I am rather fond of Ngaio Marsh - the New Zealand set parts of the Alleyn novels are another interesting dimension, alongside the theatrical ones.
The women crime writers question is fascinating. I find it interesting that many men writing in the same period used pseudonyms (I'm reading Michael Innes' Death at the Presidents Lodging at the moment - real name J.I.M. Stewart) because they wanted to be taken seriously as academics - not something that bothered DLS as the theology etc was published under the same name.
What do you think of Michael Innes? I don't actually remember that one, but back when I read more mysteries than I do now I read almost everything he wrote. Used to check for him in used bookstores as most of the books were out of print I think, so buying used copies was the only way to read them. There are only a few that I would reread now, but the opening scene on the train in Appleby's End is still in my memory as a delight!
In truth, I don't read mysteries anymore, so this is from a long time ago! Was just writing a longer reply, sparked by the very interesting question, going through a bunch of mystery writers! Will go ahead and finish it, though it may not be that interesting. On Michael Innes, my favorites were the ones in which no one actually does anything too terrible: Candleshoe, for instance. Appleby's End is like that too, but not quite as much. (Be warned that thr books are classist, though — maybe easier for an American like me to overlook back then as all completely unrealistic from our perspective.)
(Lord Mullion's Secret is another Michael Innes in which nothing particularly bad happens. But that's probably not most people's criteria for a good mystery, even if it's mine. And should have said, his books aren't more classist than anything else from that era…)
Aren't his titles great! There's a wacky sense of vaguely academic humor in many of the books. It occurs to me as we're talking that these actually probably only have that -ism, which I'd never thought of before. But other than Candleshoe and Lord Mullion's Secret, I probably haven't read any of them in 15 years or more… Check out Appleby's End, maybe — it's more of a proper mystery than the other two, and the main characters are hilarious.
I'm not completely taken tbh. It's the first I've read having picked it up second hand on a whim. I quite like Appleby but the lack of women *any women* is jarring and the solution is proving a bit convoluted.
Huh — it must be one of the ones that I didn't reread, and maybe that's why. If you like the language, it might be worth it to give Appleby's End a try. That has a great female leading character in it, with equal billing to Appleby.
I feel like Ngaio Marsh's powers of description are some of the best of any writer, her New Zealand novels just stay with you with such power it's pretty amazing!
So many brilliant questions (and SO glad you mentioned sonnets. Think I might even go further than you, re genre - because it's boundaries don't inevitably have to result in something possibly good, but less (back to the sonnet): it's entirely dependent on how the writer interprets those boundaries; just that it's easy to be facile within them.)
One could argue that women writing for money (as a "respectable" way of being self-supporting) wrote what would sell...but no, that doesn't really work either. Endlessly fascinating. (But rather hoping you might reconsider the whole detective novel lark yourself...)
Absolutely compelling food for thought here Laura! My morning coffee in hand, you have me musing away. I think women in particular make wonderful mystery or crime writers because we are natural emotional observers (perhaps I'm speaking for myself but I hope not) , we historically have been on the brash end of keeping our emotions in check (hysterical women syndrome and fainting couches...as if,!! ) and so we watch, we learn , we read a room and all of the faces in it and those observations makes for wonderful stories....of course there is so much more ! Thank you so much for this blooming wonderful read!
Obviously, this interests me no end. The notion that female crime writers are nice little women who just happen to write about dark things as their pet hobby, has been going around for ever. I beg to differ.
The fact that women are conditioned to keep their emotions at bay, and as a result make good observers is part of it, as Nic observed. But it goes beyond that. There is a view of the world that differs fundamentally between men and women. Nurture may have something to do with it, but nature will out. I think women tell a cautionary tale, a what if version of life, in order to alert the reader, by providing a view of evil as they see it. Not detached from life, monsters aren't as scary when they are labeled as such, but all the more scary when they blend in with 'normality'. Christie said it so well regarding the staging of Macbeth. In the Pale Horse. How much more unnerving it might be should the witches be portrayed as ordinary women.
So, yes, it may be a trace of the mothering instinct that comes into play in this club.
I’m still pondering this terribly interesting question, but my first thought was actually that it has nothing to do with emotions and more to do with pragmatism. Massive amounts of stereotyping to follow: I think *in general* women tend toward being more pragmatic and getting on with things while *in general* men tend towards being more philosophical/ taken with ideas. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that the female authors of Golden Age fiction that I admire seem incredibly pragmatic to me, despite having wonderful imaginations!
