A So-Called State of the Mystery Nation

David Montgomery takes stock of the first half of 2008 in mystery, and finds it somewhat wanting:

It seems like a so-so year thus far. I've read some good books, but nothing that's blown me away. If I had to pick, I suppose the best thing I've read in 2008 is Michael Connelly's The Brass Verdict, a book I enjoyed a lot. But it's not one of those books that makes you jump out of your chair.

Now that I think about it, I haven't jumped out of my chair in a long time. I was talking with a friend recently and he said the best book he'd read so far in 2008 was a book that came out almost ten years ago, that he'd already read a couple times before. I know how he felt. Either I'm getting pickier or the crime novels being published these days just aren't the best.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good stuff out there (emphasis on good, not great). A lot of competent books with good writing and good stories. But the greatness factor seems to be lacking. Surely during a six-month stretch of time there should be at least one great crime novel published -- but if there was, I didn't read it.

Now, my first instinct with discussions like these (and the comments section on Montgomery's post is already pretty lively) is to fall back on the "it depends" axiom. Montgomery primarily reads, reviews and prefers American crime fiction, and more and more of the best books in the genre are being written by British, Irish and European crime writers. Let's put it this way: all five writers on the shortlist for the 2008 LA Times Book Prize, which Karin Fossum won for THE INDIAN BRIDE, are from outside the US. It's flukey and based on the previous judging panel's tastes, but it's also indicative of where the best genre writing is coming from right now. I couldn't say how the 2009 shortlist will end up, since I'm only one of three judges on the panel, but if it were up to me and only me, rest assured Europe would be represented.

As for a book not causing Montgomery to jump out of a chair (or, in my phrase book, the Holy Fucking Shit book) that also depends on taste, book selection, mood and other subjective traits. I suspect my year end list the best of '08 will be markedly different (more international, more literary, more unclassifiable) from his, and some of those meeting my HFS criteria will make others scratch their heads in bewilderment or confusion. (Did anyone else read David Peace's TOKYO YEAR ZERO last year? Exactly. Sigh.)

But Montgomery's post comes just after I scoured the 2009 Edgar Award submission lists (and if your book hasn't been submitted, tell your publisher to get cracking) and so American crime fiction's current state is on my mind - and what strikes me of particular interest is the possible relationship between two distinct trends developing over the course of the year.

One, the crop for what will end up being the list for Best First Novel by an American Author is one of the weakest I've seen in years. Usually I can come up with a dozen or so books I think are shortlist-worthy but this year, it'll be a struggle to get even that close. Unless it turns out Tom Rob Smith has previously undiscovered US Citizenship (like eventual 2008 winner Tana French), it's going to take some doing to get a really strong shortlist of five. Although I'm glad to see Toby Barlow's SHARP TEETH on the submissions list because a) it's good and b) a werewolf novel written in blank verse should be nominated by default, dammit.

But the weakness of American debuts is offset by the Best Paperback Original category. Holy hell, it is strong, possibly even stronger than last year. Keep in mind that a number of writers debuting last year in paperback, like Dave White, Jennifer McMahon, Jason Pinter and Toni Causey are now eligible in the PBO category. Benjamin Black has a pretty awesome paperback novella with THE LEMUR, and Eurocrime is well represented with Fred Vargas, Michael Walters, Boris Akunin and Iain Sansom. Meg Gardiner has five possibilities all by herself. Akashic has strong entries with Nina Revoyr's THE AGE OF DREAMING and Abraham Rodriguez's SOUTH BY SOUTH BRONX. Dark and gritty fare, whether published by Hard Case Crime or not, comes by way of Christa Faust, David Schow, Max Allan Collins, Tom Piccirilli and Duane Swierczynski. Even Reginald Hill has an eligible paperback original. So unless there's a serious WTF nominee, I'll say in advance I'll be pretty damn happy with whatever list of five the Edgar PBO panel comes up with.

So what does it all mean? Probably not much. But if I had to take a stab, I'd say the health of the genre overall is pretty good, especially because of the prominent stature of Eurocrime, espionage fiction and noir. But there might be something afoot on the American side, on the kind of mysteries and thrillers this country's writers have long excelled at, that won't fully bear out for a few more years.

Then again, maybe it's all just a matter of arguing perpetually about taste. I recently caught up with Josephine Tey's entire backlist, so perhaps that is why contemporary mysteries of a traditional bent aren't faring as well for me. And then there is the current fate of the book I finished the other day, Matthew Hall's phenomenal 1997 thriller THE ART OF BREAKING GLASS. If it were published today as a new novel, it would probably generate the same number of accolades it did back then (especially because the book is scarily prescient and not nearly as dated as I feared.) Naturally it's out of print and Hall hasn't had a novel out in years. Posterity is a fickle beast...

Comments

[John McFetridge]

Yeah, sure, taste. And also expectations. I understand David wants to read a book and jump up out of his chair and you're looking for the HFS moment, but a lot of the time books just aren't suited to that kind of reaction.

I'm looking for books that I'm still thinking about weeks, months later, the kind that take on more depth and relevance long after I finish reading them.

Charles Bock's "Beautiful Children" is like that. And there've been a lot more this year.

