What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #429
Crime Fiction A Very Short Introduction
你也许还不了解犯罪小说这个文学类别,但你一定听过福尔摩斯、大侦探波洛或詹姆斯·邦德的赫赫声名。 悬疑、探案、解谜,峰回路转的情节惊险刺激、环环相扣,各式各样的元素令人对犯罪小说欲罢不能。这一文类的作家同样星光熠熠,爱伦·坡、柯南·道尔、阿加莎·克里斯蒂、斯蒂芬·金……他们塑造了特色鲜明、经久不衰的人物形象。这些人物构建了独特的探案历险世界,也举镜映照了并不完美的社会现实,让犯罪小说在文学版图上赢得了属于自己的一方天地。本书介绍了犯罪小说的起源及发展,并探讨了犯罪小说的的文化地位。
260 pages, Paperback
First published March 31, 2015
17 people are currently reading
232 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
June 20, 2015
Author Richard Bradford has written biographies about Phillip Larkin, Kingsley Amis and John Milton among others and his work generally tends towards subjects of literary fiction. As such, it is hardly a surprise that he seems uncomfortable with this introduction to crime fiction. Without doubt, crime fiction is the most popular of genre fiction – but whether readers prefer fantasy or science fiction – there is no doubt that devotee’s of any particular genre are knowledgeable and often even obsessive about their favourite books and authors. Therefore, to end this slim volume with a chapter asking whether crime fiction can be taken seriously, both shows what the author thinks and sets the tone of this book.
It begins with the origins of crime fiction. Bradford has a real issue with plots being implausible and he throws this accusation at authors from Edgar Allan Poe to Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he has a real issue with Golden Age detective fiction generally – especially British authors, such as Agatha Christie and Dorothy L. Sayers (bizarrely accused of ‘farce and caricature’ as well as being ‘un-amusing’). I recently read, and loved, “The Golden Age of Murder,” by Martin Edwards and he highlighted wonderfully how, in the years after the First World War, people were just not willing to read violent novels after such a traumatic period they needed something a little gentler to entertain them. Of course, puzzles were also very popular in the 1920’s and 1930’s and a murder mystery was just that – something to work out, where the reader pitted his, or her, wits against the author. Sadly, Richard Bradford fails to find the charm and pleasure in these gentler mysteries and does not understand why they are so beloved by their readers.
Authors in the US fare better and noir and hard-boiled books are looked at, as well as authors such as Joseph Wambaugh and James Ellroy (both of whom I admire) and who he considers more adventurous and realistic. Unsurprisingly, he does not tackle the extremely popular ‘cozy’ mysteries, especially so in the States, and not until much later in this short guide dos he consider anything outside either the UK or US. When he casts his eye over Europe, Asia and Latin America he does so only briefly and, bizarrely, the excellent work coming from Scandinavia is glossed over in less than two pages! With Nordic Noir so successful in the last few years, it is amazing that it gets so little interest. Many authors I love, such as P D James, are also given rather unforgiving mentions and I would have liked the new Scottish authors (the so-called, ‘Tartan Noir’) to have been highlighted – the crime fiction coming from Scotland recently has been phenomenal.
Wrapped up with a look at spy fiction, legal fiction and thrillers, this is a frustrating read. Possibly it was just that I did not share many of the author’s opinions. However, I never felt that he was really a lover of crime fiction, or , indeed, that he wanted to engage and enthuse you to go and try some of the books or authors he was writing about. Often you felt that he was, in fact, keen for you to forget crime fiction and go and read something ‘worthwhile’ instead. I do not think I would suggest this for someone looking for inspiration or new authors to try. However, if you are a student and want a brief history of the genre, this does give you a rather biased, historical summary.