If that’s true (big if!), it makes sense to me that women are much better at crime writing, which is the creation and solution of a puzzle, but coupled with deeply human observations. In my mind, the best Golden Age novels are neither too procedural (locked room only), nor too psychological (the killer is revenging a childhood injury), but instead combine deep insight into human nature alongside a satisfying puzzle-solving experience, where things are put in order at the end. The pragmatic female author is unafraid to acknowledge evil, look it in the face, and put it in its place, whilst still allowing for some nuance in human behaviour. It’s what allows Miss Marple to say that a body in the library reminds her of a frog in the teacher’s desk.
I think some of this is dependent on what I personally think makes for a good crime/ mystery, of course! And I’m not wed to this idea, but it was the first thing that came to my mind.
Miss Marple and her frog analogy sums it up so well. Anchored to a good firm reality and it explains why I don't (to date) enjoy male crime writers as much - the blend is slightly different, not quite enough Essence of Human Nature....
Thanks so much for a truly thought provoking comment!
Thanks! I feel the same about male crime writers so far- or at least, when I do enjoy them it’s for a different reason. I actually thought Nagio Marsh was male for a while, not only because the name was unfamiliar to me, but because some of her novels read more plot-driven with, as you put it, not much Essence of Human Nature! I still enjoyed them of course, but it’s a far cry from Ellis Peter’s wise old Br Cadfael. Conversely, I was shocked to realize that the No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency’s Mma Ramotswe was the creation of a man. So perhaps these aren’t hard and fast rules- or perhaps the exceptions shine brightly.
I happened to be reading Sayers' delightful essay, "Are Women Human?" today, and it would seem that she would shun this whole discussion! :)
Here's what she said: "But there are other questions--as, for example, about literature or finance--on which the 'woman's point of view' has no value at all. In fact, it does not exist. No special knowledge is involved, and a woman's opinion on literature or finance is valuable only as the judgment of an individual. I am occasionally desired by congenital imbeciles and the editors of magazines to say something about the writing of detective fiction 'from the woman's point of view.' To such demands, one can only say, 'Go away and don't be silly. You might as well ask what is the female angle on an equilateral triangle.'"
I'm rather sorry everyone here is so lukewarm about Gladys Mitchell - I enjoy her, and though the quality of her books is variable, the best ones have the same sort of mildly hysterical lunacy (can you have such a thing? hmm) as Edmund Crispin and Michael Innes. Her successor, I think, was Sarah Caudwell - tragic that she only wrote 4 books, but they are glorious!
I don't know why I can't get into her because you make her sound v alluring! I slightly wonder whether it's because I saw them on TV, adored them, and was a bit thrown by the books being so different...
I love how Hilary sets off for a morning's research, doesn't get to the library until about 10.30 and then is so exhausted after about an hour that lunch becomes an immediate requirement...
Oh yes, that's brilliant. And the terrible Major (“No names, no pack drill.”) I’m so glad you’ve reminded me what fun they are - rereading must happen soon…
I had never heard of her before the comments here, and wasn't planning to check her out because I don't really read mysteries any more, due to not being in the mood for dark things in my light reading; but this is making me reconsider. When I did read mysteries, a long time ago, the three writers you mention were among my favorites, and for precisely that ”mildly hysterical lunacy” (so well put)! 🧡
Are there by any chance any of hers in which nothing very bad actually happens to anyone, eg like Innes's From London Far or Candleshoe?
And on Sarah Caudwell — the scene where a character shocks her friends with her complete disregard for all social norms when, on being invited to a party that turns out to be an orgy, she sits down and pulls out a volume of Jane Austen and reads peacefully, ignoring all the other guests!
I must admit that I read the books as they came out, when I was a little younger than her main characters, and they seemed incredibly sophisticated. Later, when I reread the books, the characters seemed so young..l
I dimly remember the wonderful Nancy Banks- Smith writing that good detective fiction is basically social history, because it has to be believable to its contemporary readers. She was reviewing a TV dramatisation of Cover Her Face which had been modernised by junking the original story, absolutely rooted in a particular moment of English history and place (London overspill development and Essex villages, the end of domestic help, the NHS, "unmarried mothers"... ) and putting in a drug smuggling story instead because that would make it feel relevant. Your original essay prompted me to re-read P D James and it's been fascinating (and not always comfortable as a Jewish reader - I gave up on her after Original Sin first time round). I don't think we should condemn books to the dustbin because of outdated attitudes, I think it's more interesting to wonder what readers in 20 years time will gasp at that we're currently taking for granted (fingers crossed that it's ageism!)
Thanks so much for this - I completely agree with N B-S (usually on the money!) - the social history aspect. And Cover Her Face can't be updated without making a mockery - the whole shock value of Sally's disruption of an established hierarchy etc
Fascinated that you had that response to Original Sin. From my reading I'd have said it was sympathetic to Jewish suffering but is that crass? But as you say most of these crime novels would be on a pyre if we judged them by contemporary standards, Sayers my GOD!!!!!
