As I’ve mentioned more than once on this blog, one of the great things about crime fiction is its variety. Another great thing about the genre is that there are plenty of talented authors with well-written series and standalones. It’s always exciting to discover an author or the crime fiction of a particular country; in fact, it can be so enjoyable that some readers plunge in and go on a “reading jag” of that particular author’s work or that particular country’s crime fiction. Others go on “reading jags” of one or another sub-genre. That can have advantages, too. If you read an entire series, you get a real sense of the way the series develops, including characters, story arcs and the like. There’s no better way to learn about the crime fiction written in a particular country than to, well, read it. And the same is true for the various sub-genres. So there’s definitely something to be said for “reading jags.”
At the same time though, there’ s also a lot to be said for varying what one reads. “Reading jags” can tire one of an author, a country’s crime fiction or a sub-genre. And while you’re on your “reading jag,” there’s all kinds of other great crime fiction coming out that you might miss. And “reading jags” can make you lose your perspective on the genre and even on the author, country or sub-genre you’re focused on reading.
“Reading jags” can be very tempting. Some authors, for instance, end their novels with strong hints about the next part of a story arc, so readers eagerly reach for the next book in the series to find out what happens next. Martin Edwards’ Lake District featuring DCI Hannah Scarlett and Oxford historian Daniel Kind is like that. Edwards never leaves the reader in doubt as to whodunit or whydunit. We learn the important answers to each novel’s specific cases. But both of Edwards’ sleuths are facing other life issues and those are not resolved in just one book. Each book ends with enough left unanswered that the reader wants to find out what’s going to happen in the next novel.
Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy is like that too. In each novel, both separately and together, his sleuths, journalist Mikael Blomqvist and Lisbeth Salander, investigate a particular crime or set of crimes. We get answers to the questions about those crimes. And yet each book is connected to the others through story arcs that leave unanswered questions. There is a temptation to pick up the next book in the series because the end of the novels leaves enough open that the reader wants to know what how those larger questions will be settled.
Since the publication of that series, many, many readers have gone on a Scandinavian crime fiction “reading jag.” There’s a lot to love about crime fiction from that country. Check out Barbara Fister’s excellent blog Scandinavian Crime Fiction to see what I mean.
Of course, no two authors, even two authors of the same gender from the same country and writing in the same sub-genre, are exactly alike. But different countries have different cultures and that comes through in crime fiction. For instance, there is a distinctly Australian sense of humour that comes through in several novels and series from that country. It’s evident in Lindy Cameron’s Redback, which tells the story of a crack team of retrieval specialists whose main skill is getting people out of highly dangerous situations. When several incidents happen in different parts of the world, it becomes clear that a major force is co-ordinating terrorist group activity in different regions. Team Redback, led by Bryn Gideon, goes up against these terrorists at the same time as they try to uncover who’s ultimately behind the terrorist activity and what the ultimate goal is. It’s a thriller, but it’s not at all a stereotypical “cookie-cutter” thriller. And it’s got a nice dash of humour woven through it. So does Peter Temple’s Jack Irish series. That series features former attorney Irish, who sometimes does private investigation. The Jack Irish series is “hardboiled” to an extent. Certainly it isn’t light, and it features more than one “down and out” character. But woven through this series as well is the distinctive Australian sense of humour. If you want to argue that that humour keeps the series from being too bleak and noir, I won’t disagree. There are other examples of Australian stories and series that have that distinctive quality to them. It’s easy to see why readers who like it would find themselves going on an Aussie crime fiction “reading jag.”
Sometimes, readers go on “reading jags” because they got the chance to read one book from an author and after that, they can’t get enough of that author’s work. We all have different authors who’ve had that effect, so I won’t list every single author with a long backlist. But let’s just say that many, many people who read their first Michael Connelly novel can’t stop at just one. Harry Bosch, Mickey Haller and Jack McEvoy have won millions of fans, So has Andrea Camilleri’s Salvo Montalbano. There are plenty of other examples, too. I’ll bet you can think of more than I can. Sometimes there’s just the right combination of author, reader and reader’s mindset so that one book just isn’t enough.