It begins with the origins of crime fiction. Bradford has a real issue with plots being implausible and he throws this accusation at authors from Edgar Allan Poe to Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he has a real issue with Golden Age detective fiction generally – especially British authors, such as Agatha Christie and Dorothy L. Sayers (bizarrely accused of ‘farce and caricature’ as well as being ‘un-amusing’). I recently read, and loved, “The Golden Age of Murder,” by Martin Edwards and he highlighted wonderfully how, in the years after the First World War, people were just not willing to read violent novels after such a traumatic period they needed something a little gentler to entertain them. Of course, puzzles were also very popular in the 1920’s and 1930’s and a murder mystery was just that – something to work out, where the reader pitted his, or her, wits against the author. Sadly, Richard Bradford fails to find the charm and pleasure in these gentler mysteries and does not understand why they are so beloved by their readers.
Authors in the US fare better and noir and hard-boiled books are looked at, as well as authors such as Joseph Wambaugh and James Ellroy (both of whom I admire) and who he considers more adventurous and realistic. Unsurprisingly, he does not tackle the extremely popular ‘cozy’ mysteries, especially so in the States, and not until much later in this short guide dos he consider anything outside either the UK or US. When he casts his eye over Europe, Asia and Latin America he does so only briefly and, bizarrely, the excellent work coming from Scandinavia is glossed over in less than two pages! With Nordic Noir so successful in the last few years, it is amazing that it gets so little interest. Many authors I love, such as P D James, are also given rather unforgiving mentions and I would have liked the new Scottish authors (the so-called, ‘Tartan Noir’) to have been highlighted – the crime fiction coming from Scotland recently has been phenomenal.
Wrapped up with a look at spy fiction, legal fiction and thrillers, this is a frustrating read. Possibly it was just that I did not share many of the author’s opinions. However, I never felt that he was really a lover of crime fiction, or , indeed, that he wanted to engage and enthuse you to go and try some of the books or authors he was writing about. Often you felt that he was, in fact, keen for you to forget crime fiction and go and read something ‘worthwhile’ instead. I do not think I would suggest this for someone looking for inspiration or new authors to try. However, if you are a student and want a brief history of the genre, this does give you a rather biased, historical summary.
May 28, 2015
If you want to know about crime fiction then this is probably not the book to read. If you did read it before reading any crime fiction it would put you off for life. The author seems not to like crime fiction in any shape or form. Yes the book rehearses the usual historical origins of the genre with Wilkie Collins being tentatively awarded the accolade for first detective story in English with The Moonstone' So far, so good I thought. But when the author starts to criticise Collins for class consciousness my suspicions were aroused.
The author writes reasonably about Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes though I sense he disapproves of the character and cannot quite understand his continued popularity. It is when it comes to discussing the Golden Age of British and American crime fiction that all his prejudices come to the fore. The plots are formulaic, the authors snobs and the writing is riddled with class prejudice, racism and anti-Semitism.
I've got news for the author - these were the prevailing attitudes in the 1920s and 1930s. They were still the prevailing attitudes in the 1950s when I was growing up. The authors were writing about a world they knew. You cannot remove the author from the context of the times they were living in. As an academic the author should know that.
He is slightly kinder to American noir crime fiction but not by much. It seems he regards that as more realistic - and realism is everything apparently. By this time I was finding it quite difficult to read the book without either defacing it or throwing it at the nearest wall. It seems to me that the author read Julian Symonds' 'Bloody Murder' and took it as gospel truth rather than what it is, a somewhat jaundiced look at the genre.
The author is equally critical of later twentieth century authors including P D James and Ruth Rendell but seems to regard Bill James, Martin Amis and Jake Arnott as good crime writers. He also expresses perplexity over the huge sales of the Scandinavian crime writers in recent years as he cannot seem to understand how anyone could like them.
The book does have notes on the chapters and a list of further reading and there are some useful books listed in that but if you're looking to start reading the genre then you would do best to look elsewhere for ideas of where to start though you could start with some of the authors criticised in this book and read them with an open mind.
I am astounded that Oxford University Press could have commissioned this book from someone who clearly regards crime fiction as little better than entertainment for the uneducated masses.