It's complicated! I certainly don't think of PD James in the same category as e.g. Sayers - she is definitely writing in the shadow of the Holocaust, with sympathy but perhaps not empathy.* I can't emphasise enough that I'm only speaking for myself here, not on behalf of anyone else (although I would say that if was going to make a Universal Pronouncement, I think Don't Burn/Ban Books, Read Them Critically is a good one). My rabbi in the 1990s (London) once described what he called the English Jewish Cringe response to hearing the word 'Jew' in public - you cautiously look round to see who said it, you assume it isn't meant as a compliment. And the same applies to encountering it in text - when James talks about the name change from Stein to Steen in A Mind to Murder "for the usual reasons", what are those usual reasons? My understanding is that it's from a genuine desire to assimilate, but to retain an element of difference, but I know that other readings are possible.
*Possibily comparable to the way she writes about working class and middle class people?
Completely understood. Thanks so much for responding. What your rabbi said... my grandmother's family were Jewish and from things she mentioned in passing I hope I can empathize somewhat. And yes, how PDJ writes about class - definitely something in that.
Part of what fascinates me about crime writing is that notwithstanding the impersonality of the genre, the author reveals such a lot....
Great piece! Apparently Margery Allingham asked why many professional woman writers took to crime rather than going down the non-genre, general-and-literary fiction route where the chaps dominated, "Nobody took any notice of us, but nobody stopped us." So I would suggest that it was partly just because nobody stopped them - and at least Crime wasn't as despised a pigeonhole as Romance.
The apparent dominance of the women surely comes later: In terms of numbers of titles, there were just as many men in the the Golden Age writing crime fic - Cyril Hare, Michael Innes, Anthony Berkely - but most have fallen away, at least until Martin Edwards started digging them up for the British Library series. The best of the women (lots of less good ones fell away too) perhaps lasted longer because of that extra dimension of emotion and psychology that is 'traditional' female literary territory: there's a chilliness about many of the men which doesn't wear well. And, of course, for the next generation of women writers figuring out what part of the market to write for, they could see it, so they could much more easily be it.
Do you know the wonderful SheDunnit podcast? A must for everyone who loves this stuff.
Fantastic comment, thanks so much Emma! Love that about Margery.
Yes indeed the dominance is less to do with numbers, more the fact that the genre seemed to FIT women writers so well... the extra dimension as you say,
Shedunnit is indeed a treasure. I just did a lovely Backlisted event with Caroline C - talking about Endless Night - total heaven!!!!
Such an enjoyable piece! Like you I have never managed Gladys Mitchell ( wasn't she Larkin's favourite?) but adore Dorothy L Sayers and Ruth Rendell, who seems now to have rather gone out of favour, and hope her books are revived.
Thank you Deborah. Fascinating about Larkin! I WANT to like Gladys, I like the idea of her, but I can't get there... but Ruth, yes, such an interesting writer - and personality. I loved that film clip you sent of her and Phyllis.
There are still many great female crime writers. I'd certainly pick out Sara Paretsky, and a more recent discovery for me is Dana Stabenow, whose novels are deeply embedded in Alaskan life and the tensions that can arise between Alaska Native peoples and more recent settlers.
Wonderful, I'd never heard of her so thanks for the recommendation! Yes indeed there are plenty writing now. This really is quite a big subject it seems...
Thanks, this is so interesting! I don't really read mysteries now, but did, once upon a time (decades ago) and now am thinking about whether I read more women than men. At the risk of being terribly boring I'll think out loud in this comment and see what emerges.
— My favorites were the ones with characters who quoted poetry etc pretty often. (There is a great exchange on that here in Substack notes that I can dig up in case of interest!). That put Sayers (above all Gaudy Night) and Michael Innes at the top, I think, and later on Sarah Cauldwell. But Edmund Crispin was up there too. So that tier is about equal genderwise.
— The next tier of favorites were Mary Stewart's adventures/romances. And written much later, Elizabeth Peters's. And maybe Dorothy Dunnet's mysteries. All women.
— In high school read lots of Ellis Peters (female). But also Rex Stout and Raymond Chandler, both men. Josephine Tey and Ngaio Marsh around then too.
— And of course it all started (if one doesn't count Conan Doyle, who was too scary) with Agatha Christie.
There were a few additional women whom I tried to read but whose stuff was too dark for me. Oh, and there was Amanda Cross, who was a professor I think under her real name — a little too dark for me too.
So — I don't know! I'm not sure that it feels like more women than men, though it does sort of come out like that in this partial list.
I still love Mary Stewart! I love her sentences — just lovely classic English. As I recall, when I first encountered them age 12 or so would read each one and finish it thinking that it was well-written but a bit silly, and then reread it and think it was fantastic.
