The Gender Divide, Part I: Why I Don't Like Elmore Leonard

Yesterday I linked to a survey that showed that 50% of boys in the UK don’t read at all. Reading habits are interesting me of late on a number of levels, especially as applied to crime fiction. As often spouted, the majority of people reading within the genre are women, but looking more closely at the claim, things get a little more specific—many men don’t read books written by women, some do the opposite, and that’s not even getting into the subgenres, figuring out who reads hardboiled more than cozy, thrillers more than straight mysteries, or whatnot.

I am, as should be obvious, a young woman, and that makes me a bit of an odd duck amongst crime fiction readers. Because I don’t have a lot of peers who read as extensively and as thoroughly as I do, and so I’m more likely than not the youngest in a given group, whether it be fans, writers, booksellers, publishing types, or any other group I’ve neglected to list. I also don’t read many cozies, and in fact, tend to shy away from them. So that means I’m not reading the kind of books that are often written by women and geared towards women. Instead, I subscribe to the belief that the more noir something is, the better.

But even that’s not a hard and fast rule.

I subtitled this portion “Why I Don’t Like Elmore Leonard” because it’s mostly true, but also because there’s a specific reason for my opinion. In theory, I should be a fan of his—his books are dialogue-heavy, which I like; his stories move fast, another thing I really like, and his characters are full of interesting quirks and are often unapologetic about their moral ambiguity—again, something I dig. So why don’t I respond to Dutch’s books? It could be that I’ve tried the wrong ones (I’ve read RUM PUNCH, some of FREAKY DEAKY and less of MAXIMUM BOB along with a few of the stories in WHEN THE WOMEN CAME OUT TO DANCE) but the answer came to me as I watched an episode of the late, lamented “Karen Sisco,” (which is, of course, based on several of Leonard’s novels, including OUT OF SIGHT). As played by Carla Gugino, Sisco comes across as reasonably sympathetic, a gun-slinging Federal Marshal who loves her daddy and still acts like a woman, not a guy in a skirt. She has flaws, and Gugino injected her with a good mixture of humor and cynicism that, at least, worked for me. But as written by Leonard, the subtlety of Sisco is lacking, and I know less about her than when I started. Somehow, she—and many of Leonard’s characters—come across as less human. That somehow, Leonard is so into giving his characters cool things to say and weird tics that he forgets that the parts have to add up to an appreciable sum. That the reader has to be engaged in some form or another.

A couple of years ago, I walked into Murder Ink and bought a copy of George Higgins’ THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE. Seemed interesting, a lauded crime novel, suitably dark for my tastes, loved by many a writer—including Elmore Leonard. That should have been my tip-off. After about 70 pages I realized I didn’t much care to stick with the book and I put it down, and haven’t picked it up since. Yes, Higgins can write, and the dialogue is great—but so what? Again, something was missing for me, the same kind of something that’s missing in Leonard’s books. Am I seeing some nihilistic view of the world that I don’t like? Is it just a case of not caring about the characters and the conflict? I really don’t know. But anecdotally (for that’s all the evidence I have) a whole lot more men count themselves as fans of the above two authors than do women. So is it a gender thing?

Maybe, maybe not. Another writer who is often assumed to have few female fans is George Pelecanos. He’s definitely hit and miss amongst the female mystery fans I know; those that love him (like myself), love him; those that don’t are put off by the urban DC setting, the characters who populate the books, and the overall feel. He’s definitely not one to recommend to everyone, but he’s one of my favorite writers. Why? Because in his best books, amidst the despair and violence, there’s a smidgen of hope that comes through. Take THE SWEET FOREVER, which is set in the mid-1980s. It’s a tale of crooked cops, drug hits gone horribly wrong and has a pile of moral ambiguity (Karras and Clay are unbelievably flawed characters) but even as crack invades the DC ghettos, people are still cheering on their hometown boy Len Bias, just about to embark on seeming stardom with the Celtics. Bias didn’t have his happy ending, but in spite of that, there’s still the sense that eventually, Karras, Clay and the other major players in the book will climb out of their holes and burrow their way to a better future. This theme of hope and redemption in the face of bad tidings runs throughout the DC Quartet (and also in HARD REVOLUTION), but less so in the Strange/Quinn novels—which may explain why I don’t like them quite as much.

