Article

As I said in the previous part of this article, the general public seems to be increasing their interest in crime fiction as a whole, influenced by television shows and canny marketing. A recent article by Chris High in Writers News (September 2008) commented on this increase in appeal and wondered if this was to do with the general public’s interest in “gory”, gritty realistic crime. But is this a factor in an increase in the sub-genre of historical writing? And if not, how can this new readership be guided to the historical-based novel? Agatha Christie is one of the most famous “historical” crime writers in the world, closely followed by Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle. Both authors works are well-known and yet their books are still in demand and sell well. Both are notably light on gory detail. So what is the appeal and how can this work to open the genre up to new fans?

    Any appealing crime fiction is made up of three main elements: the characters, the puzzle, the denouement. The characters must be appealing and believable, the puzzle must be genuinely intriguing and the denouement? Not only must the puzzle be solved but everything must be completed to the readers satisfaction. In effect, the moral of the story is criminals get caught and society is protected. Are there any good crime novels where the criminal (note, not the protagonist) gets away with it? On the whole, readers like the bad guy to get their come-uppance. In historical fiction, an additional “appeal” factor is the setting. We read the story but also learn about the time period. Boris Akunin, for instance, has used his detective Fandorin to open up 19th Century Russia - and it’s politics - but without the dry and possibly dull air of a textbook.
    So, in historical crime fiction, fans obviously enjoy the escapism brought by the authors use of time period as well as the puzzle or plot. Unlike contemporary crime fiction - which focuses heavily on “nuts and bolts science” - any character flaw of the investigator is quite underplayed. This allows the character to be believable but their faults rarely intrude into the atmosphere of the setting, much of which is - by necessity - highly researched, explained and detailed. So you’d think that historical investigators would be quite bland in comparison to the modern but this isn’t the case. Poirot and Holmes need no detailing - apart from the fact that they might be in possession of more personality quirks than personality. But isn’t the quirks which makes us original? Steven Saylor’s Gordianus has a complex - sometimes tempestuous - relationship with his sons and wife; Lindsey Davis’ Falco has his problems with being reluctantly upwardly mobile; Carola Dunn’s Daisy Fletcher (neé Dalrymple) has to live down her noble birth after marriage to the decent but middle-classed policeman.
    To sum up, the current huge crop of crime television series has increased the interest in modern crime fiction. This involves the reader in thrilling investigations, criminal procedure, involving plots and satisfying conclusions. This fiction, in turn, has encouraged interest in historical crime - including classic authors - which has the added appeal of new and interesting settings. But the manner of historical crime doesn’t fulfil the public’s demand for forensic science. So, this genre might encourage the literati to acknowledge the art of crime fiction as a legitimate and quite useful art form. Slowly and surely, the whodunit is becoming worthy of after-dinner talk among “those in the know” ... And this is a very good thing.