All of the names mentioned above have good language, at least. And this made me curious about Ellis Peters, whom I haven't thought about since the internet appeared and it became possible to look people up. It turns out that she's has a really interesting story, which you probably know all about, but I didn't! A whole career as a literary translator, among other things. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Pargeter.
By the way, on Agatha Christie: back in the day I used to use her to help learn languages. It was brilliant because she was so widely translated so one could always find her; one already knew the book and so knew what words probably meant, and one knew that one would enjoy reading. Had forgotten about that until just now…only did it a couple of times, but used to recommend that method to others for any language.
I do enjoy most of these writers, but I would always put Sayers at the top, especially Gaudy Night and The Nine Tailors.
I mean to read more E C R Lorac. I’ve only read Crook O’Lune but there are a bunch more set in north Lancashire, especially around Lunesdale, an area I know very well having grown up in Lancaster. She certainly evokes the area very well in Crook O’Lune.
What a terrific post and opportunity for discussion/debate. I wonder if it's the same sort of reasons that it's mostly women (so I'm told) who watch true crime programmes and listen to true crime podcasts? Perhaps the detective story is the Golden Age version of that? I also wonder about the 'self-supporting' argument. Many women turned to writing to bring in a little money (or a lot) and maybe detective fiction deliberately moved them out of a mould that they didn't want to be seen in - writing about romance, house-keeping, etc etc - and showed them to be rather clever and independent-minded? It perhaps was a way of not writing work that might be easily trivialised? I read a lot of the British Library Crime Classic series and interestingly, not too many of them are by women - Christianna Brand comes to mind, and of course Mary Kelly, but I think they are far outweighed by the blokes. It's such an interesting question, it would be good to see more discussion.
Thank you so much June - the true crime analogy is interesting. I watch/ listen at times and do find those genuinely disturbing, in fact for me they fit the thesis that one is trying to contain and control one's fear of the real thing.
Interesting too that so many men feature in the BL series of crime writing. But there's no doubt that women were/ are particularly good at it!!! I'd LOVE more discussion as the responses have been so great and it's not a dead end question - it seems to lead into all sorts of areas...
What an absolutely fascinating discussion, has had me thinking all morning!
I get stuck on genre, too - but my question is if women thrived in crime not because it was limiting (or somehow simpler), but rather because it was accessible? Not just that crime writing - or romance - was a club women were allowed to join...but that it was a club they *believed* they were allowed to join.
Also wondering if you've read any Mary Roberts Rinehart, Laura? I used to love her books, but haven't read them in a while. Sometimes I think she gets overlooked because she's American, which I suppose begs another question... :)
Thanks so much Jodi for a wonderful comment - much in what you say I'm sure. I keep coming back to Agatha as a bit of an outlier, oddly enough, as she seems to have written her first crime novel in a somewhat amateurish spirit, almost as a challenge to herself, after trying 'straight' fiction/stories etc... but in general I think you're right.
Anybody who wrote a book called The Circular Staircase is RIGHT up my street, I'd heard of Mary RR but never read her - I think I should!!!!!
I am rather fond of Ngaio Marsh - the New Zealand set parts of the Alleyn novels are another interesting dimension, alongside the theatrical ones.
The women crime writers question is fascinating. I find it interesting that many men writing in the same period used pseudonyms (I'm reading Michael Innes' Death at the Presidents Lodging at the moment - real name J.I.M. Stewart) because they wanted to be taken seriously as academics - not something that bothered DLS as the theology etc was published under the same name.
I like her too - recently re-read Death at the Dolphin, I adore her boundless passion for Shakespeare! Must check out one with some NZ in it.
Great point about the pseudonym which also applies to the ungallant Glyn Daniel (aka Dilwyn Rees, can't say I feel very inclined to try his stuff)
Surfeit of Lampreys has a little bit of NZ set one but otherwise it's Vintage Murder, Colour Scheme, Died in the Wool and Photo-Finish.
Wonderful!!! Many thanks Shelly
What do you think of Michael Innes? I don't actually remember that one, but back when I read more mysteries than I do now I read almost everything he wrote. Used to check for him in used bookstores as most of the books were out of print I think, so buying used copies was the only way to read them. There are only a few that I would reread now, but the opening scene on the train in Appleby's End is still in my memory as a delight!
I've never read him - many thanks for the recommendation! There seem to be lots on Internet Archive. Inc Appleby's End. Intrigued...
