One of my favorite genres of fiction is the crime/mystery/thriller. When done well, I find it about the most enjoyable type of read. By “done well” I mean the Travis McGee or Dortmunder books, Thomas Perry’s early books including The Butcher’s Boy, and many others.
But way too often when reading these books I find myself loving the set-up, but then maybe 3/4 of the way in you see where it is going, and it becomes so unrealistic as to take me out of it. It seems like one of two things tend to go wrong.
-Either the obvious villian is just drawn too broadly and too evil - the corporate titan who is also a pedophle, drug runner, murderer…
-Or the protagonist does something so stupid, just to manufacture a slam bang final few chapters. I’m thinking of Thomas Perry’s later Jane Whitefield books, where I always enjoy the build up, but then the final 50-100 pages or so seem to follow the same formula to get all the characters together for a shoot-em-up climax.
Anyone else feel this way about this genre? Or are there fans of any other genres that seem to tend towards their own types of shortcomings?
Heck, if you think it would make an interesting discussion, knock yourself out.
I guess I posted about books because I read more than I watch films. Also, reading a 3-400 page book is IMO a little more of an investment of time than watching a 2-3 hour movie.
Lordy - I am totally all over that. It is one of the main reasons I rarely dip into the genre anymore unless a lot of folks keep recommending the book - but even then I can end up stuck with the DaVinci Code…
I break it down into, hmm, 4 categories:
Realistic? Does the writer seem to know the environment? Do you feel like the characters know their profession, whether they are a cop, a scientist, a lawyer or fed, a bookie or a crime lord?
Technically well done? Is the pacing good? Is the use of plot devices like reversals and reveals handled well? Is the dialogue credible? This is a big reason I love me some Elmore Leonard - his dialogue walks that fine line between natural and crafted/rhythmic.
Logical? Does the plot hang together and tie up nicely? But…
X Factor? is there something that leaves you guessing? This can be a well-crafted plot, appropriately deceptive dialogue - or just the nature of the crime / evil being looked into. I had a professor in college who wrote a thriller or two (armed with a sardonic sense, one book was “Blood Lake” and featured a rumpled cop hero named Harry Garnish). Anyway, he was friends with Evan Hunter, I think it was (Ed McBain) - they were talking shop - my professor was looking for input on a book he was writing. He laid out this clockwork plot and described all the motives for the killer and how everything tied up nicely. The story my professor told ends with Hunter putting down the manuscript and saying “it’s too neat - can’t you just say he was crazy?” Readers want a little unknown bump-in-the-night to go with their thrillers I guess.
I like that genre too … and I also think those books fall apart quite a bit.
Some thoughts I have on this –
It’s hard, I think, to walk that line between “realistic enough to be thrilling” and “unusual enough to be interesting.” In the real world, criminals tend to be more dumb than interesting, you know? Often you wouldn’t really want to read about one. To make it interesting and readable, authors need to make the crimes more complex. But then they can get dangerously close to the Evil Criminal Mastermind that you described.
The thing that makes me the most crazy is when the crime gets so complicated that there are like 10 or more steps in the crime … They do A to set up B, then that leads to C, which enables them to do D. THEN after all that, they end up at Z, and there’s no reason at all that the criminal couldn’t have just gone from A directly to Z (okay, maybe A, then B, then Z) in the first place. It was like the criminal had some time to kill. I noticed that in The Emperor of Ocean Park – overall I liked the book, and I know it was the author’s first try at a thriller, but still.
Well, just looking at your title made me think of how many (most if you get right down to it) movies and TV shows in the “crime thriller” genre manage to fall apart. They do so in less than three hours, so having to wait days to weeks for the letdown isn’t a problem. I’ve seen half-hour “thrillers” that fell apart in the first five minutes.
I don’t have anything important to add, but I wanted to say I absolutely LOVE Thomas Perry’s books, especially his earlier ones (Butcher’s Boy and Island are particular favorites), but I like the later ones as well. No comment on the endings, but I always enjoy the first 3/4 better than the end so maybe I see your point. Anyway, that reminds me that there is a new Jane Whitefield book out that I need to read…
Another problem in this - and perhaps other genres - is the author who writes the same book or 2 over and over. I’m thinking along the lines of Wambaugh or Ludlum, or the aforementioned Whitefield books. The first 1, 2, or 5 of their books really grab you. But at some point you get the feeling that they are basically writing the same one or two books with the same stereotypical characters over and over …
When I find a book I like, I tend to read as many of the same author’s books as I can find right away. In too many cases I find they would be better appreciated dispersed over a far greater period.
I don’t watch all that much TV, and tend not to watch cop/CSI type shows. But the first thing I thought of from your initial post was House - which is kind of a “whodunnit.” If you have watched it for more than a season, the shows tend to be horribly formulaic. You know their first several diagnoses will be wrong, and just about every show has the “aha” moment. While I keep watching it, it is not to find out what is wrong with the POTW (patient of the week), but instead for the development of characters whom I have grown to care about somewhat.
I do love me some good action/crime movies. Off the top of my head I’m thinking The Usual Suspects, Heist, Snatch, The Italian Job - that kind of film.
I was thinking about this, and more often than not I think it is to make up for poor writing - or to appeal to some portion of consumers who prefer sensationalism. I mean, if the characters were written well enough there could be tremendous drama in a “smaller scale” crime, betrayal, mistrust, greed …
For instance, I just finished (and recommended in another thread that went nowhere) a particular novel. Suffice it that the guilty party acted out of greed, and contrary to his proclaimed values, and grossly inconsistently with what would be expected from someone in his position. Let’s assume he was a preacher. Now the plot could have played out much the same if he were a relatively small-time preacher, with relatively smaller motivations. Greed and depravity can play quite well on a small stage. But if the guy is written a la Jimmy Swaggart, with plans approaching global domination as well as a secret harem of sex slaves - well, it goes into the realm of cartoons.
