I'm all serial-killered out, are you like me? Or am I missing something still hot to trot?

I had a penchant (craving/addiction?) for dark chocolate Bounty bars at university; I had one almost every day.  But I lost it along the way and by the time I started work, even the memory of that squidgey, pressed, ever so sweet coconut, in an envelope of bitter-sweet chocolate was gone - regardless of the TV advertisements.  Likewise, when I started reading crime fiction, with a vengeance akin to addiction in 1992, the serial killer novel was a unique thrill.  I simply could not get enough of it.

Roll on to the birth of the next millennium and I started to realise I had become a tad tired of this.  Roll on to 2003, or thereabouts and I started to acknowledge that I really was tired of this sub-genre.  By 2004/5, I was happy to say that I was all "serial-killered out".

Originally, I put this down to culture.  I'd embarked on that reading "fix" when based in North America for eighteen months in the early nineties.  There, they have serial killers aplenty, or so it seems.  The UK did not/does not still.

Returning to the UK, I was slow, initially, to take up the British authors, as they didn't have the pace I was used to.  One exception was Minette Walters, where I picked up a copy of "The Scold's Bridle" in a local bookshop and found something I considered unique.  I'd no idea what a "scold's bridle" was until I read that novel.  Also, I'd had no idea that people lived that kind of life until I read that novel.  I was hooked and went back to the bookshop and bought the (small at the time) backlist.  I still didn't have a replication of  the "serial killer chase pace", but I was intrigued enough to keep turning the pages.

So what made the long term change for me, and why?  And why do I seek your thoughts on this?

Onwards, ten years and more: in the UK a serial killer is still unique, (GP Harold Shipman being what all domestic residents hoped was definitely a unique case), and my petering out in fictional interest seemed to be due to this.  "North America has serial killers, we don't", was my reasoning.  And, having read so many serial killer (SK) novels, I wanted to read something different.

But I recently made a comment on a post on Petrona.  My thoughts just flowed at the time, but a "light bulb" moment dawned, as I was typing.  We'd both seen a link on the Charkin Blog to a  new novel and author "Heartsick from Chelsea Cain".  When I saw the link, I was "heart sunk" to be honest; and this is what I said, in part, later on, on Petrona:

"...it may be that I'm getting older, but personally, I can't understand the enthusiasm for creating even more serial killers with even more awful twisted minds and methods. I don't think they make particularly challenging reads either. Motivation and mystery are not issues and the books simply turn into a chase to capture the killer and minimise the body count, usually involving one potential victim that the reader gets to know a bit before abduction, empathises with, and wants to see saved. Formulaic stuff."

My "light bulb" moment referred to "challenging reads".  A serial killer is a serial killer.  Hence the lead to "formulaic stuff", in my mind.  You can guarantee said SK had an unhappy childhood.  You can guarantee that the SK is profiled and said to be of "above average intelligence".  Aren't they all?

You can also guarantee that fiction produces another SK more stomach-churning than before - or tries to.  I mean no offence to Chelsea Cain here; the marketing is brilliant, but I'm talking about the sub-genre in general.

Thomas Harris caught the masses' imagination with "The Silence of the Lambs" as we entered the nineties. That led to further appreciation of his previous, and also brilliant novel "Red Dragon", which deserved far more recognition, in my opinion.  But, to me, the follow-up "Hannibal" was so much an on over-the-top parody, that when "Hannibal Rising" came out, I was simply not interested.  And that relates to the leader of the game in this sub-genre!

But I now realise my reasons for being "all serial-killered out".

It's the old one for sure - I'm a Brit and we don't have SKs like North America.  The fictional fantasy can provide a thrill for some time, but it wears off.  The fictional SK becomes a cliché all the faster.

Secondly, these novels make "chase" stories and often little else.  There's no mystery to solve, there's just a clock countdown - the reader is spoon fed facts and drip fed tension.  There's no need to think and enjoy a challenge which comes from a mystery; it's simply time to enjoy the ride.  If that's what you desire.