The author writes reasonably about Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes though I sense he disapproves of the character and cannot quite understand his continued popularity. It is when it comes to discussing the Golden Age of British and American crime fiction that all his prejudices come to the fore. The plots are formulaic, the authors snobs and the writing is riddled with class prejudice, racism and anti-Semitism.
I've got news for the author - these were the prevailing attitudes in the 1920s and 1930s. They were still the prevailing attitudes in the 1950s when I was growing up. The authors were writing about a world they knew. You cannot remove the author from the context of the times they were living in. As an academic the author should know that.
He is slightly kinder to American noir crime fiction but not by much. It seems he regards that as more realistic - and realism is everything apparently. By this time I was finding it quite difficult to read the book without either defacing it or throwing it at the nearest wall. It seems to me that the author read Julian Symonds' 'Bloody Murder' and took it as gospel truth rather than what it is, a somewhat jaundiced look at the genre.
The author is equally critical of later twentieth century authors including P D James and Ruth Rendell but seems to regard Bill James, Martin Amis and Jake Arnott as good crime writers. He also expresses perplexity over the huge sales of the Scandinavian crime writers in recent years as he cannot seem to understand how anyone could like them.
The book does have notes on the chapters and a list of further reading and there are some useful books listed in that but if you're looking to start reading the genre then you would do best to look elsewhere for ideas of where to start though you could start with some of the authors criticised in this book and read them with an open mind.
I am astounded that Oxford University Press could have commissioned this book from someone who clearly regards crime fiction as little better than entertainment for the uneducated masses.
November 29, 2018
This book has some interesting information not usually found in US-and-Euro-centric books about crime fiction. For example, it mentions a Bolshevik mystery called "Mess-Mend: Yankees in Petrograd" by Marietta Shaginyan. (Only available at university libraries), notable for its collective protagonist and it's unusual villain: capitalism! The book covers writers from Europe, Asia, and Latin America - but is skimpy on Africa and African American writers (it does praise Barbara Neeley's Blanche White series), and I don't recall any Indigenous writers (thus only 3 stars). One online resources suggested by the author is Prof. G. J. Demko's website on international crime fiction: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~gjdemko/
To this I would add a blog post, "Radical Noir: 26 Activist Crime Novels https://crimereads.com/activist-noir-...
And a great list "African American Mystery Writers and Their African American Detectives" (mostly women) posted by the LAPL:
https://www.lapl.org/collections-reso...
It's frustrating, trying to do a search for "Native American Mysteries by Native American authors" ... because there's a sub-sub-genre out there that always pops up: white authors who have "adopted" Native American nations and who have created mystery series featuring Native detectives or cops. (If anyone knows of such a list, please let me know.) Here's an interview with Cherokee mystery writer Sue Ann Hokletubbe: https://uapress.arizona.edu/2017/12/s... (I recommend her books, which are suitable for young adults, too.)
To this I would add a blog post, "Radical Noir: 26 Activist Crime Novels https://crimereads.com/activist-noir-...
And a great list "African American Mystery Writers and Their African American Detectives" (mostly women) posted by the LAPL:
https://www.lapl.org/collections-reso...
It's frustrating, trying to do a search for "Native American Mysteries by Native American authors" ... because there's a sub-sub-genre out there that always pops up: white authors who have "adopted" Native American nations and who have created mystery series featuring Native detectives or cops. (If anyone knows of such a list, please let me know.) Here's an interview with Cherokee mystery writer Sue Ann Hokletubbe: https://uapress.arizona.edu/2017/12/s... (I recommend her books, which are suitable for young adults, too.)
December 29, 2021
This was quite a let down - I was hoping that this would break down the different subgenres of crime fiction and talk about how they came about, but it seemed instead to be a timeline where the readers knowledge of it was a given. Instead, it kept going from time period to time period and then just talking about the biggest authors and books of the time, seemingly picking these at random sometimes.
While it's useful if looking for the specific authors and books that are influential within the genre, it does little for explaining actual characteristics of them.
While it's useful if looking for the specific authors and books that are influential within the genre, it does little for explaining actual characteristics of them.
