Ransom Notes

[#1]

As a detective story writer, I always find it funny when A-list literary novelists--like slumming angels--delve into the genre I call home, especially since genre-writing is regarded by most of them as sub-par, scorned as "popular fiction," and so of less worth.  And yet this past summer saw the publication of literary titan Thomas Pynchon's INHERENT VICE (a private-eye tale) and Denis Johnson's NOBODY MOVE (a noirish crime novel), as well as Jonathan Ames' upcoming HBO series BORED TO DEATH (a comic-take on the conventions of pulp fiction).

Oddly one of the first things dispensed with by such authors in their parody, homage, or post-modern deconstruction of the mystery novel is...well, the mystery.  (With notable exceptions like Michael Chabon's THE YIDDISH POLICEMEN'S UNION, which presents a puzzle that plays scrupulously fair with the reader).  Even among contemporary mystery writers there has been a turning-away from the "mystery" in favor of the noir crime tale made most famous by James M. Cain (THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE).  They serve up thrillers of blunt sexuality and random violence, and the only mystery ever presented is that of the muddled psyche and the complexity of the human heart.

I believe this is because they perceive the "whodunit" aspect as the most unrealistic and artificial part of the mystery novel, echoing that long-ago literary critic Edmund Wilson's derision in his essay "Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?" which refers to a classic puzzler by Agatha Christie.  But this criticism of Dame Agatha didn't hurt her popularity one bit; long after her death, she continues to gain new fans everyday.

The reason Christie continues to be read--despite the creakiness of the period--is because she knew the essence of the mystery wasn't in deceiving her readers, but in getting them to fool themselves.  Her greatest works are constructed in such a way that our own assumptions lead us astray and we become accomplices in our deception.  She lets us make our own mistakes and possibly learn from them.  I can't help but wonder if her own nasty surprise regarding her first husband's infidelity wasn't a hard-learned lesson she then ever-after tried to teach the rest of us, only within the softer arena of the murder mystery where the hurt can be more bearably felt.  A contemporary author who continues to do us this service is Jeffery Deaver, whose most recent mystery novels BODIES LEFT BEHIND and ROADSIDE CROSSES are both powerful, compelling examples.

In my opinion, this is the greatest value of the traditional mystery novel, because in real-life too we most often get into trouble by jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts, or else relying on our preconceptions and prejudices, only to be led hopelessly off-track.  The mystery lets us discover this about ourselves without any of the painful consequences.

How do you feel about A-listers delving into mysteries?

Editor's Note: Russell Atwood is the creator of P.I. Payton Sherwood. His latest book, Losers Live Longer, was just recently published.

[#2]

Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men is certainly a noirish mystery and it's a great, great book. You don't get anymore literary than Cormac. That said, I couldn't get through the Pynchon. The characters and plot were completely stock. So, to answer your question; I don't mind if the literary heavy hitters delve into mystery as long as they can pull it off. But that's a big, big "if". Mystery, in my opinion, is much harder to write -- plot and character-wise -- than "literary fiction".

[#3]

Great article Russell, As far as I'm concerned the A-listers are the ones who write all the well loved novels and I'm not talking about Pynchon or Johnson or Ames.

Deb

[#4]

I love the tip of the hat for Jeffery Deaver here. I keep coming back to his books/characters year after year. You are spot on about his writing, and about what mystery writing in general does for its readers.