Maybe it all boils down to emotional response. I find that this is the common thread in the noir-esque novels I seek out. That within these works, there’s rage, despair, bleakness, but also hope, aspiration and betterment. That’s why I champion the writers that I do; that’s why folks like Ken Bruen, Martyn Waites, David Peace, Dennis Lehane and many others (and yes, I’m sticking to male writers for the time being) get so much ink here. Because their writing, their subject matter, their characters make me care. They may take me to places I don’t want to go or revisit, but they evoke a response that’s palpable and sometimes visceral. In other words, there’s honesty to their writing which I find lacking in those like Leonard or Higgins or Jim Thompson, another writer whose work somehow eludes me. For whatever reason, even though I recognize they write well and have devoted followings, their work doesn’t speak to me, whether as a reader or as a woman reader.

Part II will roll around this time tomorrow, but for now, a few questions for the floor: first, are there certain crime writers who really appeal to one gender more than another, as I’m arguing? If so, which others could be classified in that sense? And if not, why am I wrong?

Comments

[robert ferrigno]

well, you got my attention with the elmore leonard hede. i think there may be a divide, a very loose divide, between the kind of books men and women prefer, but i also think its intellectually dangerous to stake out such turf. I would hate to second-guess myself when browsing in bookstores, checking my testosterone level. elmore's characters usually do exhibit an absense of internal dialogue and moral qualms, their actions and their dialogue define them, and i think this is elmore's greatest achievement. its a supreme minimalism, fast, edgy, true to itself, and to some of us, endlessly compelling. the downside, if there is one, is that you may not learn more about the characters by page 200 than page 2. they have moved forward in time and space, but the internal arc is small or nonexistant. i have no problem with this, but you clearly do.
that said, i just finished THE HALO EFFECT by M.J. Rose and loved it. it's also everything that elmore's books are not: lots of internal dialogue, not too much action, dialogue that, while honest is far removed from the snap crackle pop of elmore. there is also a clear moral tone and the main charactes unfold slowly with every page. the book resonates with insight. is this a girl book? elmore's work boys books? i like the good stuff, that's all i know.

[Jenny D]

Thanks for raising this topic! Sarah, I suspect you & I would have a lot in common on this front (as omnivorous readers of books by everybody). I too can't stand Elmore Leonard, but always feel guilty for letting down my sex when people rave about him... I love Pelecanos, BTW, and would think that many female readers who prefer to read, say, the Paretsky-Lippman kind of stuff would equally be drawn to his male characters, who tend to be either introspective or at least psychologically complex in ways often associated (however unfairly) with women's writing. Surely the best writing really appeals to everybody (even if Douglas Adams will always have more male readers than female, and Jennifer Weiner more female than male)? The thing that bothers me is how many of my male friends who read books really do read almost exclusively books by men. I think that men dominate certain subfields of writing to an extent that means few female readers wholly avoid fiction by men, but quite a few men just don't ever think of reading even the books they'd surely love by women authors. Sorry, that was very wordy; I look forward to seeing how this discussion goes....

[Kevin Wignall]

I think Robert sums up the "problem" with Leonard perfectly. They're great books for what they are, but they're all surface. I don't think it's only women who want depth (particularly in character) but I'll agree that it's a less common need in men, which is probably why so many men don't read at all, because they find all the depth they need on TV!
As an aside, a number of people have said that they see For the Dogs as more appealing to women than People Die (I'm not talking about the titles!). They're both character-driven books so I have no idea why that might be. But then, all the people who've said it have been women, and they have a way of leaving me happily, mesmerisingly baffled every time.

[Dave White]

I like Leonard a lot, and I think you find depth in different novels. I think since Get Shorty (with the exception of maybe Out of Sight and Cuba Libre) Leonard fell in love with the comic crime novel, and he lost some character depth because of that. But I think novels like Out of Sight, Libre, and Freaky Deaky off the top of my head, have those comic moments, but also have themes like race, moral choices and such, that Leonard does have something to say. Now I agree that his characters are usually hypercool versions of human beings, not necessarily "real" but I like them and I think Leonard is deeper than some give him credit for. Great post though, Sarah.