Lastly, there's the hideous gore.  Do we really need to know and read about the endless ways of torturing people in fiction, for the plot's sake?  Does the next novel have to be more gory than the last?  Why do authors appear to need to outdo one another in this aspect?  If an author turned a plot around torture in a war situation, I'd feel enlightened and educated.  With a plot around an SK who is into death for death's sake and perhaps some torture as a lead, I feel I'm invited into some voyeuristic and gratuitous zone of violence and human dysfunctionality.  Younger readers, with little or no experience of such stories from the past, may disagree.

Personally, I think the SK novel is now a bit passé.  It was once original and provided thrills, but it's been copied to its own slow and tortured death - for those of us old enough to have read it all before.  Younger readers and newbies on the crime fiction block will not hesitate to try this out.  I hope they have strong stomachs as it does get worse with every new release, sometimes to the point of parody as I mentioned earlier.

As for a challenging, thought provoking and insightful read, I suggest you look elsewhere.  The word you're looking for is "mystery".  If Poirot was an invention of today, he'd be a forensic something or other and not an unofficial private detective.

Any thoughts anyone?  Am I alone in my thinking?

Please feel free to let me know.

Comments

[crimeficreader]

That's what I prefer, Peter, unless there's something else to grip me on the chase-trail of a true serial killer in fiction.

Roberta mentioned Beckett's Chemistry of Death, but I don't remember the SK element being so obvious from the start, although harrowing nonetheless.

From the US, the most recent obvious SK thriller to grab me was Cody McFadyen's Shadow Man. I loved the amalgam of characters in the FBI team, even though there was a very strong leader, who was the obvious main protag. The antagonist proved to be no real surprise in the end, but the journey was good and more comprehensive than I've read in some time.

[Peter]

Thanks. That's a useful definition. I'm likelier to read a book in which the issue is in doubt: a killing happens, then another one or two, and police start wondering whether they are dealing with a serial killer.
===================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/

[crimeficreader]

Peter, I believe that a serial killer novel is one where the antagonist is known (at the start) to be a serial killer who has to be stopped. Other novels may feature multiple murders, but the motive is not known; indeed it may be because someone is covering their tracks and has to kill again to do so. That's when it becomes plot, and not simply chase and forensics. Andrew Taylor is an author that comes to mind when it comes to that type of plot.

Roberta, like all who have seen the sad news, I am also sorry to read this week of the mass killing in Virginia and I am sorry to see the loss of innocent life, when, from what I read in the press, actions could have been taken to prevent this final act of desperation, that has hurt so many. All involved have my deepest sympathies.

Here I have forum for crime fiction and not the reality of life. I also made this post on serial killer crime fiction before the events in Virginia. But I do understand your reluctance, as a librarian, to suggest certain novels at this time. In the UK, we've seen more than one TV drama pulled because of real life happenings.

When faced with the bad and evil realities of life, it is hard to accept something fictional that is close to that.

All I'd say to you: is to give it time and remember that fiction provides a satisfactory resolution, most usually. We read crime fiction to know that good overcomes evil, in the main. It's escapism. Life is difficult. Fiction is neatly packaged, most of the time.

Give it time, Roberta. These are very sad days, but readers will return to what they see as resolution, especially if that is elusive in real life.

[Roberta Rood]

This is a sad time for your North American friends to be contemplating the issue of serial killers. I live about a five hours' drive from Blacksburg, VA; I know several alumni of Virginia Tech. Everyone is in shock.
I agree with the observation that serial killers don't need motive and are therefore inherently less interesting than those who kill for a specific reason. I also agree that the violence quotient tends to be high in serial killer novels. Actually, one of my big frustrations right now, as a librarian, is that I feel I can't recommend certain crime fiction titles, even though I found them riveting and well written, because the violence is too explicit. Two recent examples come to mind: MINOS by Marcus Villatoro, and THE CHEMISTRY OF DEATH by Simon Beckett.