March 19, 2018
As many of you know, I like mysteries of all sorts, cozy, hard-boiled, noir, puzzles, spy fiction, and everything in between. I was very disappointed by this book. It is not a good, balanced introduction to crime fiction. I say this because I expect an introductory text to be written in an objective manner that presents all styles of crime fiction in an equally open-minded style. That is not the case in this book.
The authors bias seemed to leap from every page, especially in the sections about British crime fiction and golden age mystery fiction written between the years of 1920 and 1950. The author sang the praises of hard-boiled crime fiction like that of Hammett and chandler while either disparaging or marginalizing fiction written by people such as Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, Margery Allingham, Julian Symons, and others Who created puzzle style mysteries. I can understand an authors preference for certain writers within a genre, but it is inexcusable to marginalize an entire style of crime fiction which was commercially successful and that continues to be read almost a century later. The author’s justification for his viewpoint seems to be that since puzzle fiction is not created on reality, it is not a valid form of crime fiction. Instead, only those who are shallow and who seek shallow entertainment enjoy it. Lest the reader think his distaste for puzzle fiction is limited to British authors, he isn’t much of a fan of Ellery Queen or John Dickson Carr either.
I think this book should get a title change so that it presents itself accurately as an introductory book about hard-boiled, mostly American crime fiction. As it stands, this book does cover the other types of crime fiction, but there is nowhere near the passion and energy in those sections that there is when the author writes about hard-boiled fiction from the 1930s and 1940s.
I will not be keeping this book. It is on its way to the donation table at my local thrift shop.
The authors bias seemed to leap from every page, especially in the sections about British crime fiction and golden age mystery fiction written between the years of 1920 and 1950. The author sang the praises of hard-boiled crime fiction like that of Hammett and chandler while either disparaging or marginalizing fiction written by people such as Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, Margery Allingham, Julian Symons, and others Who created puzzle style mysteries. I can understand an authors preference for certain writers within a genre, but it is inexcusable to marginalize an entire style of crime fiction which was commercially successful and that continues to be read almost a century later. The author’s justification for his viewpoint seems to be that since puzzle fiction is not created on reality, it is not a valid form of crime fiction. Instead, only those who are shallow and who seek shallow entertainment enjoy it. Lest the reader think his distaste for puzzle fiction is limited to British authors, he isn’t much of a fan of Ellery Queen or John Dickson Carr either.
I think this book should get a title change so that it presents itself accurately as an introductory book about hard-boiled, mostly American crime fiction. As it stands, this book does cover the other types of crime fiction, but there is nowhere near the passion and energy in those sections that there is when the author writes about hard-boiled fiction from the 1930s and 1940s.
I will not be keeping this book. It is on its way to the donation table at my local thrift shop.
December 13, 2024
Olen hinnanud "väga lühikeste sissejuhatuste" sarja juba mõnda aega. Sadu ja sadu teoseid teemadel, mis katavad kogu akadeemilise spektri - ja veel mõndagi juurde. Väga hea abivahend üliõpilastele ja muidu uudishimulikele hingedele alusteadmiste kiireks omandamiseks.
Sedakorda viis retk mind krimikirjanduse alglätete alaste teadmiste otsinguile - ja taaskord oli põnev avastamine. Sedapuhku peab muidugi märkima, et raamatu algus on kordades köitvam, kui lõpp. Aga seda pelgalt eklektilise teemakäsitluse tõttu.
Professor Bradford on alguses toonud tugevad argumendid krimikirjanduse, kui žanri, tekkimise ideede ja algtõugete osas. Teises pooles vajub asi pisut laiali, kuna näidete valik on nii temaatiliselt- kui ka sisult eklektilisem. Näiteks on "Kesk- ja Ida-Euroopa" all Saksamaa ja Venemaa uhkes kaksainsuses. Aga mulle tundub, et see on tingitud keelebarjäärist ja variatsioonide kättesaadavuse piiratusest inglise keeles. Samas näiteks nordic noir ja Skandinaavia kõlekrimi on mainitud just seetõttu, et seda on inglise keelde tõlgituna saatmas tohutu menu nii lugejate seas, kui ka tele- ja filmiadaptsioonide kaudu.
