(Hope I don't get in trouble for that tongue-in-cheek post title.)
Something I find interesting when talking to mystery fans is the common sentiment, "I don't like books about serial killers." Frankly, neither do I. In fact, our editorial assistant, who screens the over-the-transom submissions, writes "SK" (serial killer) in the upper-right corner of the query letter to warn the editor in advance.
And yet... It's true that books about serial killers sell like hotcakes. I have read, and liked, many of them. For example, those early James Patterson novels were really models of plotting and pacing. I have to ask myself why Readers buy serial killer books, but many of those who classify themselves as Mystery Fans do not.
Of course there are no easy answers, but I wonder about the following:
1-Do Mystery Readers not like serial killers because SK books are less "realistic"? One thing we know for sure--one thing that any criminal investigator will tell you --is that the vast majority of murders are committed by someone who knows the victim. So, even in the world of the cozy, which can seem utterly unreal, there is "truth" behind the murder and the motive, reflecting the real world of real profile of murderer and murderee.
2-Do we enjoy SK books because they are more primal? So many mysteries are what I would call "civilized." The greats, like P.D. James, Ruth Rendell, et al., write about crime but in such a literary way that the prose almost "elevates" the crimes into something Shakespearean. A mystery is a puzzle, a brain-teaser, but a SK book seeks a different response: It hopes to elicit fear and pulse pounding. Is the popularity of SK books due to their closeness (in terms of genre) to horror films or books, and the catharsis that goes with a good scare?
3-Do the readers of SK books have a more external locus of control, while mystery readers have a more internal locus of control? I learned the term "locus of control" in a psychology class in university--it has to do with a person's sense of either being able to act on/have control over the environment (internal locus) or being acted upon by/a victim of the environment (external locus). I wonder if those who love mysteries have an internal locus--that feeling, along with the hero(ine), that the mystery CAN be solved with the right tools and insights. Do those who are drawn to SK books feel as if the world is a dangerous place, where they can be acted upon -- by a crazed serial murder -- each and every time they walk out the door? This is of course an exaggeration, but I do wonder....
4-What makes an SK book work vs. not work (for me, as an editor)? I think a good SK book reminds me (against my will) that there are some truly crazy dangerous people out there; and while some of them do look crazy and evil (a la Charles Manson), there are also plenty of highly charming sociopaths who would rip my spine out as soon as look at me (a la Ted Bundy, though I am fortunate enough not be an attractive young woman). I think an SK book works for me when I feel that the SK him/herself is drawn in a psychologically accurate way. SK's in the throes of religious fervor are common; and while they do get tiresome, I do find their self-perceptions as "God's warrior" to be believable. It is also helpful if there is some effort made to show how the SK got to where s/he is...back story is quite important, and while child abuse is of course a valid explanation, I wish there could be a bit more variety in the SK's past. And yet, strangely enough, I think there is a place for books where the SK is someone who is just "born bad." I think of Shirley Jackson's Haunting of Hill House; in which the first paragraph makes it clear that the house is just simply evil, for no particular reason. That's pretty scary.
5-Should an SK book be classified as a "thriller," rather than as a mystery? I think the answer to that one is probably yes, with a caveat or two. An SK book is different (to may way of thinking) than a murder mystery in which several people are murdered throughout the plot, usually because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time or possess information that is incriminating to the first murder. An SK kills for the hell of it, or because s/he's driven by inner demons; in a mystery, the murderer keeps killing people to shut them up, which is a "valid" reason in terms of the plot and action.
6-What would make for a really interesting SK book? Good question. I'd love to see something that hasn't been done before (and that includes not having the SK be the second personality of a really "good" character in the book, such as the shrink or chief of police.) The Dexter books do a terrific job of providing a brilliant twist to an old genre. Maybe our next SK can be a government operative sent out to get rid of crazies on the international stage, who have their fingers ready to push the nuclear button at any minute? Another idea might be to make the SK someone who works for a philanthropic organization--such as a museum director who kills young artists whom he sees as "offensive" to classic art, or an environmentalist who is so rabid that s/he's willing to kill the owners of logging companies, real estate developers, etc. Then we get into some interesting hero/antihero territory, which could be quite thought provoking!
I dislike serial killer books where the author has the SK leave a repetition of explicit, formal and self-aware manifestation of his underlying psychology as a trail of bread crumbs for the investigator to follow. While the crimes of real SKs certainly do reveal patterns, many fictional ones have taken this idea to an absurd extreme. It's a big leap from "Ted Bundy was drawn to kill women of a certain physical type that resembled an ex-girlfriend" to "fictional killer seeks out Pisces victims and leaves a can of tuna upsidedown at each crime scene, in a conscious nod to the trauma of his father's drowning death at sea."
Posted by: Emily Winslow | April 18, 2009 at 07:28 AM
LOL. Emily that was too funny. And so right! I want authors to snow me. Too many books are too easy to figure out who the villain is by page 50, or before.
With so many writers--so many books on the shelves--they can't be running out of material.
Posted by: delta dupree | April 20, 2009 at 01:48 AM
Fabulous post.
Posted by: Sarahlynn | April 22, 2009 at 12:52 AM