Then of course, we’re sometimes introduced to a sub-genre and find it so appealing that we plunge into it. For example, you might read Megan Abbott’s Bury Me Deep, in which Marion Seeley’s physician husband Everett loses his medical license because of his cocaine habit. He travels to Mexico after first establishing Marion in an apartment in Phoenix. The idea is that she’ll stay in Phoenix and work until her husband’s return. Seeley arranges for his wife to work as a file clerk at the exclusive Werden Clinic and all goes well at first. Then, Marion falls in with two new friends Louise Mercer and her friend Ginny Hoyt. The friendship is benign enough at first, but soon Marion gets more and more drawn into her friends’ wild lifestyle which includes parties, drugs and plenty of male “friends.” And that’s when the trouble really begins. This novel could very easily draw a reader into the world of noir fiction, and there’s plenty to enjoy in that subgenre.
Want to know more about noir? I invite you to check out Glenn Harper’s excellent blog International Noir Fiction.
There are other reasons, too, for which readers might go on a “reading jag.” “Reading jags” ask the reader to trade off variety and keeping up with some favourite authors for a really deep sense of one author’s work, crime fiction from a particular country or region, or one sub-genre. Some readers would rather not make that trade; others do so.
What about you? Do you go on “reading jags?” If you do, what prompts you? How do you balance the benefits of variety with the benefits of depth of a lot of reading in one small area of crime fiction?
*NOTE: The title of this post is a line from Counting Crows’ Goodnight L.A.
I go on reading jags. I started Lynda La Plante’s first of the DI Travis series and couldn’t stop until I got to the latest. I have her newest on my Kindle and can’t wait to get to that one.
Clarissa – Oh, yes, of course! You’d mentioned that you’d been reading a lot of La Plante’s work lately. That’s definitely a good example of a “reading jag,” and I hope you’ll enjoy her newest.
I do go on reading jags-but more with a writer than a genre or subject. Right now I am reading Ron Rash and Joe Lansdale. Patti
Patti – You’re not alone. I’ve gone on author-based reading jags myself. It makes sense really if you fall in love with an author’s first novel, or at least the first you’ve read.
Margot: I rarely read more than 1-2 books of an author during a year and never more than 2 in a row. I have found my interest in a series diminishes if I read too many in a short time.
I equally try to avoid reading jags of an area or sub-genre. I try to remember I read for fun and reading what looks interesting at the moment I reach for a book from one of the piles is best for me unless I have registered for one of Kerrie’s ongoing memes.
Bill – I know exactly what you mean about losing interest in a series if one reads too many books from it in a row. I almost always feel exactly the same way, even about series I like.
I agree with you, too, that reading should be for pleasure. People’s moods vary; so does their view of what looks interesting. I think a lot of people have a better overall experience reading a book if they’re reading it because they want to, not because they “have to.’
Hmmm, I often go on reading jags focused on books from a certain country or region, wanting to learn more about it. I just read White Heat, based in Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic and now I’m planning to read more mysteries about the area and the Inuit people, but stretched over the summer, as the cold climate, ice and snow on the pages help balance out the city heat.
Sometimes I do go on jags with a particular author, as reading Stieg Larsson’s trilogy one after the other, or reading a number of Hakan Nesser’s books in a row until I got my fill. I deliberately and carefully dole out Camilleri’s books, as I want some to look forward to reading. Right now, I’m trying not to read several in a row. Same with Sjowall and Wahloo’s series. Other authors I enjoy one book at a time, perhaps one a year and look forward to next year’s book.
It’s sometimes tempting to gobble up several, but planning a bit helps to balance this all out.
Kathy – It’s interesting that you read about cold-weather climates during the summer; I’ll bet that does help beat the heat. And it’s a good reason to go on a “reading jag.” I hadn’t thought of that when I put this post together but it makes some sense.
I’ve got favourite authors too whose work I dive into, so I can see why you read ’till you get your fill of an author. But then, there are those authors whose work I like well enough that I dole it out like you do. That way as you say there’s something to look forward to…
I’m more like Bill I think – I never read two books from the same author in a row and normally like to leave a break of several months in between each one. It’s hard to do this when trying to catch up to an author’s current release schedule which is one of the reasons I am sometimes reluctant to start a new to me author if they have a very long running series and everyone says I should start at the beginning. But on the few occasions where I have read several books in a row I found myself getting more and more annoyed at the repetition of themes, information and so on. I don’t think it’s fair of me to do that to an author so I space my reading out.
As far as subjects or sub genres go I can go on a bit of a jag – though I am trying even to vary this these days as I enjoy the variety of different settings, styles and sub-genres. I’m even throwing in the occasional work of non crime fiction at all!