Mulle isiklikult oli kuues peatükk "spiooniromaanidest, põnevikest ja juurajuttudest" väga intrigeeriv ja väljakutsuv. Esiteks sellepärast, et mul on idioodi unistus oma doktoritöö kunagi lõpuni kirjutada (spioonid). Teiseks sellepärast, et väga huvitavalt joonistus välja krimka/põnevik eristumine. Kolmandaks sellepärast, et ma üldiselt väldin juurajutte - mul on õigusteaduskonnast küll ja veel ... - aga "Tappa laulurästas" ja "Protsess" on siiani hinges.
Sedakorda viis retk mind krimikirjanduse alglätete alaste teadmiste otsinguile - ja taaskord oli põnev avastamine. Sedapuhku peab muidugi märkima, et raamatu algus on kordades köitvam, kui lõpp. Aga seda pelgalt eklektilise teemakäsitluse tõttu.
Professor Bradford on alguses toonud tugevad argumendid krimikirjanduse, kui žanri, tekkimise ideede ja algtõugete osas. Teises pooles vajub asi pisut laiali, kuna näidete valik on nii temaatiliselt- kui ka sisult eklektilisem. Näiteks on "Kesk- ja Ida-Euroopa" all Saksamaa ja Venemaa uhkes kaksainsuses. Aga mulle tundub, et see on tingitud keelebarjäärist ja variatsioonide kättesaadavuse piiratusest inglise keeles. Samas näiteks nordic noir ja Skandinaavia kõlekrimi on mainitud just seetõttu, et seda on inglise keelde tõlgituna saatmas tohutu menu nii lugejate seas, kui ka tele- ja filmiadaptsioonide kaudu.
Mulle isiklikult oli kuues peatükk "spiooniromaanidest, põnevikest ja juurajuttudest" väga intrigeeriv ja väljakutsuv. Esiteks sellepärast, et mul on idioodi unistus oma doktoritöö kunagi lõpuni kirjutada (spioonid). Teiseks sellepärast, et väga huvitavalt joonistus välja krimka/põnevik eristumine. Kolmandaks sellepärast, et ma üldiselt väldin juurajutte - mul on õigusteaduskonnast küll ja veel ... - aga "Tappa laulurästas" ja "Protsess" on siiani hinges.
August 21, 2022
I am under the impression that critiques of this book are by people who skimmed and perhaps didn’t finish, one group who dislikes the title of the last chapter because they like crime fiction but then simply didn’t read the last chapter because they thought it explained itself in title (it assuredly does not), and those who skimmed and want to think less of crime fiction in its entirety and were upset that it was taken seriously.
The last chapter is really important, it points out the different values of linguistic competencies as well reminding those of us that have actually read the book in its entirety of the fact that there are works that fall within the genre that also meld with literary works and other genres, or have other incredible forms of socio-critical depth.
This was the most complete and in depth looks into a topic I’ve encountered in the Very Short Introduction series. If you actually want to know a great deal about crime fiction give it a go! (I tend to stay in the literary realm more usually but do enjoy works by Hammet, Murakami, Sciascia, etcetera, this added to my reading list and helped me make sense of what it is I love so much about some of these particular works - I would say that I’d add some Kobo Abe’s work to a consideration of the genre but that’s just one little thing and doesn’t detract in the least from this brilliant historical review and analysis.)
The last chapter is really important, it points out the different values of linguistic competencies as well reminding those of us that have actually read the book in its entirety of the fact that there are works that fall within the genre that also meld with literary works and other genres, or have other incredible forms of socio-critical depth.
