For a genre to be successful, it’s got to evolve with the times. Readers change, their tastes change and our knowledge changes. A genre that doesn’t take account of that isn’t going to last very long. And it’s interesting to see how crime fiction has changed and continues to do so as times and readers change. One could look at a lot of different ways in which crime fiction has changed and continues to change; here are just a few ideas that I have.
The Sleuth as a Whole Person
In the early days of crime fiction, we didn’t get to learn much about the sleuth other than what we needed to follow the story line. For example, in Wilkie Collins’ The Moonstone, we meet Sergeant Cuff, who’s assigned to investigate the theft of a valuable diamond known as the Moonstone from the Verinder family. The stone was left to Rachel Verinder, to be given to her on her eighteenth birthday, but on the night she receives it, it disappears. Then, second housemaid Roseanna Spearman disappears and is later found to have committed suicide. Cuff follows leads, interviews the family members and eventually traces the whereabouts of the stone and how its disappearance is related to Spearman’s suicide (and no, it’s not the obvious relationship). In this novel, we learn nearly nothing about Cuff. We don’t learn about his background, his family or much of anything else about him.
During the Golden Age, we begin to see just a little more of the sleuth’s family life and background. For instance, in John Dickson Carr’s Hag’s Nook, we are introduced to his sleuth Dr. Gideon Fell when Tad Rampole visits Fell during a trip to England. The two get involved in a case of murder and murky family history when Martin Starberth dies on the night of his twenty-fifth birthday. Rampole has fallen in love with Martin’s sister Dorothy, and so is interested in the case. For his part, Fell is fascinated by the Starberth family history and by the cryptic instructions each Starberth heir is given when he turns twenty-five – instructions that seem to have led to Starberth’s death. In this novel, we meet Fell’s wife and we learn just a bit about him.
We also get a more complete look at a sleuth in Ellery Queen’s series. In The Roman Hat Mystery, we see plenty of home scenes, so to speak, as Queen and his father, Inspector Richard Queen, get involved in the mystery of the poisoning death of shady attorney Monte Field. There are also domestic scenes in The King is Dead and some other Queen novels, and in the later novels in the series, we see Queen develop romantic interests.
By the 1960’s it was quite common for sleuths to have families and family concerns. For instance, we learn about Stockholm homicide detective Martin Beck’s family life in Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö’s groundbreaking series. Golden Age authors such as Agatha Christie and Ngaio Marsh who were still writing in the 1950’s and 1960’s also made their sleuths a little more “fleshed out” as time went on. Marsh’s Roderick Alleyn marries and has a son Ricky as that series goes on, and we see plenty of their lives together. Christie’s Tommy and Tuppence Beresford also marry and have children and as the novels featuring them go on we do see domestic scenes and get a little more sense of the whole characters.
Today’s crime fiction often features sleuths with families, home lives, backstories and lots of complications in their lives that have nothing to do with the mystery at hand. For instance, Åsa Larsson’s Anna-Maria Mella investigates mysteries, of course. But she’s married with four children, and we see plenty of her life with them. Helen Tursten’s Irene Huss is the same way; she’s married with twin teenagers, and we’ve gotten to know her backstory, too. There are many, many other examples, too of today’s trend towards a sleuth who is a whole person. Readers want their sleuths to be “real,” so I suspect this trend will continue.
Multitasking
For many years, crime fiction novels would focus on just one case. We see that in just about all of Agatha Christie’s novels, for instance. Poirot, or Miss Marple, or the Beresfords, would have one goal – one case – that was their focus. There might be more than one murder or crime, but all were related to the central mystery. Christie’s standalones tend to be that way, too (although there are exceptions). We also see that focus on one murder or set of murders in Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes mysteries. Those stories too, including the novels, are focused on one case, even when there is more than one murder or crime.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s, we began to see some series such as Dell Shannon’s Luis Mendoza series and Ed McBain’s 87th precinct series, with a group of people handling more than one case at a time. That kind of multi-tasking, to put it that way, is realistic and as series have gotten more realistic (another trend we’ve seen), we see more of this “several cases at a time” approach, especially in series that feature cops.
And those series don’t even need to feature cops. Donna Malane’s Surrender features missing person’s expert Diane Rowe. Rowe takes a very personal interest in the murder of James Patrick “Snow” Wilson, since he murdered her younger sister Niki. When it becomes clear that he was paid to do so, Rowe wants to know who paid Snow and why. At the same time (and in an unrelated case), she’s trying to find out the identity of headless skeleton found in the Rimutaka State Forest. As the novel goes on, Rowe pursues both cases and we see how both stories evolve.