In truth, I don't read mysteries anymore, so this is from a long time ago! Was just writing a longer reply, sparked by the very interesting question, going through a bunch of mystery writers! Will go ahead and finish it, though it may not be that interesting. On Michael Innes, my favorites were the ones in which no one actually does anything too terrible: Candleshoe, for instance. Appleby's End is like that too, but not quite as much. (Be warned that thr books are classist, though — maybe easier for an American like me to overlook back then as all completely unrealistic from our perspective.)
(Lord Mullion's Secret is another Michael Innes in which nothing particularly bad happens. But that's probably not most people's criteria for a good mystery, even if it's mine. And should have said, his books aren't more classist than anything else from that era…)
Exactly, they're all full of every ist going... Agatha always gets criticized on that score but she's arguably one of the lesser offenders.
But like you I think of it as an aspect of the times...
I love his titles!!!
Aren't his titles great! There's a wacky sense of vaguely academic humor in many of the books. It occurs to me as we're talking that these actually probably only have that -ism, which I'd never thought of before. But other than Candleshoe and Lord Mullion's Secret, I probably haven't read any of them in 15 years or more… Check out Appleby's End, maybe — it's more of a proper mystery than the other two, and the main characters are hilarious.
I'm not completely taken tbh. It's the first I've read having picked it up second hand on a whim. I quite like Appleby but the lack of women *any women* is jarring and the solution is proving a bit convoluted.
Huh — it must be one of the ones that I didn't reread, and maybe that's why. If you like the language, it might be worth it to give Appleby's End a try. That has a great female leading character in it, with equal billing to Appleby.
And Appleby is hilarious in it, as I recall. It's been a long time since I read it…
I feel like Ngaio Marsh's powers of description are some of the best of any writer, her New Zealand novels just stay with you with such power it's pretty amazing!
So many brilliant questions (and SO glad you mentioned sonnets. Think I might even go further than you, re genre - because it's boundaries don't inevitably have to result in something possibly good, but less (back to the sonnet): it's entirely dependent on how the writer interprets those boundaries; just that it's easy to be facile within them.)
One could argue that women writing for money (as a "respectable" way of being self-supporting) wrote what would sell...but no, that doesn't really work either. Endlessly fascinating. (But rather hoping you might reconsider the whole detective novel lark yourself...)
Thanks so much WTRI not least for your last remark! Don't know if you've ever tried it but GOD it's hard, So much respect to those who do it.
Agree completely re genre.
And I suppose the self-supporting thing is very Harriet Vane.
I think there's quite a lot to all this - feel I barely scratched the surface really - loving the replies!
Absolutely compelling food for thought here Laura! My morning coffee in hand, you have me musing away. I think women in particular make wonderful mystery or crime writers because we are natural emotional observers (perhaps I'm speaking for myself but I hope not) , we historically have been on the brash end of keeping our emotions in check (hysterical women syndrome and fainting couches...as if,!! ) and so we watch, we learn , we read a room and all of the faces in it and those observations makes for wonderful stories....of course there is so much more ! Thank you so much for this blooming wonderful read!
Thanks so much Nic, must say I hoped to have your insights as a fine crime writer...
I think there's a great deal in what you say. Hadn't really thought about it from that standpoint and it's so true!!!!
Thanks too for the lovely restack, always appreciated.
Obviously, this interests me no end. The notion that female crime writers are nice little women who just happen to write about dark things as their pet hobby, has been going around for ever. I beg to differ.
The fact that women are conditioned to keep their emotions at bay, and as a result make good observers is part of it, as Nic observed. But it goes beyond that. There is a view of the world that differs fundamentally between men and women. Nurture may have something to do with it, but nature will out. I think women tell a cautionary tale, a what if version of life, in order to alert the reader, by providing a view of evil as they see it. Not detached from life, monsters aren't as scary when they are labeled as such, but all the more scary when they blend in with 'normality'. Christie said it so well regarding the staging of Macbeth. In the Pale Horse. How much more unnerving it might be should the witches be portrayed as ordinary women.
So, yes, it may be a trace of the mothering instinct that comes into play in this club.
Interesting!!! Yes, the cloak of normality...
A lot to consider. It's a question that goes far deeper than is apparent, I think.
Thanks so much for a wonderful response. I really am fascinated by this!
I’m still pondering this terribly interesting question, but my first thought was actually that it has nothing to do with emotions and more to do with pragmatism. Massive amounts of stereotyping to follow: I think *in general* women tend toward being more pragmatic and getting on with things while *in general* men tend towards being more philosophical/ taken with ideas. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that the female authors of Golden Age fiction that I admire seem incredibly pragmatic to me, despite having wonderful imaginations!