This was the most complete and in depth looks into a topic I’ve encountered in the Very Short Introduction series. If you actually want to know a great deal about crime fiction give it a go! (I tend to stay in the literary realm more usually but do enjoy works by Hammet, Murakami, Sciascia, etcetera, this added to my reading list and helped me make sense of what it is I love so much about some of these particular works - I would say that I’d add some Kobo Abe’s work to a consideration of the genre but that’s just one little thing and doesn’t detract in the least from this brilliant historical review and analysis.)
June 6, 2018
The good news about this book is that it does what it says on the tin. Fine. It divides Sherlock. Golden Age and Hardboiled crime fiction in a standard way again fine. But if then uses the tired old trope that Golden Age crime novels are not as good as the tough American hard boiled novels- this is where I disagree. More violence does not mean more realistic. Books that are fun are not bad books. American culture should not have cultural hegemony over British. What's really worrying is that a hard pressed librarian might use this book to help to choose crime novels and that would be sad. Where are the enjoyable series of historical who-done-it's such as those by Ann Perry, Jacqueline Winspear, Ellis Peters, and Peter Tremayne's
March 11, 2021
I was browsing the reviews here and I found that most of the reader perceive this short book as a critique of the genre? called Crime Fiction. Maybe in part they are correct. On the other hand, it is hard to miss the many copycats of the same detective-murder-who-did-it? which were always flooding this literary world.
Just a point I want to make: his main argument was not a critique: it was that, for all its ills and purposes, this genre is also the best mirror to what our society is and what we as people could become: killers, perpetrators, but also moral compasses, detectives. I really enjoy it as info, and as a stroll through my own memory lane on old read books.
Just a point I want to make: his main argument was not a critique: it was that, for all its ills and purposes, this genre is also the best mirror to what our society is and what we as people could become: killers, perpetrators, but also moral compasses, detectives. I really enjoy it as info, and as a stroll through my own memory lane on old read books.
January 9, 2022
The positives: a clear, chronological timeline of the genre and it’s sub genres, and I got a good list of some more classics I want to read. BUT…I would like to know why Oxford UP hired this guy. He disparages every author except hard-boiled/noir writers like Chandler and Hammett. And I mean seriously criticizes every other author and book except for this small slice of crime fiction sub genre. You’d think Oxford would have wanted someone to write an introduction to crime fiction who actually liked the genre. UGH.
July 19, 2024
I started to feel that the authors of these introductions are chosen from academic background only, because each author tackle the subject at hand like they would for university research paper, they focus on a micro field of study rather than the general subject, as the author here focuses too much on the social aspect of crime fiction like if it is a sociology master's in crime fiction.
I didn't feel the author had any passion or enthusiasm for this genre.
I didn't feel the author had any passion or enthusiasm for this genre.
Read
June 27, 2022It seems the author does not believe in reading for mere enjoyment, so does not rate books that are "only" enjoyable. For instance, I enjoy the sparse language, characterisation, etc, of the Jack Reacher novels - they can be read for the plots alone, and if they are "westerns", so be it: I enjoy 'em!
March 12, 2025
I read this book because I love crime fiction.
This author however, seems to hate it. It was clear he thinks crime fiction is not intellectual enough. He seemed to criticise every author from Tom Clancy to Agatha Christie to Lee Child.
I am confused about why he was chosen to write this book if he thinks crime fiction is so inferior.
Disappointing.
This author however, seems to hate it. It was clear he thinks crime fiction is not intellectual enough. He seemed to criticise every author from Tom Clancy to Agatha Christie to Lee Child.
I am confused about why he was chosen to write this book if he thinks crime fiction is so inferior.
Disappointing.
November 1, 2019
Really a hard book to read...
But this book told us the history and evolution of crime fiction... Being a Sherlock fan, this became my duty to know more about the detective stories and how they came in being ....
Detailed review will follow
But this book told us the history and evolution of crime fiction... Being a Sherlock fan, this became my duty to know more about the detective stories and how they came in being ....
Detailed review will follow
Read
March 7, 2020This is pretty good, but unless this author knows something me and Google don’t, the author of the Bourne series is Robert Ludlum, not Eric... Something about the book made me feel the author’s heart wasn’t quite in it. But decent nonetheless.
