Tue 24 Jul 2007
As you may have noticed, I’ve recently completed Author and Book profiles for the 15 total nominees in each of the three categories for the 2007 Shamus awards. The easiest way to access them is to return to the first announcement page, where I’ve created links to each of the individual profiles.
It took me longer to do this than I expected it would when I started, but I’m glad I did, because I learned quite a bit in getting it done. First of all, even though I think I keep up to date with new books as they come out, unless you spend all of your spare time in doing so, you’re bound to miss something. There are two or three books I didn’t know about before they were nominated, and I’m glad I do now.
It also seems to me, without naming individual instances, that the concept of a character being a private eye has been stretched in a few cases. I’m not the judge of such things, but in my own mind, I did question at least more than one of the nominees as being true PI novels. This is not a complaint. It’s only an observation.
The amount of violence described as being involved in again at least more than one of the nominees makes me, personally, less likely to track them down. That’s my own individual preference. I also don’t make a point of hunting down cozy novels in which deaths are treated lightly.
I’ve never been able to put into words at what point too much emphasis is put on violence in detective fiction, or when it’s too little, but believe me, I “know it when I see it.”
Over the years I’ve also grown to more than mildly not care for detective fiction in which the supernatural or the paranormal is part of the telling. For what it’s worth, which may be very little, one of the nominees may have crossed whatever line in the sand I have constructed for myself in that direction.
I wonder how many of the stories begin with a client coming into the PI’s office wanting to hire him (or her) for this, that or the other. Without going back right now to look, I’d hazard to say that it’s probably not very many, and for a couple of very good reasons. More than a couple of very good reasons, now that I think about it, but somewhere deep down inside, I sort of, just kind of, wish it weren’t so.
Please note. In none of the cases I’m vaguely referring to above am I questioning the quality of the book or books involved. I don’t see any way I could. I’ve not read any of them.
Yet.
July 25th, 2007 at 7:30 am
I just read two books by Stephen Greenleaf back-to-back and I don’t see any reason why a book couldn’t begin with a P.I’s client coming to the P.I’s office and hiring him/her to do a job. For me, it’s still a fascinating beginning. I’ll be commenting on the books on Pulpetti in a day or two.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Besides the PI novels from the 50s and 60s, the John Marshall Tanner books by Stephen Greenleaf certainly fit the “old-style” image of private eye novels all right.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, Greenleaf is no longer writing mystery and detective fiction. In an interview that Ed Lynskey did with him, one that first appeared in the revived print version of M*F, Greenleaf said:
“My retirement was more forced than elected. When no publisher was willing to bring Strawberry Sunday out in softcover, even though it had been nominated for an Edgar, I knew Tanner’s day was done. Luckily I was able to write Ellipsis as the last chapter in the saga, and allow its subtext to suggest the reason my series had come to an end. I don’t see any need (or much demand) for the Tanner series to continue.”
Whether for good or bad, mystery fiction has to adapt to the times, and so do PI novels. With few exceptions, being a mystery writer has probably never been very easy, and it can’t be easier to maintain a successful career now.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Yes, you’re absolutely right, but I was just trying to say that I don’t see a reason for the classic P.I. beginning to fade away. It’s a good place to start, and if you’re thinking about P.I’s in real life, that’s probably still the way clients approach the detectives — well, you can use e-mail or call by phone, but that would still really be the same beginning, just in a different context. But, yes, I’m completely aware that it’s normally thought as a cliché, but I don’t really see why. I’d really like to hear. (Is it because there were too many P.I. novels with a broad coming to the office and throwing herself on the arms of the hero?)
July 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
In one word, the answer to your question (the one in the parentheses)is “probably.”
A better answer might be, “I’m sure it is.”
Other opinions are welcome!
I’ve also taken the time to check into the PWA definition of what exactly qualifies a mystery sleuth to be considered a “private detective.”
I couldn’t find it at the PWA Web site, but according to Kevin Burton Smith on his Thrilling Detective site:
The PWA defines a “private eye” as any mystery protagonist who is a professional investigator, but not a police officer or government agent. The full definition is, and I quote, “a person paid for investigative work but not employed by a unit of government. Thus books and stories about private investigators (licensed and unlicensed), lawyers and reporters who do their own legwork, and other hired agents are eligible; works centering on law enforcement officers or amateur sleuths are not.”
This helps also to explain why the number of traditional PI’s (as I’ll call them) is so comparatively small.