If that’s true (big if!), it makes sense to me that women are much better at crime writing, which is the creation and solution of a puzzle, but coupled with deeply human observations. In my mind, the best Golden Age novels are neither too procedural (locked room only), nor too psychological (the killer is revenging a childhood injury), but instead combine deep insight into human nature alongside a satisfying puzzle-solving experience, where things are put in order at the end. The pragmatic female author is unafraid to acknowledge evil, look it in the face, and put it in its place, whilst still allowing for some nuance in human behaviour. It’s what allows Miss Marple to say that a body in the library reminds her of a frog in the teacher’s desk.
I think some of this is dependent on what I personally think makes for a good crime/ mystery, of course! And I’m not wed to this idea, but it was the first thing that came to my mind.
I love this. I think it's completely brilliant.
Miss Marple and her frog analogy sums it up so well. Anchored to a good firm reality and it explains why I don't (to date) enjoy male crime writers as much - the blend is slightly different, not quite enough Essence of Human Nature....
Thanks so much for a truly thought provoking comment!
Thanks! I feel the same about male crime writers so far- or at least, when I do enjoy them it’s for a different reason. I actually thought Nagio Marsh was male for a while, not only because the name was unfamiliar to me, but because some of her novels read more plot-driven with, as you put it, not much Essence of Human Nature! I still enjoyed them of course, but it’s a far cry from Ellis Peter’s wise old Br Cadfael. Conversely, I was shocked to realize that the No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency’s Mma Ramotswe was the creation of a man. So perhaps these aren’t hard and fast rules- or perhaps the exceptions shine brightly.
I'm sure you're right about exceptions. Still love your central point!!!
I happened to be reading Sayers' delightful essay, "Are Women Human?" today, and it would seem that she would shun this whole discussion! :)
Here's what she said: "But there are other questions--as, for example, about literature or finance--on which the 'woman's point of view' has no value at all. In fact, it does not exist. No special knowledge is involved, and a woman's opinion on literature or finance is valuable only as the judgment of an individual. I am occasionally desired by congenital imbeciles and the editors of magazines to say something about the writing of detective fiction 'from the woman's point of view.' To such demands, one can only say, 'Go away and don't be silly. You might as well ask what is the female angle on an equilateral triangle.'"
Dear Dorothy! Lucky she's not here to leave me a trenchant comment. Fascinating quote, wholly unknown to me, thanks so much...
I'm rather sorry everyone here is so lukewarm about Gladys Mitchell - I enjoy her, and though the quality of her books is variable, the best ones have the same sort of mildly hysterical lunacy (can you have such a thing? hmm) as Edmund Crispin and Michael Innes. Her successor, I think, was Sarah Caudwell - tragic that she only wrote 4 books, but they are glorious!
I don't know why I can't get into her because you make her sound v alluring! I slightly wonder whether it's because I saw them on TV, adored them, and was a bit thrown by the books being so different...
Love Sarah Caldwell! So clever and funny. The explanation of why Julia practised at the Chancery Bar; and her awful travails over tax...
I love how Hilary sets off for a morning's research, doesn't get to the library until about 10.30 and then is so exhausted after about an hour that lunch becomes an immediate requirement...
Oh yes, that's brilliant. And the terrible Major (“No names, no pack drill.”) I’m so glad you’ve reminded me what fun they are - rereading must happen soon…
I had never heard of her before the comments here, and wasn't planning to check her out because I don't really read mysteries any more, due to not being in the mood for dark things in my light reading; but this is making me reconsider. When I did read mysteries, a long time ago, the three writers you mention were among my favorites, and for precisely that ”mildly hysterical lunacy” (so well put)! 🧡
Are there by any chance any of hers in which nothing very bad actually happens to anyone, eg like Innes's From London Far or Candleshoe?
And on Sarah Caudwell — the scene where a character shocks her friends with her complete disregard for all social norms when, on being invited to a party that turns out to be an orgy, she sits down and pulls out a volume of Jane Austen and reads peacefully, ignoring all the other guests!
I must admit that I read the books as they came out, when I was a little younger than her main characters, and they seemed incredibly sophisticated. Later, when I reread the books, the characters seemed so young..l
I dimly remember the wonderful Nancy Banks- Smith writing that good detective fiction is basically social history, because it has to be believable to its contemporary readers. She was reviewing a TV dramatisation of Cover Her Face which had been modernised by junking the original story, absolutely rooted in a particular moment of English history and place (London overspill development and Essex villages, the end of domestic help, the NHS, "unmarried mothers"... ) and putting in a drug smuggling story instead because that would make it feel relevant. Your original essay prompted me to re-read P D James and it's been fascinating (and not always comfortable as a Jewish reader - I gave up on her after Original Sin first time round). I don't think we should condemn books to the dustbin because of outdated attitudes, I think it's more interesting to wonder what readers in 20 years time will gasp at that we're currently taking for granted (fingers crossed that it's ageism!)