There’s also a related trend that we see in work such as Ian Rankin’s Inspector Rebus novels and Tony Hillerman’s Jim Chee and Joe Leaphorn novels. In those novels, we often see cases that seem to be unrelated and that are investigated that way at first. But then, the cases turn out to be tied together. When the sleuth finds the common denominator, she or he finds the solution. This is just my view, so feel free to differ with me if you do, but I see this trend as continuing. Many readers want books that don’t always have linear plots.
Stories and Series With an Agenda
In early and Golden Age crime fiction, and even until the 1960’s, it’s probably fair to say that most crime fiction novels were written to tell a story. Of course, we sometimes see the author’s personal views coming through. For instance, an anti-Communist, pro-“underdog” view is obvious in Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer stories.
It’s still true today that the very best crime fiction is written to tell a story, not to accomplish a socio-political goal. But since Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö’s Martin Beck series, we’ve seen an increase in novels and series that also include messages about various social and political messages and goals. The Beck series has a distinctive anti-capitalist flavour. So does Stieg Larsson’s Millennium series.
Novels such as Ruth Rendell’s Road Rage, Nevada Barr’s Anna Pigeon series and C.J. Box’s Joe Pickett series explore environmental and species-protection issues. Rendell and Michael Connelly have explored issues such as child trafficking and race relations, too. And many authors (there’s no space in this post to list them all) explore issues such as political corruption, racism and social inequities. As authors see how their very skilled colleagues can explore larger social issues without preaching, I see this trend continuing, too. The issues may change as readers’ concerns change. But I don’t think the concept of the “crime-novel-with-an-agenda” will go away soon.
These are just a very few things that I see happening in the world of crime fiction. What do you think? Where do you see the genre heading? What do you think we’ll see more of or less of?
Thanks to Mack Lundy for the inspiration for this post. You’ve given me much food for thought, Mack.
*NOTE: The title of this post is a line from Billy Joel’s It’s Still Rock and Roll to Me.
It has changed a lot. We really do not know much about Marple or Poirot. Even though we have read many books written about them. I think, however, the Sherlock Holmes character was developed a great deal.
Clarissa – It’s interesting that you bring up some of the things we know about Holmes. We do know more about him than we do about either Poirot or Miss Marple. That said, though, I think the focus in earlier crime fiction is much more on the case at hand than it is on the people who solve the case.
I’m pretty amenable to changes in crime fiction, although I do like plots to weave together, as in Jo Nesbo’s Nemesis, where there were two different mysteries going on, but a character was central to both. I don’t mind more about the detective’s personal life, i.e., the sleuth as a “whole person.”. It does work well in Martin Beck’s case and in Erlendur’s situation, too, as well as Elinborg’s. Her family dramas were a good backdrop in Outrage.
It works with Sara Paretsky’s books and in Donna Leon’s. And, of course, let us not leave out the idiosyncratic, yet lovable Salvo Montalbano, whose personal life — and love of good meals — are half the story.
Agendas and points of view on social and political issues are fine with me, as long as there’s a good plot and character development. I usually am fine with this. However, I just read Sara Gran’s Claire DeWitt and the City of the Dead, which was fun and interesting but some pages were too full of the character’s (author’s) philosophy on different matters. Those pages could have used a bit more editing so they were less heavy-handed.
In general, I go along with current developments, but my limits are the trends to: serial killers, gratuitous violence, especially against women and children (men, too), sexist attitudes to women, growing body counts, series that go on too long, banal writing leading to best-seller lists based on big name authors, not value of story or content. Ah, so that’s off my chest.
Just good writing, character development, interesting mystery/plot, sense of place are what I ask.
Kathy – I’m actually very glad you mentioned some of the trends that you dislike. There are definitely some changes in crime fiction that haven’t been for the better. You’re quite right that ever since Thomas Harris’ Red Dragon there’s been a real increase in the number of serial killers out there, each more twisted than the last. I too get tired of that. I also am not a fan of gory violence either unless it is absolutely essential to the plot, which it usually isn’t.
You’re quite right I think that Jo Nesbø does a very effective job of weaving seemingly-disparate plot threads together. In that case, one doesn’t feel “pulled” between parallel plots. And I agree with you about the way both Arnaldur Indriðason and Sjöwall and Wahlöö integrate elements of the sleuth’s personal life into the novel. Those elements don’t overtake the novels, but they do add to the character. And you’re quite right that both Leon and Paretsky (Camilleri, too) show us fully developed sleuths. We see what those characters are like as people, not just as sleuths.
