Critical Roundtable: THE TRIUMPH OF THE THRILLER (Part II)

(This is part two of a critical roundtable that began yesterday.)

Sarah Weinman: My thoughts may be a bit jumbled but I'm going to try to incorporate initial feelings and others' comments to date. First, Hallie made a good point in respond to one of my possibly muddled questions, which is that "I think this is [Anderson's] book, not mine to second guess what he could have done in 400 pages." Very good point, and actually pinpoints one of my main criticisms of the book, which is that ultimately, this is a book about Patrick Anderson's opinion on thrillers, and very subjective. And even though I was expecting as much - he is a very opinionated critic - I also hoped there would be more insight and a little less reliance on rewriting reviews that had appeared in some form in the Washington Post.

Subjectivity, too, entered with regards to which writers got more attention and which ones did not, especially when Anderson was trying to prognosticate who the "next big thing" authors will be (as in the section on Karin Slaughter, Charlie Huston and Peter Craig.) All have very different publishing fortunes at the moment, and I think I would have liked to see a bit more insight to that regard. Same, too, with his thriller history sections, which while I found them entertaining and good for a lot of food for thought, neglected many of the publishing-related influences that were instrumental in the birth of thrillers as we know them. He was right, IMO, to pinpoint 1981 as a major shift, but to talk about Gorky Park's success without acknowledging the book's publication history (as in, one of the first to get a seven figure advance, Cruz Smith's declaration that he was done writing pulp fiction under house names, that sort of thing) seemed a bit disingenuous. And also, the word "thriller" has, more and more, become a publishing term, a marketing tool - a way for publishers to signify that this is a BIG book worthy of mainstream attention, not just ghettoized genre attention. To my mind, there wasn't enough development of this idea, and I would have been curious to see where Anderson went with it.

I did like his rereadings of earlier authors, and how Hammett, Chandler and Christie have stood - or not stood - the test of time. And of course, they are basic underpinnings for thrillers as we know them, but perhaps less than Anderson gives them credit for. And as Hallie said, many of his favorite authors are mine as well.

I'll address the "women in crime fiction" idea in a separate post but it definitely bears further discussion. More soon.

Jerome Weeks: On the second question: I would have wanted "The Triumph of the Thriller" longer only if that extra space led to more analysis, more conclusions drawn -- and not simply the addition of more authors.

On the third question: I'm somewhat baffled by the unwillingness of many critics and editors to run negative reviews -- at all. I realize, given the space crunch, the question becomes why give a bad book the time and print? Yet readers judge a critic by the things he won't put up with as much as the books he values. If all we do is praise, then why not simply re-print the book's blurbs?

Mr. Anderson's definition of the thriller, as noted, is "inclusive," so indicating SOME boundaries he wouldn't cross was important. His book wasn't going to be just a collection of touts; he's not simply a fan. In fact, pointing out Tom Clancy's more appalling qualities ("Not since Raymond Chandler has a major American writer so shamelessly pandered to prejudice") led to some of Mr. Anderson's sharpe  writing. If his treatment of James Patterson's "The Beach House" ("it unfolds like an unspeakably dumb comic book") was little more than an irritated dismissal, that's about all Patterson merits. Patterson isn't even interestingly shallow.

Which only made me surprised, then, when Mr. Anderson clearly enjoyed something like "The Da Vinci Code." As Sarah noted, "The Triumph of the Thriller" is self-confessedly subjective. I don't mind opinions without analysis, provided there's a degree of self-awareness involved. That is, Mr. Anderson extolls such dark, brooding authors as Dennis Lehane, yet earlier, he complained that he can't wholeheartedly enjoy Ross McDonald's novels because they strike him as too serious, as humorless. It's easy to embrace inconsistency when you have only fuzzy personal guidelines.

Dick Adler: Jerry's last phrase said it all for me. I've never met Patrick Anderson, but I read him every week – not so much for his self-confessed "middlebrow" tendencies which tend to flop around loosely, especially when it comes to the historic bits. Were Dickens, Collins and Doyle consciously playing to the crowd – or isn't it that they really thought writing this kind of book made it more fun to read?