Thanks so much for this - I completely agree with N B-S (usually on the money!) - the social history aspect. And Cover Her Face can't be updated without making a mockery - the whole shock value of Sally's disruption of an established hierarchy etc
Fascinated that you had that response to Original Sin. From my reading I'd have said it was sympathetic to Jewish suffering but is that crass? But as you say most of these crime novels would be on a pyre if we judged them by contemporary standards, Sayers my GOD!!!!!
It's complicated! I certainly don't think of PD James in the same category as e.g. Sayers - she is definitely writing in the shadow of the Holocaust, with sympathy but perhaps not empathy.* I can't emphasise enough that I'm only speaking for myself here, not on behalf of anyone else (although I would say that if was going to make a Universal Pronouncement, I think Don't Burn/Ban Books, Read Them Critically is a good one). My rabbi in the 1990s (London) once described what he called the English Jewish Cringe response to hearing the word 'Jew' in public - you cautiously look round to see who said it, you assume it isn't meant as a compliment. And the same applies to encountering it in text - when James talks about the name change from Stein to Steen in A Mind to Murder "for the usual reasons", what are those usual reasons? My understanding is that it's from a genuine desire to assimilate, but to retain an element of difference, but I know that other readings are possible.
*Possibily comparable to the way she writes about working class and middle class people?
Completely understood. Thanks so much for responding. What your rabbi said... my grandmother's family were Jewish and from things she mentioned in passing I hope I can empathize somewhat. And yes, how PDJ writes about class - definitely something in that.
Part of what fascinates me about crime writing is that notwithstanding the impersonality of the genre, the author reveals such a lot....
Great piece! Apparently Margery Allingham asked why many professional woman writers took to crime rather than going down the non-genre, general-and-literary fiction route where the chaps dominated, "Nobody took any notice of us, but nobody stopped us." So I would suggest that it was partly just because nobody stopped them - and at least Crime wasn't as despised a pigeonhole as Romance.
The apparent dominance of the women surely comes later: In terms of numbers of titles, there were just as many men in the the Golden Age writing crime fic - Cyril Hare, Michael Innes, Anthony Berkely - but most have fallen away, at least until Martin Edwards started digging them up for the British Library series. The best of the women (lots of less good ones fell away too) perhaps lasted longer because of that extra dimension of emotion and psychology that is 'traditional' female literary territory: there's a chilliness about many of the men which doesn't wear well. And, of course, for the next generation of women writers figuring out what part of the market to write for, they could see it, so they could much more easily be it.
Do you know the wonderful SheDunnit podcast? A must for everyone who loves this stuff.
Fantastic comment, thanks so much Emma! Love that about Margery.
Yes indeed the dominance is less to do with numbers, more the fact that the genre seemed to FIT women writers so well... the extra dimension as you say,
Shedunnit is indeed a treasure. I just did a lovely Backlisted event with Caroline C - talking about Endless Night - total heaven!!!!
Fascinating! Never thought of that..
Such an enjoyable piece! Like you I have never managed Gladys Mitchell ( wasn't she Larkin's favourite?) but adore Dorothy L Sayers and Ruth Rendell, who seems now to have rather gone out of favour, and hope her books are revived.
Thank you Deborah. Fascinating about Larkin! I WANT to like Gladys, I like the idea of her, but I can't get there... but Ruth, yes, such an interesting writer - and personality. I loved that film clip you sent of her and Phyllis.
I think that I remember Ruth Rendall as too dark for me…I'm a wimp when it comes to light reading.
There are still many great female crime writers. I'd certainly pick out Sara Paretsky, and a more recent discovery for me is Dana Stabenow, whose novels are deeply embedded in Alaskan life and the tensions that can arise between Alaska Native peoples and more recent settlers.
Wonderful, I'd never heard of her so thanks for the recommendation! Yes indeed there are plenty writing now. This really is quite a big subject it seems...
What a splendid post!
That's so kind, thank you!!!
Thanks, this is so interesting! I don't really read mysteries now, but did, once upon a time (decades ago) and now am thinking about whether I read more women than men. At the risk of being terribly boring I'll think out loud in this comment and see what emerges.
— My favorites were the ones with characters who quoted poetry etc pretty often. (There is a great exchange on that here in Substack notes that I can dig up in case of interest!). That put Sayers (above all Gaudy Night) and Michael Innes at the top, I think, and later on Sarah Cauldwell. But Edmund Crispin was up there too. So that tier is about equal genderwise.
— The next tier of favorites were Mary Stewart's adventures/romances. And written much later, Elizabeth Peters's. And maybe Dorothy Dunnet's mysteries. All women.
— In high school read lots of Ellis Peters (female). But also Rex Stout and Raymond Chandler, both men. Josephine Tey and Ngaio Marsh around then too.