As for gender issues... I'm more likely to read a novel written by a male, mostly because the female writers aren't as plentiful. However, S.J. Rozan and Laura Lippman are two writers who transcend that. Linda Barnes wasn't too bad, either. I'm not against it, I think I just pick out what comes to mind first.

[Steven Torres]

I started reading mysteries with about a half dozen each of James Lee Burke and Patricia Cornwell. I've moved on to Rozan and Rankin. I think of my books as "Guy" books sometimes because they do have fistfights and car chases and shootouts, but then, I think it matters WHY a character is in a fistfight -- this goes to character development (or comes out of the character once developed). In the end, I don't think there is a difference in who can write what (I've heard men can't write female characters and vice versa -- a shock, no doubt to SJ Rozan) or in who will read what, except for preconcieved notions.

Does Leonard write as he does because he's a man or because he is a lot of different things that come together to produce the books (of which gender is only one factor alongside race, etc) or because enough people have told him that the best part of his early works were such and such so he lives up to the standard that has been set for him.

I'm blathering here, but some of it might mean something so I'll post it.
Steven

[Charlie Stella]

Wow, tough topic … Higgins & Leonard are my top two (in that order) … then comes Ellroy, Hammett, Thompson … and a host of others (including Bruen, Woodrell, Sallis & Vicki Hendricks) … what can I say … for me there’s nothing more real than The Friends of Eddie Coyle (the almost documentary pitch to it) … and I’ve read it at least 50 times (maybe more) … I don’t know that it’s a gender thing, though … probably just personal preference … I guess I couldn’t disagree more about what might be missing … what I loved about Lehane’s Mystic River was the randomness of the murder (but I didn’t even like the cop character or care what his problems were) … I definitely fall into a group of readers who can do without all the introspection and moral purpose driving individual characters … and I prefer open endings where the bleak is a perfect counterbalance to the sublime … I guess I’ll have to ask my wife what she thinks about this (regarding gender) … but a signed copy of The Friends of Eddie Coyle is staring down from me (my wall over my computer) all the time … that book simply lit a fire under my ass twenty-eight years ago … and I continue to worship it.

[Jason Starr]

Well, Sarah, this is certainly a provactive subject! I have to disclose that I'm a huge Elmore Leonard fan. I read his books for pure entertainment, and love his style and minimalism. He doesn't waste a word anywhere and sometimes I find myself re-reading sections of his books in awe of the brevity. I also think his books are funny as hell...But all of this is subjective, of course, and I certainly understand how he might not be everyone's cup of tea. I guess men are more inclined to be attracted to Leonard's books, but I do know some women who love his stuff as well so I don't know if you can look at along gender lines alone...I've also heard people express similar sentiments to yours about Leonard and, conincentally about Jim Thompson...As you mention Pelecanos has many fans as well as those who don't care for his stuff (perhaps most notoriously PWG's Trevor Maviano! (see Sarah's archives))...In defense of writers such as Leonard and Thompson, I think you'll find that when any writer acheives a "super cult status" expectations for their work get so high that it becomes impossible for their work to live up to all the hooplah...I also have to add that I LOVE The Friends of Eddie Coyle. Whether you get on with the characters or not, the book is certainly a groundbreaking crime novel, what with his dialogue-driven style not only influencing Leonard but influencing many other crime writers including, well, me... But if you want to give Leonard another shot I have a very strong hunch you'd like his early, grittier Detroit novels such as STICK and UNKNOWN MAN #89. They have a much different feel than the ones you've tried...

[Jason Starr]

Charlie: 50 times? You keep the book above your desk?...It's OK, Charlie, just come with us. We're going to take you to a nice, safe place now. We're all friends here...

[Neha]

Something about mainstream fiction that puts people off I suppose. Guess it's true that what's always popular isn't usually good. John Grisham novels bite me - or maybe I bite them back.

[Sarah]

Well, I was being deliberately provocative by bringing avowed classics like EDDIE COYLE into the mix. (And I know how much Charlie loves that book, so I'm glad to see his response here as well.) As Jenny points out, good fiction should be able to appeal to a wide variety of people--no matter what age, gender, race, life experience they have. And in the examples I'm citing, I never say the books suck outright. Far from it; I totally see why EDDIE COYLE works for so many...but either there's something specific--be it a "guy thing" or something more individually-based--or something more amorphous that I don't respond to, but which doesn't carry over into other hardboiled or noir novels.

