Among my twenty-one books are seven academic mysteries I had tremendous fun researching and writing, and that fun has never been spoiled by hearing someone say, "Oh, I don't read mysteries! There's nothing to them!"
Why don't I get annoyed? Because I've also published memoirs, literary fiction, historical fiction, psychology, a travelogue, self-help, biography and even a Jane Austen mash-up. I read more widely than that, and never know what genre might interest me next as a writer or reader.
But over the thirty+ years of my publishing career, I've learned that book snobs come in all shapes and sizes. And their snobbery often seems more about them than the genre they've picked for their disdain.
I've been on a mystery readers' and writers' listserv for about fifteen years and way too often a predictable thread emerges. Somebody complains about being sneered at for reading mysteries by somebody else off-list who thinks they're silly or trashy or mindless or "escape reading."
The list starts to bubble over in a very sad way: some of the "victims" quickly turn victimizer and start trashing "Literature" or "literary fiction." What's that? Well, as defined by a best-selling mystery author at a conference I attended years ago: books where not very much happens to people who aren't very interesting. Wasn't he insightful? He certainly knew his audience--people roared their approval. Snobbery clearly works both ways.
What happens next on the list is that more people chime in with complaints about Proust or just about anyone they think is highfalutin and boring. That expands inexorably to Modern or Contemporary Fiction, however it's defined, which is usually whatever book that person doesn't like. Or disliked in high school. Or was told was brilliant but they hated. Or anything dubbed "classic." And the authors and their fans are of course elitist.
The contempt these mystery readers feel directed at them gets recycled as they express withering disdain for books they don't like written and read by people they have to denigrate. That's not an argument or even a defense, it's insecurity.
Sometimes they'll point to all the crime writers on the bestseller list and sneer that literary novels only sell a few copies and are usually written for the author's friends. Or they'll make outsized claims and say something like Anne Perry is a better writer than George Eliot. I've had dinner with Anne Perry and I doubt even she would make that claim.
I've reviewed on-line, on-air and in print since the early 90s. There's plenty of lousy writing in every genre, and I avoid reviewing books that are duds. My feeling is, if you don't like a certain kind of book, don't read it. But trashing a whole genre only makes you sound look like a snob or someone with a chip on your shoulder. Isn't it more fun to just read what you love and not waste your time dissing books you don't like, and the people who do?
Follow Lev Raphael on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Lev Raphael
My junior high and high school years were filled with teachers telling me my (romance novel) reading choices were junk. Of course, this meant I understood the assigned reading better, which I would think would be enough to move them off the trash list, but apparently not. Even then, it struck me as odd that teachers thought handing Dickens or Shakespeare to kids who'd never read, and who had a smaller working vocabulary, would lead to a sudden adoration for a book that might as well have been in another language.
People, particularly, in their leisure time, should read what makes them happy. They should respect the reading choices of others. They should encourage their kids to read what they want too, so that when the classics are ready for them, they'll be ready for the classics.
I would suggest trying some novels that use the mystery novel structure simply as a means for telling a larger story. For example, Harry harrison's make room make room (more widely known as soylent green) uses the framing of a detective novel to humanize the concept of overpopulation. Another good example is Gun with occasional music by Jonathan letham, a book that can only be described as a traditional noir mystery novel that takes place in a world where everyone is a drug addict and where evolved animals have taken the place of low wage workers.
Both of these are mysteries, yet they are so much more.
Are you quite sure about that?
If true, it's depressing. I have to admit that I find it hard to believe, though. What about such international bestsellers as Garcia Marquez or Eco or Calvino? What about all the Russian classics? The German Bildungsromane? The social conscience of Zola and Flaubert? What about more recent successes such as Stieg Larsson or Henning Mankell? I mean -- surely these are all very accessible page-turners. Something for everyone. And what about philosophical works -- everything from the Ancient Greeks to Sartre, the French existentialists, the Frankfurt School or more recently Barthes / Foucault / Deleuze / Guattari / Zizek ? Surely Americans read those too.
No. 3% definitely sounds far too little. A link to some kind of publishing statistics on that would be good, though.
I guess voracious readers can't afford to be picky, we snorfle anything in writing.
True, but it's not like that woman is going to run out of books either. :)
I think the reason I read so many genres is because of my ever-changing mood. No one type of book can keep up with my mood swings.
In genres people might shun, finding an author or series they like makes a difference. I tell people who don't like Westerns but do like mysteries, they might try Loren D. Estleman, who is terrific in both genres.
In genres
Wlater Mosley is one of my favorite writers of any kind, and I treasure the time I had dinner with him in Texas while we were both on tour and our paths crossed.
And, I forgot to mention author Debbie Macomber's comeback at a signing when someone said, "Oh, I don't read THOSE kind of books." Debbie responded (and she claims she regrets it now), "No pictures?"