:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-23 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-23 10:08 pm (UTC)Do you think the mystery readership in the UK early on skewed female, or that the genre was viewed as "girly"? Or did it get more cross-gender respect?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-23 10:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 10:11 pm (UTC)Relatively few current writers of "crime" find a permanent place on my shelves, but I am not parting with my collection of Allingham, Carr, Crispin, Innes, Marsh, Sayers and Tey. PD James is there on the strength of her earlier books; the more recent ones would not justify a place. I feel rather the same way about John Le Carre. Colin Dexter is on the "keeper" list, though I'm a bit more ambivalent about Reginald Hill. Anthony Price on the cerebral thriller end of the spectrum; Lindsey Davis for her historical (Roman) crime series.
Any suggestions for current crime writers that I should at least try?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 09:41 am (UTC)In more recent writers, I like Michelle Spring, who sets her books in Cambridge, where I live and Janet Neel (who seemed to have vanished). And then there was the late Kate Ross, who was terrific but only wrote 4 books. Who else -- Chaz Brenchley's early thrillers -- spooky and scary and elegant; Susan Hill's Simon Seraillier books, which are really literary fiction but brood nicely; Henning Mankell; Karin Fossum; Miyuki Miyabe.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 08:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 08:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 09:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-23 10:34 pm (UTC)For what it's worth
Date: 2010-03-23 11:03 pm (UTC)Re: For what it's worth
Date: 2010-03-24 02:48 am (UTC)Re: For what it's worth
Date: 2010-03-24 05:36 am (UTC)以上
Re: For what it's worth
Date: 2010-03-24 12:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-23 11:13 pm (UTC)I'll also point out that Horror movies, I was surprised to learn, are a market driven by teenage girls, the opposite of what I thought to be the case.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 02:49 am (UTC)I'll also point out that Horror movies, I was surprised to learn, are a market driven by teenage girls, the opposite of what I thought to be the case.
Interesting. Care to expand on this? I'd love to know more.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 04:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 12:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 06:11 am (UTC)I know that Sisters in Crime spent many years promoting women authors, and initially it wasn't easy.
In the UK, the situation was better: see this list of Detection Club members, for example: http://hem.passagen.se/orange/deteclub.htm .
no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 12:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 11:11 am (UTC)I have been known to dip into "cozies" when I need some comfort reading, and I know that some of the so-called female authors are either men writing under a pseudonym or husband and wife teams writing under a female name. It's probably just a marketing thing: the publishers think the gender of the author is important, whereas most readers think the quality of the writing is important. :)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 10:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 12:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 08:48 pm (UTC)Unlike urban fantasy, which now seems to be marketed in the same bracket as "paranormal romance" and prejudiced towards female authors (and presumably mainly female readers?), with cover designs to suit.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 03:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 06:11 pm (UTC)* Some figures within the publishing industry -- relying upon untested received wisdom -- believe x about some external aspect of a work (e.g., "authors of romance novels must have feminine, or at least not overtly masculine, names")
* Those figures within the publishing industry project their own preferences on the received wisdom onto the actual buying public... and, due to the magic of the industry's culture of secrecy, ignore all inconsistent evidence
* Meanwhile, the actual buying public doesn't give a {disgusting creature}'s {disgusting anatomical designation} about that external aspect of the work... or, at least, does so at such a low correlation that it wouldn't be statistically significant
* And even more meanwhile, the industry resists every attempt to scientifically test that received wisdom
The ghost of Mary Ann Evans is laughing all the way to the English 214 syllabus.
+ Yeah, it's pretentious, but there really is a difference for this purpose between "authorial" (relates to the natural person) and "auctorial" (relates to the apparent public persona). Some good had to come out of auteur theory...
no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 12:26 am (UTC)