Bernadette – I think it does give one a fresher pair of eyes, so to speak, on an author’s work if one spaces out one’s reading. Even the most innovative and creative authors have a distinct voice that comes through, and taking a break, so to speak, from that voice can give one a fresher perspective. You make a good point about trying to balance that with “meeting” an author who has a long-running series. I don’t always balance that very well myself, ‘though I try.
And you know, I ought to read outside the crime fiction genre more than I do. With so much good stuff in the genre it’s hard to keep up, let alone read something else, but it is a good idea to do that now and again.
I rarely go on reading jags (an interesting term by the way). It’s more like reading zigzags in my case. I have a wide range of interests so I’m up for all kinds of books, except M&B, Harlequins and the like. I don’t read any one author in a series because I get bored easily. For instance, I have been alternating between a Christie, a Wodehouse, a hard-boiled crime-fiction novel, a classic, and popular fiction (of the John Irving or John Le Carre kind) for the past couple of years. These days I’m revisiting fiction that used to be quite popular in my college days in the mid-1980s, such as, A.J. Cronin, Nevil Shute, Lloyd C. Douglas, Henry Denker, Alan Sillitoe and many others.
Prashant – There are some genres and sub-genres I don’t read either. I think most people are like that. Being open to all kinds of books I think gives one a broad sense of what’s out there in literature, so “reading zigzags” (I like that term!) have advantages I think.
It’s interesting too that you mention returning to fiction that was popular at another time. I do that too sometimes and I always end up surprising myself with how differently I feel about books when I do that.
I definitely go on reading jags. It’s usually because I pick up a book by an author I’ve not read before and if I love it, I go for more.
Pat – Oh, I know what you mean. I’ve done a similar kind of thing. I try not to let myself get too out of control but a couple of times I’ve done it.
I just think one has to be open minded with oneself! However hard you try, it is easy to get stuck in ruts rather than trying new things or genres. For example in general I agree with Bill and Bernadette that it isn’t wise to read more than 1-2 books by an author in a short space of time as they can get same-y. On the other hand, I was not able to carry out this principle with C J Box’s backlist once I discovered Joe Pickett, as these short but compelling books simply begged to be read immediately! I try to read all the translated (in the UK) crime fiction each year (apart from serial killer schlock & historical) to get some variety, but I realise I have read no historical (translated or not) published in the last April-April year! Recently I have made more effort to read new-to-me authors and to focus a bit more on gender balance of authors, but if you do that sort of thing you eliminate other possibilities! Reading jags are good in some ways as one never runs out, but can lead to ruts. My current strategy is not to have too many books on my shelf to read at any one time, so I can read them as they attract my attention. Not sure if this will work but it might help me to be more varied in my consumption.
Maxine – There are definitely authors whose work begs to be read. It’s hard to put them aside and vary what one reads. I’ve done that kind of thing too, and yes, C.J. Box’s Joe Pickett novels are very tempting. “Reading jags” can catch one up with a particular author or kind of crime fiction, but they can indeed lead to ruts. And one misses out on other things being published, too. I think too that “reading jags” can put one off a sub-genre or an author because, as you say, the books get “same-y.”
There’s so much good crime fiction out there that you’re right, if you do consciously vary what you read, or look for a gender balance, or in some other way plan in that way, you do indeed miss out on other things. I like your strategy though of having a few books on the shelf at a time, so you can read what appeals to you. It’s an interesting way of going for variety and still reading the authors you can’t resist.
I have gone on reading jags, as years ago I craved Spenser novels by Robert Parker. Then Sara Paretsky, Marcia Muller, Sue Grafton, followed by John Grisham, Nevada Barr, and then Michael Connelly. And when I first learned of Donna Leon’s Guido Brunetti series, I read all that the library had in stock, then purchased a few. And then I did it with books by
Denise Mina and Arnaldur Indridasson, reading all the library had in stock.
Then I decided to be more measured and read one book at a time, then switch authors and try new genres and locations. It’s worked for me, although if a new Leon, Paretsky, Indridason, Vargas, Mina came out, I’d snap it up quickly.
Kathy – You’re not the only one who goes on those “reading jabs.” When I’ve “met” a new author I’ve done that too – focused on their books. But it’s also nice to switch authors and location. Of course, it’s also really hard to keep that commitment when a new release from one of those favourite authors comes out…