Lehane but not Ross Macdonald? Let's get real.

Comments

[Jersey Jack]

In her book on crime writing, Killer Fiction, I think Carolyn Wheat explained the difference between mystery and thrillers very well. In thrillers, she talked of the need for multiple viewpoints so the reader always knows more than the story's protagonist. Wheat says you want the reader screaming, "Oh, no--do not go inside that house."

[David J. Montgomery]

Multiple viewpoints are often used in thrillers (and more commonly in mysteries these days as well), but they're far from a prerequisite. A skilled writer can generate suspense and thrills in many ways.

Manipulating the POV to gin up suspense is an easy way out, and can often be quite effective -- show the villain planting the bomb in the museum, cut to the group of schoolchildren entering the building, cut to the hero racing for the entrance -- but it's hardly the only way.

First-person thrillers are no doubt harder to write well, but plenty of people have done it.

[David Thayer]

I enjoy Patrick Anderson's work but it seems to me that he discounts the author's intent in choosing the format of their story. Isn't the thriller label often superimposed in the sales process often to the amazement or consternation of the author?
In many ways he concludes that the least interesting work ie Patterson lies where the convergence is the narrowest between the marketing label and the author's intent. I sound like a weatherman but big commercial thrillers arrive like cold fronts. After the thunder and lightning pass there isn't much left to think about.

[Jersey Jack]

First-person thrillers? Lay a couple on me, David, and maybe you can change my mind.

[Dennis]

Jim Thompson's "The Killer Inside Me" strikes me as a perfect example of a first-person thriller. Unless, of course, one discounts the notion that noirs can be thrillers.

[David J. Montgomery]

Just off the top of my head, Lee Child, David Morrell and Barry Eisler have all written first-person thrillers in recent years.

The elements that make a book a thriller are not dependent on multiple viewpoints. POV can be a tool to achieve some of those elements, but that's all. Just a tool.

[David J. Montgomery]

ITW picked THE KILLER INSIDE ME as one of the 100 must-read thrillers, so they thought it counted. (Full disclosure: I was on the committee that chose the books.)

[bernd]

On ITWs web-site Christopher Rice (http://www.thrillerwriters.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=29) argues that a thriller creates chaos whereas a mystery eliminates it.

"To put it simply, every great thriller kicks up the makings of a great mystery, and every great mystery begins in the wreckage of a great thriller. But both rely on the well-conceived conspiracy or crime."

I found that this hypothesis works fine for me.

[Jersey Jack]

"The elements that make a book a thriller are not dependent on multiple viewpoints."

DJM--I concede on the basis of your credentials alone, and would like to ask you another subject-pertinent question: Do "high stakes" play any role in the difference between suspense and thriller? Apologies if I sounded flip earlier. I am curious on this subject.

[David J. Montgomery]

I wouldn't concede too much to my credentials if I were you. Nor did I think you were being flip.

I tend not to use the term "suspense novel," as it seems even less precise than "thriller" does.

That being said, I don't think that having "high stakes," as most people use the term, is a necessary requirement for a thriller.

A story can be both small and personal -- say the kidnapping of a family member -- and still be a very effective thriller.

I think the key is that the stakes must be high for the people involved, particularly the protagonist, whether or not they matter in a global sense.

What happens in the story has to matter to the characters. It must be important to them. But it need not necessarily be important in any larger sense than that.

I wrote about the differences between mysteries and thrillers a while back, in case you're interested:

http://www.crimefictionblog.com/2006/08/what_is_a_thril.html

It's a complicated question, and not a particularly important one, although I do find it interesting.

[Jersey Jack]

I enjoyed (and recommend to others) your blog explanation of mystery vs. thriller and think I am beginning to understand my earlier misconceptions. I heard a similar explanation to yours in describing mystery vs. suspense, but with the additional idea that a thriller took a suspense novel to extra heights. I have been using the term thriller in much too narrow a sense. Thanks for your help and patience.