[Peter]

I wonder where some of my recent reading fits in on the serial-killer scale. Jo Nesbo's The Devil's Star features a string of killings, though not what I think of, perhaps for no good reason, as the obligatory occasional, creepy through-the-eyes-of-the-killer chapter. Hakan Nesser's Borkmann's Point has certain similarities, yet I don't think of either as a serial-killer.

So, both for those who like and who don't like their SKs, what makes a novel a "serial-killer novel," other than the bare facto f more than one person's being killed?
===================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/

[Carmen Stevens]

Thought I'd give you the heads up about a blistering debut that emanates from Derby. REAPER by Steven Dunne is a self-published thriller but is nonetheless doing incredibly good business and is so good that Waterstones have given him his own distribution account so that he can sell the book in selected shops. I talked to him at a signing in Chesterfield Waterstones and he told me the book has been the best seller in the Derby store for two months. Also it's getting noticed in London and is now stocked in Blackwell and Murder One after a rave review in What's On in London (March 29th??)
I bought a signed copy and it was a fantastic read, yet so intellectual that it made Jed Rubenfield's Interpretation of Murder look like it'd been written by a 5 year old. See www.the-reaper.com for other reader's raves. This is not average SK fare believe me. The book starts with the premise "Can the SK ever be a normal person who's just doing what people in their heart of hearts would like to be doing themselves." Give it a whirl.

[Maxine]

So, CFR, are we teaching each other something here? That what is acceptable to one woman is not to another, and vice versa? Are there books where we both feel a line has been crossed?
(actually are we talking about the same Connolly? - I may have mis-spelled the name. There is a UK one, whom I do like, set in the north, police procedural, irish ex-IRA infiltrator theme, one is called the playroom. The one I mean (that I no longer like) is the US one, Charlie Parker, murdered wife, ghosts, paranormal, etc.)

But that aside, I thought the Nanking massacre aspects of that Mo Hyder book were brilliant, but the denoument weak. The theme of the girl linking what had happened to her with her urge to find out about the massacre really worked for me. But Pig Island -- no way, both sensationalist and boring (and I guessed the punch a long way before it came).

So -- if what is OK for one of us isn't for the other, and vice versa, is it all OK then?

[crimeficreader]

Thanks Maxine.

We have similar thoughts on novels in general, but veer off north and south with different examples.

Hayder's third, Tokyo, was hailed by many as quite remarkable. But I didn't like its content. I felt it to be intrusive to the Nanking massacre, appearing to me, just on the edge of using a tragedy for commercial reasons. The writing was excellent. But I couldn't stomach the use of Nanking. Neither did I find the protag, "Grey" if I remember correctly, convincing.

When it comes to Pig Island, I have to say I found that more interesting and entertaining. (As well as enlightening when it comes to physical deformity.) One thing's for certain though - Hayder is always pushing the boundaries.

Connolly I haven't read. But I did end up in a conversation with him at Harrogate last year, debating the merits of Hayder's Tokyo, as it happens... (I thought he was great and felt guilty that I hadn't read his novels.)

I see what you're saying about Billingham's debut, but I was hooked when I read it. Two things stood out for me:
1. Thorne's relationship with his father. (Some real world stuff brought into a crime novel with great sensitivity.)
2. The addition of humour. (Yes, crime novels are dark, but we don't go through the day without a laugh somewhere along the line, so we?)
Since then, I think the series has gone from strength to strength, with the last two being quite superb.