Am I making any kind of sense? If a book is well written, and characters are well drawn, I can be drawn into a very small scale drama. In fact, oftentimes moreso, as it seems so much more realistic/believable. But for whatever reason there seems to be the tendency to inject sensationalism into such books. I imagine that “sensational” aspect is a ploy to tip sales towards the mass market as opposed to “small” fiction.
You make a lot of sense, and so does what Delphica said.
I’m sure some people who started watching The Wire were disappointed that the gangsters weren’t like Tony what’s-his-name (Scarface) and that the cops didn’t have their guns out all the time.
A lot of the writers who wrote for The Wire write good, quiet crime fiction that doesn’t fall apart – George Pelecanos and Richard Price especially. Their books are almost character studies, with just enough action to move the story.
Lisa: I want the most intelligent hamster you’ve got.
Clerk: OK. [reaches into a box of hamsters under the counter and randomly selects one] Uh, this little guy writes mysteries under the name of J. D. McGregor.
Lisa: How can a hamster write mysteries?
Clerk: Well, he gets the ending first, then he writes backward.
Lisa: Aw, C’mon.
Clerk: Look, kid, just take him before his mother eats him, all right?
Well, you’ve already mentioned Dortmunder, so I suppose you’re a fan of Westlake. Have you read the crime novels he wrote under the name Richard Stark? They feature a totally amoral thief named Parker, and they typically involve what would now be considered a minor heist – $100,000 or so, usually split three or more ways – and Parker’s criminal associates are a terrifying collection of losers, psycopaths, desperate double-crossers, etc. Every heist goes wrong, and Parker has to dig his way out of the mess. The novels are short, tightly written, and don’t have a lot of time to go far wrong. There’s the occasional unbelievable moment, but most of the time, the novels really just examine the psychology of what happens when a bunch of low-level thugs get their hands on what they’d consider a fortune. The best ones were written in the late fifties and through the sixties into the early seventies. Westlake (Stark) started the series again in the late nineties, and the novels are pretty good, but Parker’s total amorality has been softened in those novels.
Anyway, Westlake’s gone now, so the crime novel genre has lost one of its best.
Thanks for the reminder. I’ve had them recommended before, but for whatever reason have never gotten around to them. Nw I’ve written me a note on a post-it, which I’ve stuck to my library card!
A funny thing is I think there was a blurb from Westlake on the cover of the book I just read.
Any folk have any other suggestions based on my enjoyment of the likes of:
Westlake (Dortmunder)
John D. McDonald (Travis McGee)
Ross Thomas
Thomas Perry (not Jane Whitfield)
Lawrence Block (Matt Scudder/Bernie Rhodenbarr)?
Travis McGee and Matt Scudder are likely my 2 fave recurring characters. I really loved reading both of them in order.
I’ve read a lot of Elmore Leonard, and find him a tad hit-or-miss for my tastes.
I like Carl Hiassen, but his imitators (and sometimes himself) tend to go a bit overboard.
As my list undoubtedly shows, I don’t mind at all if there is a comedic aspect to my thrillers/mysteries.
For whatever reason I never cracked Robert Parker. Does anyone recommend that I do so?
I just re-read The Maltese Falcon in anticipation of Joe Gores’ new book, Spade and Archer which is apparently a prequel. I like Gores, very much, he’s right up there with Westlake. He hasn’t written a lot, but what he has written are gems.
Robert Parker writes hard-boiled detective stories rather than crime capers. His early stuff was very good, but I think he’s got lax in the last ten years or so. His main detective, Spenser, has turned into Superman (attacked by only half a dozen thugs? No problem, he can whump 'em all) which is a lot less interesting. But in the early books, he’s vulnerable on lots of levels and a far more interesting character.
I enjoy Robert Parker. I tend to read him in bunches every few years–and usually read enough of him to be thoroughly exasperated by his formulas by the end of my readng binge.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t say that he writes thrillers, and I’m not a fan of thrillers. and I’ve read very few of the authors on your list.
But, you know? You could easily pick up a book or two and read it and see if Spenser suits you. Just don’t read them all at once.
Just added him to my post-it.
Keep the suggestions coming!
You mean I wasn’t sufficiently precise in describing my preferred genre as “crime/mystery/thriller”?
I tend to view them the same, whether the subject is international intrigue, a whodunnit, a crime caper, or a combination of all of those and/or more. I think whether I will like it or not has more to do with how I react to the characters and the writing - and factors such as those listed upthread by WordMan.
Hell, I’ll read just about anything - but I dislike reading poor writing.
I would LOVE more small scale crime dramas. That kind of setting seems much more intense to me. But I agree with you that that “sensational” seems to be what is being pushed by the publishers.
You mentioned you liked Lawrence Block’s Matt Scudder books … have you tried his Hit Man series? The first is brilliant, the rest are decent enough.
I highly recommend Michael Connelly and Ian Rankin. If you particularly like the caper (written from the perspective of the criminal) Michael Connelly has one of those called Void Moon, although his others tend to be hardboiled cops (Harry Bosch or Terry McCaleb protagonist), some legal (Mickey Haller), and one with a journalist lead. If you like British, Ruth Rendell’s Inspector Wexford series is also high quality.
Readers want a little unknown bump-in-the-night to go with their thrillers I guess.