I think the sentiments I'm trying to describe are somewhat related to why the whole Tart Noir mini-movement got started, but I'm going to save that for tomorrow when I talk a bit more about how men and women tackle things differently--or if they actually do.

[Charlie Stella]

Jason ... this place you're all taking me too ... will there be food and booze? Can I smoke? Can I throw an occasional fit?

At least 50, brother ... probably closer to 100 ... what can I say, I'm the obsessive type ... I need Patrick Lambe to vouch for the frame it's in over my computer ...

The Principessa, Ann Marie (spousa mia), says she thinks it is gender related, Sarah ... she's not as crazy about Higgins & Leonard as I am ...

Women ...

[ogic]

I'm a wannabe Leonard fan, but I keep putting off reading him! I have it on good authority, though, that LaBrava is a good place to start. Meanwhile, I'm wondering where Westlake--whom j'adore--fits into this conversation?

[Sarah]

That's an excellent question, OGIC--I've long been on the record as loving Westlake, although I'm less enamored of his work as Richard Stark (what I read I liked, but didn't go out of my way to read more than the first two Parker novels.) But I think he's more of an "across the board" writer for me because I enjoy reading how he puts his characters into the messy situations they get embroiled in.

Maybe, ultimately, it's a voice thing. Leonard's doesn't grab me, but Westlake's certainly does.

[Jim Winter]

I'd say it's voice. I threw an Ed McBain in the trash can because it annoyed me after forty pages. (BIG BAD CITY, which was supposed to be one of his best.) Voice? Probably. I don't believe it's a gender thing because I see a lot of women who prefer stripped down, bare bones crime fiction and men who think Tom Clancy and John Grisham are the greatest writers since Shakespeare. Why? I think it's voice. It's the writer's voice that grabs people, and no voice grabs everybody.

[Dave White]

Jim, I gotta agree here. It is about voice, not gender. It's what catches you. There are a lot of writers that grip me that don't grip everyone. Lehane caught me up in the first few pages of his novel, but Les Roberts doesn't grip me as much. I skim through GM Ford novels, but Connelly I read every single word. I have a lot of trouble with Lawrence Block even though I've tried him several times, and liked a few, but not enough to read him all the time and fly throug them. In fact, SJ Rozan is a prime example of this. I love the Lydia Chin novels so much better than I like the Smith novels. I read both, but Smith's voice doesn't grip me the same way Chin does. I think Smith is a little too down for me, not as humorous as Chin is able to be. It's not so much gender, it's more voice. Good point.

[booksquare]

In which the pathetic speak...

Seriously, Sarah, did you have to pick this week to talk about my favorite themes? I'm still working on the women and violence post (wherein you dovetailed nicely with my recent thoughts...though, as usual, only I see the connections!). I see I have a brief reprieve until tomorrow, but, next time, send advance copy to those of us who require time to digest and think...

I live with an Elmore Leonard freak (who disliked Karen Sisco, probably for the same reasons I kept TiVoing it until all hope was lost). I love his (Leonard's) advice about leaving out the parts that people skip, except...well, I wonder if by people he means men. For longer than I care to admit, I read only female authors (sort of payback for an education of mostly males), and I find I like the so-called skipped parts. Maybe it's because I enjoy a certain ambiguity of character. Or maybe it's the emotional reacion and associated complexity. Leonard always strikes me as a bit black and white (though I reserve the right to change my mind...I have a stack of books recommended by the husband, but few hours in the day) -- I don't get a sense that he dwells on emotional repercussions much. But if I'm wrong, please correct me.

Maybe, as suggested, a lot of it is voice, but I'm not entirely sure that's the case. I don't ususally separate style from voice, but I'm wondering if there's something to that idea. I've been reading Mickey Spillane, and to me, there's the hard-boiled (for lack of a better term) voice, but it's coupled with style that exposes depth of character. The excerpts I've read of Leonard don't have the same texture as Spillane. Sure, it's voice, but I'm also wondering if there's a bigger picture.

