Turning to Crime - Panel

At a hilarious and fascinating panel chaired by Jake Kerridge we heard Natalie Haines talking about the cross over between crime and comedy. She quoted Aristotle who said crime and comedy are "both cathartic" and made us all laugh with her accounts of how she is longer funny. 

Talking about his 3,000 interviews, Mark Lawson told us "it's not true that I haven't been interviewed by me... the technology is there...you sometimes tell yourself more than you'd tell other people." He thought Dizzy Rascal was the most enjoyable interviewee, and the wonderful PDJames whom he interviewed for her 70th, 80th and 90th birthdays. 

The prolific Sarah Pinborough told us how she wrote her first Torchwood novel, and moved on to write for New Tricks. She also talked about her sci-fi following. Asked about the difference between crime fans and sci- fi fans, she was diplomatic: "They're both lovely groups of people... there are less costumes at crime conventions". She turned to writing crime because she has always been "a crime nerd". She wanted to write a book that was "properly sad. It's about grief and love." 

Tony Parsons talked about his experience and how things have changed. "You don't anticipate there will come a point in your life when Bruce Springsteen is not cuddling you in a vest... and then it slips away..." He talked about the impact of technology. "There were probably blacksmiths who thought people are always going to need horse shoes." Now "the culture is starting to catch up with the technology." But, he added, "Newspapers will never die." He started writing crime because he has always been a fan of the genre, and "I like the idea of bumping off rich and powerful people." 

Mark Lawson put the case that there is really no such thing as crime fiction, because crime is at the core of most fiction. 

Is Crime Writing Misogynistic? asks Jake Kerridge in the Telegraph

Well, this is a strange sentiment to come across in a serious article: "those writers who have their female characters raped, gutted or flayed may be the ones who care about women the most."  It came as no surprise to me that these words were written by a man. So all I have to say to Jake Kerridge is - really? Do you honestly believe that? I mean, really?

As authors we are repeatedly told that fans of crime fiction enjoy reading about women in jeopardy. Well, the jeopardy wouldn't be very serious if the threat of violence or death was never followed through. So yes, women do have to be stalked, terrified, and killed. But "raped, gutted or flayed" to show how much the author cares about women? 

The increase in violence towards women in crime fiction probably has nothing whatever to do with caring about women. What is more likely is that authors are, understandably, pursuing what they believe readers want to read. It's a fair enough tack to adopt, given the difficulty of achieving decent book sales these days. After the phenomenon of 50 Shades, my publisher asked me, somewhat wistfully, if I fancied writing erotic crime. I declined. Each to his own. I have great respect for those who can write erotic fiction but I'm a crime girl, read it, write it, speculate about it, research it, that's my bag. 

Back to the female characters who are being "raped, gutted and flayed".  There was a trend in crime fiction not so long ago for the genre to move increasingly over the boundary into horror, with authors going all out to shock readers. Yes, I like to startle my readers. I love it when I scare myself.  

But, like the eroticism which would probably increase sales of my books, there are lines I prefer not to cross. I don't write cosies, but I do have certain parameters. There are some extremely nasty characters in my books who are seriously vicious. They kill people. Some of them enjoy it. Even they might draw the line at " gutting and flaying" because that goes beyond my own boundaries. Usually it's included simply to be sensational. And that's what it is. Not caring, but exploitative.

This is something I feel quite strongly about so I try to be even handed in my books. They feature a female detective inspector, and a spin off series for her male sergeant. Like my detectives, my killers are both male and female, as are my victims. This is deliberate, as my readers have fewer clues to the identity of a potential victim, or indeed a killer. Women can kill. Men can be killed. And vice versa. Why not? 

So is crime fiction misogynistic as Jake Kerridge suggests? Well, not in my books, it's not. Writers who care about women - and men - create strong, sympathetic characters who command respect - feisty, sassy, engaging characters we can admire. They don't objectify women as victims.   

But I can't help suspecting I've risen to the bait in writing this post, because Jake Kerridge's claim that "those writers who have their female characters raped, gutted or flayed may be the ones who care about women the most" is probably another clever ploy to shock us into responding to his article. It worked for me.