Margot, you make a wonderful point with this post. We do get more background on our sleuths now and they are doing more than one case at a time. I wonder if television has had an impact on the way writers write or is it just that as readers we want the characters to have more realistic traits?
Mason
Thoughts in Progress
Mason – Oh, that’s a very interesting question! I’m quite sure that television has had a profound effect on crime fiction in a lot of ways. At the same time, of course, readers want more realistic characters. Perhaps both effects are work here…
Margot: I certainly agree with the progression of knowledge of the sleuth as a whole person. As you know I had approached the subject from the perspective of sleuths with families.
On multi-tasking I recognize multiple cases in a book in recent crime fiction. I am not sure if it is a development as it happens infrequently in my reading.
Plots with an agenda certainly takes place in current crime fiction. I think Sara Paretsky does it best. I found the pro tough on crime agenda in The Goodbye Man by Chad Barton to overwhelm the book. Going back I think Rex Stout had pronounced anti-Nazi views in Nero Wolfe stories. Sherlock Holmes goes undercover in His Last Bow to thwart German spies but I would not really call it an agenda.
Bill – I actually had thought of your excellent post about sleuths with families when I was writing this post. While sleuths in the past may have had families (for instance, Watson was married), there’s a focus on the sleuth’s home life and backstory that there didn’t used to be.
Multi-tasking may not be quite as frequent as novels in which there’s one case, but in some work, like Gene Kerrigan’s The Midnight Choir We do see it done well. In my opinion it works best if the sleuth is a cop or P.I. or in some other career where you might expect s/he’d have more than one case at the same time.
There is certainly a difference between plots such as Paretsky’s, that push a certain agenda, and the plot of stories such as His Last Bow, where there are bad guys and patriotism, but where you wouldn’t say the author has a sociopolitical agenda. And I agree that sometimes those plots really can overwhelm a book. I’ve had that happen to me a few times.
The Jack Frost series was one of the earliest I was aware of that had the multi-tasking element you mention, in my head that is always contrasted with Dexter’s Morse books which seemed to be more singularly focused.
novels or series with agendas do seem to be on the rise – I certainly think lots of the South African crime fiction I’ve read or seen discussed has this element, as does the Irish crime fiction that is coming to the fore these days. Both of these countries have recent internal turmoil that writers seem to be working through via crime fiction – most fascinating (for me anyway, I like books that explore these issues as long as they do it intelligently).
Bernadette – Oh, I feel the same way. I find it interesting too – and sometimes moving – when an author explores a sociopolitical issue and has an agenda if it’s done intelligently. And I’m glad you mention some of the South African and Irish crime fiction coming out these days because many of those novels do explore social issues. For me, it works best if the author explores a larger issue by making it personal – by showing what happens to the people involved in the story. It’s one reason Unity Dow’s The Screaming of the Innocent is so powerful, ‘though difficult to read.
I’m glad you mentioned the Frost series, too. I hadn’t thought of that when I was writing this post, but you’re quite right that he does deal with more than one case. Morse on the other hand, always seems to have just one case or two cases tied together.
Oh I meant to add that sometimes there is an agenda I miss – I had never really thought about Camilla Lackberg’s Erica & Patrik series having an agenda but am reading Barry Foreshaw’s DEATH IN A COLD CLIMATE at the moment and he discusses this series at some length. Apparently the author has been exploring small community life (as opposed to city life which she doesn’t like) and talks about a theme of exploring Sweden’s dealing with ‘the immigration issue’- I was certainly aware of this in the last book but hadn’t really seen it as a theme of the series. Obviously I missed a few key things!
Bernadette – Oh, that is so interesting! I’m going to have to read Death in a Cold Climate. Foreshaw seems to have some very interesting insights! And it’s a tribute to Läckberg’s talent that the social themes she explores are subtle enough that you didn’t feel hit over the head with it.
I think Sara Paretsky does a great job on social issues which are important over here in the States. Lots of our favorite Nordic authors do this, too, including Arnaldur Indridason, Stieg Larsson, of course, and even Jo Nesbo in Nemesis, at least.
Donna Leon deals with an issue in every book. Gianrico Carofiglio brings in issues, and in his cantankerous way, so does our favorite gourmet inspector, Salvo Montalbano.
Even Melbourne baker/sleuth Corinna Chapman gets in issues, and since so many are directed over here, I love the zings. And Adrian Hyland sure raises treatment of the Indigenous peoples in Australia, as do many current women writers there, and which I’m about to discover.