[Tod Goldberg]

You pose some interesting questions, Sarah. Today, my agent emailed me to say that part of the problem she saw in an earlier draft of my new book was that it was too "guy oriented" and that I was eschewing the female portion of my work, as in, what she thinks I do best is bridge the gap between crime writers who seemingly write for men (as I believe Leonard probably does...most of his women, Sisco included, are really just his male characters with breasts, though I love Leonard regardless)and those who understand that an emotional level is needed beyond the crimes. I think the best writers, crime or otherwise, do this -- Scott Phillips in The Walkaway to high effect, James Lee Burke, Daniel Woodrell, they all bring that emotional level in. Perhaps that's what you miss in Leonard: he doesn't ask you to take an active emotional role in his novels, choosing instead to have you along for a fun ride.

As for writers who appeal to one sex more than another, all I can say is that I've never read a mystery where it's solved by a cat or where tea and crumpets are used as weapons of deduction...

[Gerald So]

I've only read a few Leonards and am ambivalent about them. Most of the time I like Leonard's command of the language, but his theories on story (Don't use adjectives, don't describe the weather, etc.) don't always work on the page. A main concern for him is the sound of his writing, but at times the characters sound like one author talking to himself.

This problem is more noticeable with Robert B. Parker, who either doesn't have the skill or the inclination to mask his authorial presence better. Parker claims not to read much fiction "except Dutch Leonard," and his worst books show the same predictable patterns of banter and theme that I see when Leonard coasts.

For example, I completely believed GET SHORTY, but Leonard's more recent PAGAN BABIES--though set in the turmoil of Rwanda--was more or less the same story of a hard guy trying to pass as not hard.

Leonard and Parker will tell you stories--regardless of period, setting, and other nuances--are about larger themes: people interacting, love, death, redemption...I suspect they go to this spiel when they actually coasted through writing a book and can't talk more specifically about the story therein.

Freshness, or at least the appearance of freshness, is a big draw for me. Leonard is great at his pet themes and Parker is great at his, but I don't know...When I pick up a new book, I want to read something new. If one author covers the same ground too often, I move on to a new author.

[Al Guthrie]

All this talk about men and women makes me ponder some big questions. Are men born liking Elmore Leonard, or is it a learned thing? What about hermaphrodites? And the big question: can Leonardism be fixed with radical surgery?

[Ray]

I think men are born liking cool guys with guns and the ability to charm anything in a skirt. And as for the Leonardectomy, I believe you can get surgery, but only in the Netherlands.

[Craig]

Over the course of twenty years I’ve started and stopped at least two dozen E. Leonards. I’ve yet to go the distance on one. Leonard’s stuff never coheres for me… very thin and a bit monotonous. I can appreciate minimalism, but you’ve still got to hang some drywall on those studs.

"Friends of Eddie Coyle" was a revelation when it appeared and highly influential … and there is more in that book than in anything I’ve tried of Leonards. But only a Higgins fanatic could name another novel by George V.

[m.j. rose]

Sarah - great essay, great questions!

Robert - I'm blushing. Thank you!

And I think Kevin's got it with this:

>>I don't think it's only women who want depth (particularly in character) but I'll agree that it's a less common need in men, which is probably why so many men don't read at all, because they find all the depth they need on TV!<<

It's something I think about as a reader and writer every day. I don't want to read what I can watch on TV - and I do love TV - it satisfies my need for an easy escape. I want my fiction to take me someplace deeper and the Elmore doesn't do it for me. Nor does Parker.

I just had lunch with an agent friend yesterday who was talking about this very gender issue. Men will mostly read men, women will read either men or women. It's great for male writers, an issue for women. Even the female writers who write most closely to Elmore seem to have a bit more depth to their work. It's not my kind of reading while I do love gritty and snap crackle pop. But not the Elmore kind.

I prefer something like Ferrigno's The Wake Up. (And I would have said that even if he hadn't said the wonderful stuff about my novel). Carol O'Connell is another gritty writer n - though very different - who I find much more satisfying.

[Jim Winter]

I don't think you can quantify the gender thing. I know. I tried. I sent out my second novel for some editorial brutality, fully expecting two female readers to rake me over the coals of an adultery subplot.