— And of course it all started (if one doesn't count Conan Doyle, who was too scary) with Agatha Christie.
There were a few additional women whom I tried to read but whose stuff was too dark for me. Oh, and there was Amanda Cross, who was a professor I think under her real name — a little too dark for me too.
So — I don't know! I'm not sure that it feels like more women than men, though it does sort of come out like that in this partial list.
I'm in awe at your writing one!
It wasn't very good, but thank you... !
And for this, some interesting new names to consider inc Mary Stewart whom I keep hearing about and MUST try.
I still love Mary Stewart! I love her sentences — just lovely classic English. As I recall, when I first encountered them age 12 or so would read each one and finish it thinking that it was well-written but a bit silly, and then reread it and think it was fantastic.
All of the names mentioned above have good language, at least. And this made me curious about Ellis Peters, whom I haven't thought about since the internet appeared and it became possible to look people up. It turns out that she's has a really interesting story, which you probably know all about, but I didn't! A whole career as a literary translator, among other things. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Pargeter.
By the way, on Agatha Christie: back in the day I used to use her to help learn languages. It was brilliant because she was so widely translated so one could always find her; one already knew the book and so knew what words probably meant, and one knew that one would enjoy reading. Had forgotten about that until just now…only did it a couple of times, but used to recommend that method to others for any language.
I suspect that your mystery is good!
That's so lovely of you, it truly ISN'T but there's enough in it to make me want to have another look at it sometime... and probably gasp in horror.
Had no idea about Ellis Peters. And using Agatha to learn languages is genius. Really tempted to try that. Spread the word!
Like you, I encountered Mary Stewart at a similar age and have loved her books ever since!
This made me happy! I actually don't know anyone who has read her, so it is especially nice to hear.
I was very pleased to read of your shared affection for her writing!
All great stuff.
I do enjoy most of these writers, but I would always put Sayers at the top, especially Gaudy Night and The Nine Tailors.
I mean to read more E C R Lorac. I’ve only read Crook O’Lune but there are a bunch more set in north Lancashire, especially around Lunesdale, an area I know very well having grown up in Lancaster. She certainly evokes the area very well in Crook O’Lune.
Thank you Jon. I too adore Sayers espec when Harriet Vane makes her entrance although Agatha is always my ONE.
Lorac is a blast, longing to read more....
What a terrific post and opportunity for discussion/debate. I wonder if it's the same sort of reasons that it's mostly women (so I'm told) who watch true crime programmes and listen to true crime podcasts? Perhaps the detective story is the Golden Age version of that? I also wonder about the 'self-supporting' argument. Many women turned to writing to bring in a little money (or a lot) and maybe detective fiction deliberately moved them out of a mould that they didn't want to be seen in - writing about romance, house-keeping, etc etc - and showed them to be rather clever and independent-minded? It perhaps was a way of not writing work that might be easily trivialised? I read a lot of the British Library Crime Classic series and interestingly, not too many of them are by women - Christianna Brand comes to mind, and of course Mary Kelly, but I think they are far outweighed by the blokes. It's such an interesting question, it would be good to see more discussion.
Thank you so much June - the true crime analogy is interesting. I watch/ listen at times and do find those genuinely disturbing, in fact for me they fit the thesis that one is trying to contain and control one's fear of the real thing.
Interesting too that so many men feature in the BL series of crime writing. But there's no doubt that women were/ are particularly good at it!!! I'd LOVE more discussion as the responses have been so great and it's not a dead end question - it seems to lead into all sorts of areas...
Patricia Highsmith stan here. Every novel is a puzzle the writer creates and then solves for themselves. Especially in mystery and detective fiction.
As for Patricia, I thinks he wanted to she how far she could drag the reader into the underworld.
What an absolutely fascinating discussion, has had me thinking all morning!
I get stuck on genre, too - but my question is if women thrived in crime not because it was limiting (or somehow simpler), but rather because it was accessible? Not just that crime writing - or romance - was a club women were allowed to join...but that it was a club they *believed* they were allowed to join.
Also wondering if you've read any Mary Roberts Rinehart, Laura? I used to love her books, but haven't read them in a while. Sometimes I think she gets overlooked because she's American, which I suppose begs another question... :)
Thanks so much Jodi for a wonderful comment - much in what you say I'm sure. I keep coming back to Agatha as a bit of an outlier, oddly enough, as she seems to have written her first crime novel in a somewhat amateurish spirit, almost as a challenge to herself, after trying 'straight' fiction/stories etc... but in general I think you're right.
Anybody who wrote a book called The Circular Staircase is RIGHT up my street, I'd heard of Mary RR but never read her - I think I should!!!!!
You definitely should!