Yes, Rex Stout does spout anti-Nazi views through the Nero Wolfe books, but he also raises a number of issues in his series. Stout wrote anti-Nazi propaganda for the war effort and also was an ardent civil liberties advocate going back decades.
Kathy – You’re quite right that there are many authors – and you’ve mentioned some terrific ones – who explore social issues and write with an agenda. One of the things I like about many of the series you’ve mentioned is that in those stories, the plot comes first. Yes, the issues are explored and the author is clear about her or his position on the issue, but one doesn’t feel like one’s reading a religious tract.
I like those zings from Kerry Greenwood’s Corinna Chapman, too – they make me smile.
I hadn’t thought about it, but you’re quite right about Rex Stout. He was a real defender of civil liberties; I’m glad you brought that up as you can certainly see it in the Nero Wolfe series.
I’m not yet tuned in to modern-day crime fiction, but I wonder what role information technology is playing in the professional lives of sleuths and detectives and to what extent they are using it to crack cases. I’m thinking of the internet, social networking, transmission of data like forensics and documentary evidence by email, BB or whatever, research at the click of a mouse…that’ll help our detectives solve cases better and faster. Couple all this with the old-fashioned deductive reasoning, as in the case of Holmes, and crime-fiction might just get more interesting. It’s already happening in films.
Prashant – Oh, thank you for that terrific idea! You’re quite right that information technology has revolutionised the way that crimes are solved. That’s a very interesting point and we do see it both in film and in books.
I think these trends you’ve identified are spot-on, Bernadette- the older fiction was pretty much about the crime, a puzzle to be solved, and that was it. Then we learned a bit more about the detectives. Now we know a great deal about them and indeed a lot of what is now called crime fiction is just fiction with a crime in it somewhere (though of course there is a parallel field of good solid crime novels as well). You can see this in some very long-lived series, eg Michael Connelly’s. Maybe Ruth Rendell’s Wexford series was the mould-breaker in this respect, as the first book was published in about 1965 and the latest only last year. The two detective’s family and personal issues have been a strong feature right from the start, as well as the campaigning social agendas mentioned by some here, eg immigration and political correctness & how these trends affect small, rural communities. (Rendell = Lackberg?!).
Maxine – Thank you
And right you are indeed that both Connelly and Rendell have led the way in a few areas I’ve mentioned here. Certainly both have created whole sleuths rather than just characters who solve crimes. And as the years (and novels) go by, those personal/family sides of the sleuths have become more and more important. And yet what I like is that there are still solid crimes in those novels. That’s one reason for which, to me, both authors are head and shoulders above so many others.
And interesting point about the similarity between Rendell and Läckberg in terms of exploring the small town community and the ways that social changes, immigration, etc.. affect them. I hadn’t thought about that but right you are!
Margot, I am so sorry I typed “Bernadette” instead of “Margot” – as I’d read her comment before writing I think my fingers had substituted for my brain! I was of course thinking of your arguments in your post when writing my comment above.
Maxine – Oh, no worries at all. I was pretty sure you were referring to me. I’ve done the same kind of thing, myself.
PS I think there is also a trend for the violence to be more explicit and descriptive, for its own sake. In the earlier books, the crime was just a quick despatch, usually. Some crime fiction now takes physical suffering to awful extremes, at a level of explicitness of torture that I don’t see how anyone could want to read it eg Karin Slaughter.
Maxine -You’re quite right, really. In fact that’s one of the ideas I’ll be exploring later this week. There’s no doubt that many of today’s fictional crimes are hideous and graphic. And even in novels where the gore isn’t extreme, you see more explicit violence than you did.
One series where getting to know the sleuth is even more important than the plot is Gianrico Carofiglio’s legal series featuring lawyer Guido Guerrieri. We get a series of memories and insights from the 45 year old lawyer told in the first person and the result is superb crime fiction. I think women fancy the character, and men can identify with his failures.
Norman – Thanks for mentioning that excellent series. I agree completely that getting to know Guerrieri helps draw the reader into the stories. There are good crime/mysteries, too, but yes, the character really matters in those novels.
Great post Margot. I agree about the multi-tasking plots with multiple strands being pulled together. A couple of things I’ve noticed are: a strong connection between the landscape and the crime committed, esp in Scandinavian cf but also from Oz and US. I also agree with Maxine’s point about violent and maybe it’s just the last books I’ve read but I’m finding rape much more written about.I’m not sure how I feel about this, but on neither occastion was it gratuitous but I hope it’s not an emerging trend.