Between four readers, two men and two women, it was the men who got nervous about it. "Are you sure you want these characters to do that?" The women both said, "Yeah. I like her. She's strong, and she takes nothing lying down." (Except, apparently, the other character, but that's a different subject.)

First novel, Kepler is cleaning a gun and debates whether to just put it to his head. (That's not really a spoiler, since it's a series.) Males tended to say I should have fleshed that out more while most women reading thought the scene should have been cut entirely. "Padding" was the most frequent comment.

In both cases, you'd think it'd be the other way around. I don't think it's a gender thing at all. It's more what you end up reading.

[Aldo]

I find this thread interesting because depending on genre, I think I read both male and female authors equally.

When I think back about all the signings that I attend here in Los Angeles, I'm likely to see Barbara Seranella, Denise Hamiliton, Paula Woods, Laura Lipman as well as the guys.

My wife on the other hand reads almost always females - are there any men who write romance novels?

I'm with Dave on voice, although I will read anything with a good story and strong characters. From time to time I also want something to challenge me as a reader too, you know, not just the same story told in a different way.

[Jennifer Jordan]

Most of the books on my shelf have a more overt male tone to them, but I was raised by a Hardboiled mom. I cut my teeth on the Godfather at eleven and find most cozies nauseating. But, I've read some damn good cozies and I've read crap noir (a new sub-genre!).

Some male authors have attempted a female tone with annoying results. Writing excessively about what a character wears, about her ability/disability in the housekeeping arena and her fighting against the glass ceiling doesn't a female voice make. But, as M.J. mention, Carol O'Connell writes some of the darkest, hardcore books I've read.

I don't think women corner the market in character analysis or psychological depth. Steven Torres and Peter Robinson books comes readily to mind. But, men, overall, seem more inclined towards the fist-fighting, gun toting, smirking repartee.

Both are extremes.I wonder if the gender gap will become more of a generational gap as time passes.

I wonder if I have a point.

[John Rickards]

I'm inclinced towards the 'voice' and 'emotional response' arguments myself, in both the reading and the writing of crime. I know male writers who are big on subtle characterisation, depth, emotional kick and not much action - the kind of stuff that would tend to be lumped under the "geared towards women" category (although I'll dispute that in a minute) - and I know female writers who write by-the-numbers strict, heavy procedural, stuff-going-on-but-not-a-lot-of-depth stuff - the sort that would normally be described as "geared towards me". And I know plenty of people who like the 'other side' of the gender gap.

And that's the problem with generalisations that apply to 50% (or the actual percentage split, which AFAIK is heavier on the female side) of the reading population. While it's true for some, it's never going to cover everyone, and probably not even a majority. It just covers the biggest minority of each side, if you see what I mean. I don't really think there's any way of saying "this is a man's/woman's book" with any real accuracy. You *can* say "this is a book for people who like action" or "this is a book for people who like character". Similarly, I don't think you can generalise male or female authors that way. "This is a book by a woman, so it's likely to be a quieter character-driven story, while this is a male author's book so it'll have more action and less emotion in it".

As Jennifer points out, neither gender corners the market on its 'traditional' roles. Karin Slaughter, for instance, IMO is as bloodthirsty and, well, not weakly, but certainly not as strongly focused on character as any "man's book". And Dennis Lehane is as character-complex, quieter and emotional as any "woman's book". While some men write "men's books" and some women write "women's books", plenty go the other way, or sit in the middle ground, and it's exactly the same with readers. Maybe the gaps between the two have narrowed down the years, and I missed out on the bigger gender gap of past times, but I just don't think there's much mileage in the male/female split. Especially when there's other splits, of tone, voice, subgenre, even setting, which make much more sense, IMO.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether it's a man's name or a woman's name on the cover. If it's an author I like, or a book that sounds interesting, I'll read it. :-D

Ask yourself this: If more women read crime than men, and James Patterson earns an absolute fortune writing and selling characterless, bloody, male-orientated derivative trash, who's buying it? :-)

And all that was probably the most rambling and incoherent argument I've ever made. And I'm not sure what I was trying to say. But whatever it was, I think I said it. I think... :-)