By PJ Parrish
As many of you regulars know, I have retired from fulltime novel writing. Still keeping my toes in the short fiction waters but the demands of turning out a novel per year (or more) in today’s market just isn’t for me anymore. (No pity sought. I am very happy with this decision!)
But…
My co-author and sister Kelly has talked me into re-looking at an unpublished manuscript we wrote several years ago. It wasn’t part of our series, and was also a departure from our usual hardboiled style. I’d say it was more tilted toward romantic suspense with a high humor quotient. We offered it up to our then-publisher, who turned it down. They said they didn’t know how to market it — that it was “neither fish nor fowl.” It didn’t really fit their definition for what then qualified as romantic suspense. The editor said, “Your heart is too dark.”
Which I took as a compliment. So we filed it away. Until this week, when Kelly opened it up.
Guess what? It didn’t smell. You know, like that chunk of brie that you forgot you had and it turned into an alien life form in the sliced turkey meat refrigerator drawer. In fact, when I started reading it, I thought it was pretty darn good.
Good enough to sell? Who knows? But we’re gonna give it a go. Mainly because I think the market has become more flexible in recent years. I get this notion mainly from the books I have been reading, and because I just finished my 20th year as banquet chair for the Edgar Awards, I have a front row seat to what is fresh in our genre. I’m getting the sense that changes are afoot in crime fiction, a mini-revolution of sorts. The old barriers between hard and soft fiction have become more blurred. I get the impression that readers nowadays are not so hung up on where exactly a title has to be shelved at a bookstore. And the advent of online publishing has created more space for those quirky books that don’t fit easily into categories.
I’ve been doing a lot of research on trends this week and found some interesting commentary. Our genre has long been a fiction cornerstone, but it’s undergoing an evolution. The classic tropes are still with us, but authors now are pushing boundaries, cross-breeding influences and finding new audiences willing to take chances on edgier suspense.
Some new trends I found in my digging:
- Cross-Pollenization. Today’s mysteries now blend with other genres — “mystery-horror,” mystery-sci-fi” and especially mystery-fantasy. The old labels feel stifling. Readers seem to be hungry for richer, more complex books.
- Psychological depth. Modern mysteries appear to be tiling focus more toward character than plot. Writers are plumbing the depths of motivation and the gray areas of morality. Modern mysteries and thrillers explore the human psyche, and feature deep backstories, and complex interpersonal relationships.
- Dark Crozies. Sure, the village amateur sleuth is still popular, but now we’re seeing even cozy writers dealing with more serious themes — family secrets, personal demons, and heavier societal topics such as institutional racism, mental health, and non-traditional chosen families.These new shadows provide compelling contrasts to the lighter settings.
- The Rise of Tech. Another trend is the incorporation of technology in crime narratives, mirroring its pervasive impact on our lives. Tech-savvy detectives and cybercrimes are increasingly featured in plots.
- Fusion of Fact and Fiction. True crime has found a new home within the realm of crime fiction. Inspired by real-life events, these narratives are blurring the line between fact and fiction, giving readers a blend of authenticity and imagination.
I guess this can be scary to us Luddites, purists, and traditionalists. But I think it’s exciting. Our genre, from Poe through Hammitt to Connelly, has undergone change and tumult before. Maybe we are due for another new wave.
As author Valerie Webster puts it, “The landscape of crime fiction has become delightfully unpredictable, reshaping the genre’s expectations and norms. The once rigid boundaries of classic whodunits, thrillers, and noir have transformed into a fluid arena, thriving on audacious experimentation.”
She suggests that crime fiction has evolved from linear “whodunits” to complex psychological narratives that prioritize “whydunits.” The focus has shifted from just solving the puzzle to delving deep into motivations and psychology of the human mind. “Consequently,” she says, “crime fiction’s palette has grown richer, delving into the perpetrator’s psyche and blurring the lines between villain and victim.”
So maybe my book — “niether fish nor fowl” — is actually akin to a turducken. A little weird, not traditional, but definitely juicy and fit for an adventurous palate.
Who knows? Maybe everything in life is just about good timing.
I’m not going to overthink this. I’m going back into the old manuscript this week for some strenuous rewriting. I’ll keep you posted on what comes out of the oven.
My high fantasy has been with a publisher since last year. She’s sent me two “proof” copies, both of which are the same as what I sent her in December. My picaresque has come back from a beta reader with so few marks, I’m tempted to ignore them. I won’t, of course. My other WIPs total almost 300,000 words. Top of that stack is my 50,000 word (so far) Mystery-Western-Romance, in which I shoot the Sheriff on the first page, as one does. I’m highly tempted to back-adapt my WWII thriller to film. Hitler is involved, so there will be no whodunit element; only howdunit.
Just curious — what is “high fantasy?”
And yes, one DOES shoot the sheriff. But not the deputy.
Go for it! My Mapleton mysteries land somewhere between police procedurals and cozies. When a publisher said they wouldn’t know where to shelve it, I took the indie route and kept going.
Our plan is to work it into best possible shape (too much backstory too early was deadly) and sent it first to our last editor at T&M. If it’s a no, then it’s off to the indie road.
Yaay, Kris and Kelly! Happy to hear you’re back in the kitchen stirring up dark, delicious trouble.
Your fascinating analysis of newer trends and fusion-fiction is encouraging to those of us whose books never fit neatly into pigeonholes. “Whydunit” is a broad term with lots of room for variation. I hope that category name catches on.
Yup…am reading two Edgar nominees now. Just finished “All The Other Mothers Hate Me”….very enjoyable chick-lit (for lack of a more facile term) but with a really dark heart. And now onto “Dead Money” which won best first. Normally, I don’t like techie books (the protag is a “problem solver” for Silicon Valley bros.) But it’s so well written that I don’t care if I don’t get all the tech stuff. It’s unpredictable and the heroine is certainly not your usual “heroic” character. Ten years ago, I wonder if either book would have found a home.
I think readers have gotten to the point of “if the story draws you in, it doesn’t matter the genre.” at least that’s the way I read.
Once I finish this 20th book I’m working on, I’ll be looking at shorter fiction and indie publishing. Wishing you the best on this manuscript!
Thanks Patricia. We’re having fun designing the cover right now.
I’m glad to hear you and your sister are revising this unpublished novel, and I’m also happy “the market has become more flexible.” Cross-pollenization, dark crozies and the rise of tech are especially appealing to me. It’s encouraging to consider a romantic suspense with a dark heart. I look forward to seeing what comes next out of your creative oven.
After all, as author Chuck Wendig put it in his “Gentle Art of Writing Advice,” “Genre is just something someone made up.” Genres have characteristics and distinctions, but when the boundaries become guarded borders, it limits creative possibility.
I love Chuck. He always gets to the nitty gritty of what’s dumb in publishing. He’s always been good at killing the lemmings.
Go for it, Kris and Kelly. Looking forward to reading this one.
Yes, have a go, for sure! The bell rings, you fire horse.
I do think enduring crime fiction has always employed some psychological depth and/or complexity. Connelly, certainly. But I also think back to Mickey Spillane, who did not just give us a one-note Hammer, as in, e.g., the famous opening of One Lonely Night (and indeed the rest of the book). It has layers that make it rise above most in that era. Ditto The Long Goodbye (Chandler).
Indeed. The best writers were (are) never one-noters. At the Edgar symposium this year, Grand Master Lee Child was asked by someone in audience why Reacher never changes, why there is no discernable character arc over the series. Lee said he just didn’t see the need for it. And shoot, who’s gonna argue with his success?