Read
May 16, 2020- the title should read "a history of crime fiction" instead of introduction as it focuses mainly on the plots of novels
- fails to include modern crime fiction as it mainly focuses on the 19th & 20th century
- it's very uk and US based and thus lacks a postcolonial perspective
- fails to include modern crime fiction as it mainly focuses on the 19th & 20th century
- it's very uk and US based and thus lacks a postcolonial perspective
June 4, 2017
A decent overview of the "crime fiction" genre, though obviously lacking in the depth that I feel the subject matter deserves and which could have been included.
September 27, 2018
Short history
This is a summary of the history of crime fiction. The fascination is the voyeuristic pleasure it gives us. All fiction is fantasy, and crime spices things up.
This is a summary of the history of crime fiction. The fascination is the voyeuristic pleasure it gives us. All fiction is fantasy, and crime spices things up.
August 12, 2019
Read as a project for work. Really informative, surprisingly entertaining, the nerd-ishment that feeds the English major within me.
November 29, 2022
Less of an introduction and more a personal statement by the author. The subject deserves an introduction by someone who doesn't actually sneer at the genre.
Would not recommend.
Would not recommend.
July 19, 2024
Professor Richard Bradford published Crime Fiction: A Very Short Introduction in 2015. The book has a section of references and illustrations. The book has an index. The book has a section entitled “further reading” (Bradford 125-130). The first chapter looks at the origins of crime fiction. The second chapter covers British and American crime writers between World War I and the early 1950s. This chapter covers writers such as Agatha Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers, S.S. Van Dine, Daniel Nathan, and Manford Lepofsky. These British and American writers wrote crime fiction that Bradford wrote was called “Golden Age” crime fiction, where “crime is not so much romanticized as dressed with a gloss of seemliness and propriety” (Bradford 19). The chapter looks at the different theorists of crime fiction working in this era. The chapter also examines the American writers who wrote “noir and hard-boiled” crime fiction (Bradford 26). The book examines writers such as Dashiell Hammett, James M. Cain, and Raymond Chandler (Bradford 28). Chapter 3 examines crime fiction trends in Great Britain and the United States between the early 1950s and the early 21st Century. Chapter 4 examines “international crime fiction” (Bradford 57-81). This chapter is about crime fiction in Europe, outside the British Isles, Russia, Latin America, and East Asia. French writers closely followed writers from Great Britain and the United States” in pioneering crime fiction (Bradford 57). Chapter 5 looks at the relationship between gender and crime fiction. Chapter 6 is on “spy fiction, the thriller, and the legal drama” (Bradford 97-114). The last chapter is on why crime fiction should be studied by people who study literature or cultural studies. I read the book on my Kindle. Bradford is a character in his book. The book is older. Bradford admires two authors, John le Carre and P.G. James, who were still alive when he wrote the book (Bradford 40, 102). Bradford’s introduction to crime fiction is informative if one keeps in mind that he is a character in the book.
June 22, 2015
This book was hugely disappointing and I expected better from Oxford University Press. In chapter 1 there were interesting remarks on Poe but after this, intellectual calibre, originality and accuracy plummeted. From the outset of chapter 2 the negative bias of the author towards Golden Crime Fiction is apparent and equally highly unoriginal. Bradford continues in the vein of Lucy Worseley and rehashes and recycles the cliched and myopic perspectives on Golden Age Crime Fiction, generated by previous writers such as Julian Symons and Colin Watson.
The usual accusations of implausibility, escapism and snobbery abound. Moreover when discussing Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Bradford suggests this is a Miss Marple novel rather than a Poirot novel. This is just sloppy work and the way he describes this novel is so boring, no one would ever read it, yet the masterly trick it pulls on the readers, deserves a better write up. This is not very handy for readers who are beginners to the subject.
Bradford brings nothing new to the analysis and discussion of the sub-genre of Golden Age crime fiction and skips over a mass of other writers such as Anthony Berekley who were working at the time which would disprove the assertions he is making. How convenient for him.