[Maxine]

Thoughtful post, Crimeficreader. I agree with you in the main. I do think some of these SKNs are thinly disguised "horror genre", essentially aimed at the violence equals pornography market. For example I won't read more P J Tracy after reading two of hers (or theirs I should say, it is a mother-daughter duo), but part of that is down to weak plotting and poor writing!
One example is Mo Hayder. Although gruesome, I thought her first three novels had great power. I also like the fact that she is unflinching about physical deformity and other facts that the rest of us like to ignore (the Nanking massacre). Yet the books have to be individual, and good, in my opinion. The author has to earn the right to the "torture" factor. Mo Hayder earned that in her first three books, for me, but not her fourth (Pig Island) which I felt had degenerated into sensationalist potboiler. I still feel her first three (Birdman, forget title, and the Nanking one) were excellent.
You mention Thomas Harris, and I agree that Red Dragon was excellent. Silence of the Lambs was on the edge for me -- I thought it weaker than RD but still quite good. HOwever, Hannibal was so awful that I have no wish to read Hannibal Rising or any more by this author. John COnnelly (Charlie Parker series) is another case where I thought the author started out well with his first couple of books, even though gruesome, but now I feel he's "gone off" to the extent I won't read more of him-- too commercial, thin and striving for effect.
Steve is right, I think that there are no boundaries if the author is trying to say something original and unique to him/her. However, how can the reader tell the difference between that and what I call "marketing sick syndrome" -- let's see how far we can push the envelope.
Mark Billingham is someone on this boundary. His first book was well written but really truly horrific in the method of the villain. I won't write it here in case you haven't read it, but frankly it crossed the line for me. I felt he really did not need to add in that really nasty factor.

Sorry for the ramble. I think what I am doing here is giving you food for another post rather than saying anything cogent. (Blame the G&T I had earlier!)

[crimeficreader]

Before I go any further, Steve has been way too shy. His next novel is out in Aprilin the UK and you can find out more about it, here (and click to buy, of course):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/50-Killer-Steve-Mosby/dp/0752874128/sr=1-1/qid=1172347762/ref=sr_1_1/202-0699935-1094206?ie=UTF8&s=books

Steve,
Thanks for dropping by and commenting.
I think the disinction you suggest is a good one. I've read a few novels that turned out to have serial killers, although they weren't marketed as "SK thrillers" to start with.

I agree that the sub-genre is not defunct. I think age has something to do with this. New enthusiasts to crime fiction, developing their tastes in their 20s and 30s will probably try and may get hooked on current SK offerings. I think it took about 10 years of concentrated crime fiction reading for me to find my interest was well and truly exhausted on the SK front.

That said, I read Cody MacFadyen's debut last year and quite liked it. The strength for me was in the charactisation of the whole FBI team. As a result, I wanted to know what happened to every one of them.

And Steve, do not for one moment imagine that I am about to overlook your next novel! I'm looking forward to it. From reading "The Third Person", I know you like to push boundaries and your writing has a wonderful maturity to it.

[stevemosby]

That's an interesting post, and I can't bring myself to disagree with most of it. Although I should, since my next book is a nasty serial killer novel. I won't mention that from this point on. :-)

I'd agree that a lot of the SK books out there are formulaic: designed as a thrill ride without having much to say beyond that. There's nothing wrong with that, of course - people read what they want; demands dictates the market - but I want a bit more from books I read. Your general serial killer in crime fiction is a "monster", serving the same function as a vampire, werewolf, Grendel, etc, and most SK novels are fairly traditional tales of "beating the monster", with the vicarious thrills that it offers. Unfortunately, due to over-exposure and increasing contrivance, serial killers in a lot of fiction aren't really scary anymore, and the plots don't offer anything particularly new or unexpected. You read one, you've read 80% of them.

But that's not to say the SK sub-genre is defunct. Like anything, there's still room to do things that are different. All the big themes can be brought in. Psychologically, things can get interesting (not just in the sense of "chapter from SK perspective", but in metaphorical ways). Hopefully, there's room for innovation: to use the form in an original way to say unusual things. Which isn't to say the majority do this (or are even interested in doing so), but I think there's still hope. Pelecanos's latest was, nominally, a serial killer novel, after all. Maybe it's helpful to differentiate between a "serial killer novel" and a "novel that has a serial killer in it"?