Sarah – Why, thank you
. And you make a really excellent point about setting/landscape and crime. As time goes by, readers are no longer satisfied with crimes that could take place anywhere. There is much more of a connection there. And I’ve noticed quite a lot of novels where rape is involved, too. One reason may be that we simply are more willing to talk about it, but it’s definitely more apparent.
I’ve so enjoyed reading this post and all the comments, Margot! I think it’s natural the way of writing crime fiction has changed over time, just as movies have. Movies from the ’30s or ’40s (or even more recent) look very arch and unnatural to our eyes now. I often wonder how future generations will view what we read and watch now!
Elspeth – Now, that’s a very interesting question! I wonder too what people will think 50 years from now of what people read, write and watch now. Will we seem arch and contrived? Hmmmm… as with everything you say, good food for thought!
Margot, I agree with your point that we’ve become more interested in the sleuth as a whole person. However, I wonder if there isn’t a partial move away from that now, perhaps a move away from what you might call the cult of the individual, where one or two heroic cops solve the crime without help from anybody else, towards greater authenticity. I’m thinking in particular of the work of Peter James. Although he does give Roy Grace a rounded character he is also very careful to get his facts right. Also, as Prashant says, Roy Grace uses IT and forensics in the course of his investigations and James makes us aware of the many other police teams that form part of modern police work.
Pauline – You make a very well-taken point. Today’s readers want their sleuths to be realistic, and real sleuths can’t really solve cases alone. They aren’t superhero sleuths; rather, they get expert input and facts, and put the pieces together. You’re quite right about that. More and more we’re seeing a team effort to solve cases rather than just one person doing everything. Thanks for that insight.
I think we’re going to see even more causes and more politics in mysteries, But I’m not a big fan of the trend. I just love a good story.
Pat – Oh, now that’s interesting! Certainly politics and causes are getting a lot of attention these days, both in the media and in fiction, so I wouldn’t be surprised either if that trend continues. Like you, though, I go first for the story. If it’s a good story, that’s what matters most. Oh, and good characters, too
.
On the “dwelling on violence” point – I agree that it is important to address issues that previously were not discussed in fiction. Rape, kidnap, etc are real issues. But look at a writer like Connelly, who does not shy from dark plots about eg internet “injury porn” or child abduction/rape, or in his latest one a terrible serial killer/kidnapper, and the way he makes the reader feel strongly about these issues but while leaving you in no doubt, he does not dwell on things over and above the necessary. The account of Bosch and co’s discovery of the criminal’s house and what he’d been doing in it for years at the end of the most recent novel is harrowing yet completely uninformative about the exact details of every wound/death etc. As a result the author makes you think about our society that can allow these things to happen, and whether we have actually managed to improve anything in the hundreds of years since we supposedly became “civilised” etc.
Compare that with the last Karin Slaughter book I read, about a man who kidnapped young women. A large number of pages are devoted to one particular victim including exactly how she was shackled to a bed, how she suffered during her ordeal and, when examined in the hospital, exactly what the criminal had put into her stomach & the details of the subsequent operation – quite gross, and why? Was this just to stoke up reader-rage? To sell copies to people who like reading that stuff? I don’t know, but “necessary” does not seem to feature!
And a PS to my Slaughter point, her books plot-wise are very slow, in between these descriptions. It is as if one is on a placeholder while waiting for the next yuk set-piece. This is why, after enjoying the author’s first few books and reading the next few with increasingly less enjoyment, I am not reading her any more.
Maxine – Ah, there’s the key, I think. Is there an actual plot? Does it move along? Are there characters you can care about who aren’t being subjected to all sorts of explicit torture? If not, then the whole book moves on the violence, and that’s not my kind of thing.
Maxine – What a very apt contrast! You’re so right that Connelly is able to make the reader feel strongly about an issue – very strongly – without going into those details. He doesn’t flinch from the dark reality of the topics he addresses, but at the same time, we don’t read every single tiny thing that happens. In a way, that makes the reader care even more, because those details are suggested rather than mentioned, and we can use our imaginations. And yes, it makes us wonder just how “civilised” we really have gotten.
I’ve read other authors who seem to revel in describing each gory detail of suffering, and they make that suffering extreme, explicit and drawn-out. It’s not clear to me whether that’s done because readers buy that kind of thing in droves (not a happy thought considering what it says about readers) or because, as you say, the author wants to build reader rage. I’m not sure, either; I’m really not. But I do know that for me, that kind of grossness buys a book a very quick ticket to Station DNF.