[Sarah]

Actually John, for me the HFS reaction is both instantaneous and long-lasting. That's why I trust it as much as I do. I brought up the David Peace novel for a reason: I read that book a year ago and I can still conjure up the mood, quote passages and find new things I didn't realize on that first read even though I haven't reread it. That's staying power. But my reaction isn't necessarily in line with everyone else's. TOKYO YEAR ZERO is Peace's most accessible book, but his work can be quite difficult for people to get into. So is it a question of taste or something more? That's the fun of it, I suppose...

[Naomi]

I was just noticing how short the First Novel category is. Perhaps less debut mystery books are being published? (Or will a bunch appear at the end of the year?)

I've been going on a rampage of reading crime novels either set in Europe or written by Europeans. I enjoyed Kjell Eriksson's first (his second is in my TBR pile) and am reading Arnaldur Indridason's SILENCE OF THE GRAVE. And I can't wait until Tana French's THE LIKENESS comes out here. The pathos in these books is deep and appeals to me greatly. I naturally gravitate towards working-class stories and somehow I think we Americans have abandoned that segment of people in much of our crime fiction (although I'm sure people can easily prove me wrong).

[Elaine Flinn]

'Taste' shouldn't enter into the process of judging. Excellence of execution, originality and voice are and should be the primary benchmarks.

I've been a judge five or six times and if I'd made my top picks based on 'taste' I'm sure there would be themes I might not have considered.

[Dave White]

The Dawn Patrol, The Dawn Patrol, The Dawn Patrol.

I haven't had this kind of reaction to a book since I read Severance Package last year and then... maybe.... Shutter Island before that.

[Dave White]

The Dawn Patrol, The Dawn Patrol, The Dawn Patrol.

I haven't had this kind of reaction to a book since I read Severance Package last year and then... maybe.... Shutter Island before that.

[Xavier Lechard]

"'Taste' shouldn't enter into the process of judging. Excellence of execution, originality and voice are and should be the primary benchmarks."

This is a beautiful statement of taste. :-)

[David J. Montgomery]

"I understand David wants to read a book and jump up out of his chair and you're looking for the HFS moment, but a lot of the time books just aren't suited to that kind of reaction."

All books should strive to be good enough to make me want to jump out of my chair. For any book lover, one of the best feelings in the world is reading something great and then running out to tell other people about it. If an another isn't trying for that...Well, s/he ain't trying hard enough.

I completely agree with Sarah that it's been a particularly rough year for debuts. But I'm ever hopeful that the latter part of the year will bring brilliance.

[Elaine Flinn]

Thanks, Xavier. :)!

[Patrick Balester]

The 2009 LA Times Mystery book category is in good hands. I suspect a European based story will be one of the winners. I've read reviews by all three judges and the LA Times knew what they were doing when they put this list together.

[Cameron Hughes]

The Dawn Patrol is still the best thing I read this year.

[Bryon Quertermous]

I struggled with a response to this because I wonder if my opinion in based on laziness or my actual beliefs. But I don't think every book has to be a massive stand up and take notice book. I've read plenty of books that I enjoyed plenty without getting all bent out of shape over how good they were. I think we sometimes forget the enjoyment in small moments in life and books and movies. Imagine if every day of your life was the best day ever. Wouldn't each successive day lose its "amazingness?"

This is NOT an argument for mediocre fiction, but I think we can have a discussion of good books without saying that every book has to be amazing. And I may be blasphemous here, but I don't think every writer should always aim for writing an amazing novel.

Kevin Smith is one of my favorite film makers and he has made an amazing career highlighting the beauty of life's small moments and small emotions. The rare time he aims for something "big" or "amazing" he fails.

L.A. Requiem is one of the most amazing PI novels I've read in years but what made it amazing was the years of development and the hundreds of beautiful small moments in the previous books that all received their payoffs in that novel. If LA Requiem would have been Crais's first novel I don't know that it would have had the same impact.

[David J. Montgomery]

I think there's a difference between an amazing novel and a great one. I get what you're saying -- but shouldn't every book try to be a great book? Does anyone really set out to just be okay?

[I.J.Parker]

Speaking for myself: every book should be a good one. You keep hoping that it might be a great one when its finished. But those perfect concatinations of initial idea, execution, and sudden inspirations do not always occur on command.

I've recently read two or three very good books (2007 releases). They were good enough for me. :)

As for judging: yes, objectivity is a must, and the knowledge what to look for. But I doubt that any judge can totally rid himself of extreme likes and dislikes. Still, it should be possible to step back and weigh one's personal feelings against objective criteria. Having read widely in the genre helps. And perhaps you should rely on the fact that the really effective book will grab you against your will.

[Xavier Lechard]

"Still, it should be possible to step back and weigh one's personal feelings against objective criteria."

Assuming of course that there is something like 'objective criteria' which I'm not sure at all.

[I.J.Parker]

Let me put it this way: It's not enough to say I love this book or I hate this book. One should be able to give examples of what works exceptionally well, or what doesn't work well at all. Presumably, an award winning novel would have none of the latter and plenty of the former. That is beside the quality of the concept, theme, or aim of the novel. These considerations require "stepping back" and thinking about the work as a whole. Objectively.
I have a problem with the term "originality," by the way. Very little can be said to be entirely original after hundreds of years of humans plotting stories. "Fresh" works a bit better because it may involve a new twist on an old situation, or a stylistic excursion into another genre.

[David J. Montgomery]

If there are no objective criteria then henceforth everyone must agree that I'm as good a writer as Richard Price.

Any takers?