Another recycled idea is that hard-boiled detective fiction is superior to the works categorised as coming from the Golden Age. And to be honest throughout the book American novelists are presented much more favourably, with their failings or inadequacies justified, especially in regards to realism, whilst those of their British counterparts are magnified. If you believed Bradford Britain has never written a decent crime novel.
Even more ironical is that in Chapter 3 Bradford suggests Julian Symons' Bloody Murder and Chandler's hugely over quoted essay, 'The Simple Art of Murder' are biased against British crime fiction/Golden Age novels. Yet he then continues as from Chapter 2 spouting such biases as credible ideas rather than challenging them.
It is disappointing that yet another book on crime fiction has published which has yet to move on from work published decades ago. Moreover, the inaccurate and biased portrayal of British crime fiction, especially Golden Age works is unlikely to encourage readers new to the subject to explore them further, which goes against the ethos of the A very Short Introduction series.
The usual accusations of implausibility, escapism and snobbery abound. Moreover when discussing Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Bradford suggests this is a Miss Marple novel rather than a Poirot novel. This is just sloppy work and the way he describes this novel is so boring, no one would ever read it, yet the masterly trick it pulls on the readers, deserves a better write up. This is not very handy for readers who are beginners to the subject.
Bradford brings nothing new to the analysis and discussion of the sub-genre of Golden Age crime fiction and skips over a mass of other writers such as Anthony Berekley who were working at the time which would disprove the assertions he is making. How convenient for him.
Another recycled idea is that hard-boiled detective fiction is superior to the works categorised as coming from the Golden Age. And to be honest throughout the book American novelists are presented much more favourably, with their failings or inadequacies justified, especially in regards to realism, whilst those of their British counterparts are magnified. If you believed Bradford Britain has never written a decent crime novel.
Even more ironical is that in Chapter 3 Bradford suggests Julian Symons' Bloody Murder and Chandler's hugely over quoted essay, 'The Simple Art of Murder' are biased against British crime fiction/Golden Age novels. Yet he then continues as from Chapter 2 spouting such biases as credible ideas rather than challenging them.
It is disappointing that yet another book on crime fiction has published which has yet to move on from work published decades ago. Moreover, the inaccurate and biased portrayal of British crime fiction, especially Golden Age works is unlikely to encourage readers new to the subject to explore them further, which goes against the ethos of the A very Short Introduction series.
March 14, 2016
3.5*
Spoils the ending of some books I plan to read but haven't read yet, which meant I did some skimming. I also skimmed some of the international section that didn't interest me. I found the section on gender very interesting, as I did their reasoning as to why Scandinavian works are so popular recently.
Spoils the ending of some books I plan to read but haven't read yet, which meant I did some skimming. I also skimmed some of the international section that didn't interest me. I found the section on gender very interesting, as I did their reasoning as to why Scandinavian works are so popular recently.
August 31, 2023
2023 re-read: still an awful book.
2016. This is an awful book.
Partial, incomplete, condescending, and fixated in favour of the dark, violent and corrupt, as if only this represents real life.
Much better to read the crime fiction and related entries in Wikipedia, which cover the same areas, including gender, and the place of this genre in fiction generally. And covers more authors, too.
2016. This is an awful book.
Partial, incomplete, condescending, and fixated in favour of the dark, violent and corrupt, as if only this represents real life.
Much better to read the crime fiction and related entries in Wikipedia, which cover the same areas, including gender, and the place of this genre in fiction generally. And covers more authors, too.
June 29, 2015
Incisive overview of the subject..
March 23, 2018
I loved this clear and concise exposition of the subject. The one takeaway I'd like to mention: Tzvetan Todorov's idea that there are always two stories in a crime novel. The first one takes place before the novel starts, and ends with a corpse. The second one tells how the sleuth uncovers the first story. Brilliant analysis! You can apply it to any murder mystery, it works each time.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews