Yesterday I followed a thread from Sarah Weinman's blog, to Lee Goldberg's blog, to Jim Winter's blog, commenting on a New York Sun article by publisher Otto Penzler, wherein Penzler slams the cozy (subgenre of mystery where violence and death occur offstage), saying among other things, that cozies contain "not a scintilla of style, originality, or depth. They must have the texture and nuance of an infomercial, lacking only its philosophical power."
I haven't read cozies myself--I identify better with more direct, more graphic crime fiction--but I don't believe any book earnestly written by an author can be dismissed as Penzler does. I'm the first to admit I haven't read widely in any genre, including "literary fiction." Instead, I've sampled some of each and all have informed my writing.
More than any particular genre, I don't like the way certain books are marketed. I mentioned shopping for books at BJ's. The bestselling, most talked-about books are stacked there like any bulk product, a casual reader's paradise.
Casual readers lead to casual writers who try to produce the most book with the least work. I can't blame them. If my teacher gave me an A on my first assignment, I'd try to match, not exceed, that effort the next time out. If casual readers keep buying a writer's books, the writer has no incentive to change the most book/least effort routine.
Penzler believes cozy writers are casual writers. In fact, he has exposed himself as a casual writer who dismissed his subject as "throwaway" from the outset, and thus did not do enough research or fact-checking to support his premise.
No comments:
Post a Comment