Susan,
Re your comments below:
"For example, with the thriller awards last July I found
myself perplexed. Stuart MacBride¹s book Cold Granite while
a fantastic piece of fiction and something I¹d class under
noir myself was not what I¹d call a thriller. Others I know
expressed the same sentiment. This didn¹t stop me from being
delighted for him to be nominated, but end of the day it left
me completely confused at what exactly is considered a
thriller anymore, and that¹s a personal bugbear of mine
because where I live thrillers are not put in the Œmystery¹
section of the chain bookstores they¹re put in general
fiction. Yet Bruen, MacBride, Kernick you¹ll find them in
mystery."
Some time ago, I got into a discussion about this at the EMWA
e-mail list. Somebody was drawing a distinction between
"mysteries" (by which they really meant "traditional
whodunits/puzzles") and
"thrillers."
I responded that "thrillers" were not something separate from
mysteries, but were a TYPE of mystery, and then suggested
that if there really was a difference, then "thriller" should
be specifically defined in a way that made the difference
clear.
Nobody came up with a work-able definition of
"thriller." Later, when the ITW awards were given, one of the
comments I heard was that the eligibility requirement were
such that virtually any crime novel qualified.
FWIW, it's very common for publishers/booksellers to classify
a police procedural about the hunt for a serial killer (like
MacBride's COLD GRANITE) as a thriller.
Further, in Britain, I noticed that "thriller," "crime
novel," and "mystery" were virtualy interchangeable terms and
that a book by Agatha Christie was as likely to be called a
"thriller" as one by Ian Fleming.
As for whether or not "thrillers" are shelved in the mystery
section or not, that depends on the bookseller. At local
Borders stores, it's common to find Tom Clancy, Thomas
Harris, Robert Ludlum, David Hagberg, Gayle Lynds, and other
writers whose credentials as "thriller novelists" are
unassailable, in the mystery section. At local Barnes &
Nobles they're more likely to be shelved with straight
fiction.
The distinction, at the bookstore and publisher's level, if
the distinction is even made, has much less to do with
whether or not a given book is a "mystery," or whether
"thrillers" are something distinct from
"mysteries," as those terms are broadly understood, then
whether it's more profitable to market it as straight
fiction.
A mystery/thriller that's breaking for the best-seller lists,
whether or not it fits whatever the hell the definitions of
"mystery" or "thriller" are, is more likely to be classified
and marketed as straight fiction, because it's perceived as
being a more profitable way to market it.
Casual readers will, at least so the conventional wisdom
goes, be more likely to browse the straight fiction section
than the genre sections, so, conseqently, a genre book that
is perceived as having appeal outside of the genre will be
shelved there.
However, as the local Borders policy indicates, popular books
will find their audience no matter what shelf the book is
placed on.
As for what constitutes a "thriller." Try this: A mystery
novel that depends less on cerebration than on action, pace,
and suspense.
I can already guess what the objections to it will be.
It's too general and let's too many "non-thrillers" in.
And it's simultaneously too specific and excludes too many
books that are clearly should be included.
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 22 Dec 2006 EST