Sarah Weinman recently provided a link to an article in Time magazine about 5 mystery authors worth reading – referring to them as “new blood”. There are several things to note about the piece; one is that in among the new authors is an author who’s been writing for close to 15 years and is that anew author? I really have a problem with Time’s reporter not having a clue what the field is now and frankly, sorry but if you name someone who’s been around since ’91 or so? That ain’t new (for the record, I posted over on Sarah’s site some of the other “new” writers who’ve been around since say 1992 or 1993, wondering if they’d appreciate the label. It’s totally true that compared to Raymond Chandler these authors are new, but it still seems wildly what – inaccurate? To cite authors whose work goes back several years if you’re talking new blood. I guess all blood is relative. For the records Mosley, Connelly, King, Winslow, Dain, Bland, Stabenow, Barr, Martini, Straley, Ramos, Crombie, also began in 1992, 1993.

While I would have found less to bitch about had they just left that part out, there’s still something to discuss here; the five authors are male. Given the list above, never mind a dozen or more writers we can name who’ve come along in the last what 10 years? Mina McDermid, oh let’s not start, that the author focused on five male writers was a huge disappointment. It seems to ignore the last well I don’t know, ten years, fifteen? More? Crap. I’m not saying the authors listed aren’t worthy of attention – let’s not even start. For one thing, one of them is the ONLY author I had my “best list” who even made it to the Edgar Ballot (and won) (and is on the ITW ballot more on that in a second.)

Maybe my sensitivity is heightened by just finishing a biography of James Tiptree, Jr. – which contains the adorable (and still blood-heating to this day) reference to an astronaut and a sf writer arguing that women can’t serve in space because their tits would be too distracting in zero gravity – and yes, they meant this seriously, the shits (sorry but that’s just disgusting – on a par with “put her in a burkah so she doesn’t tempt me with her evil femaleness, I’m so important I’m a MAN” shit. The “it’s HER fault that she tempted me” evil spew.. But we all know the numbers; we’ve all read the books. We know who reads and we know who writes. And this dude could not suggest ONE female author “worth investigating” (he does not explain what he means by that, that’s just the headline but there isn’t explication of how/who, just a run down of the five writers.

Oh god. So then Elaine Viets posts her anger about the nominees for the Thriller awards to be given at ITW’s first convention in July. Okay, for starters, I’ve discussed my “issues”, if you will, with thrillers. I don’t read too many. I have learned that there are many things that frighten me and I do NOT like being frightened so I tend to avoid books where I could read about a bio-weapon that could be released on the subway (ok, so we don’t have them in Seattle. They still scare me!). I don’t like conspiracy theories, or conspiracy novels. And while I think David and Gayle worked their asses off defining thrillers (or whoever wrote “What is a Thriller”* that appears on http://www.thrillerwriters.org/thrillerfest/awards.html) I still don’t know that we have clarity. And we won’t. Ever. Despite the panels we’re doing talking about what they are. Despite attempts at definitions, I don’t think we’re ever going to be clear. I think there are some books you CAN point to and say “thriller” and some you can say “mystery” and then there’s the great middle distance. When I look at the list of members of the organization, I don’t think some of them write thrillers – but I think they’d agree. No one said “prove it” to those people who joined a new organization.

* which says in part “thriller authors are constantly aware that their readers are looking to them to provide the sudden rush of emotions, the excitement, sense of suspense, apprehension, and exhilaration that drive the narrative, sometimes subtly with peaks and lulls, sometimes at a constant, breakneck pace. By definition, if a thriller does not thrill, it is not doing its job.”

Which explains to me sometimes why they’re not my thing; I don’t like “rushes”, and I don’t like “constant, breakneck pace” – in reading or life. I don’t like thrills, especially; I don’t like adrenaline. I’ve never been on a roller coaster, think bungie jumping and sky-diving is for some other species I’m not, don’t like scary movies – don’t like the rush. Apparently in books or life.

Okay, point number one. I know at least one member of each ITW book-picking jury. Not well in some cases, but in other cases, they are my friends. We don’t always agree on books (in fact, I don’t know that Larry and I have ever seen eye to eye on a book.) But I do believe that those folks I know and by extension, everyone who served as a juror did his and her level best to choose the best books. I don’t know how the books were submitted to the jurors or chosen. But I know Elaine, I’ve read Ali’s writing, I know Larry and I know Louise – pretty well on that last I’d say. I trust them to be fair, without agendas. (note there – 2 women, 2 men). I do not believe them to be biased.

Point two. I don’t like awards. I don’t like that there seems every year or two to be another mystery award – whether given by a website, an organization that feels their contribution overlooked, to honor someone – I just think it thins things out and fractures things when every convention, group, whatever is giving an award. Yes, I am running a con next year that has to give an award. We will and I have said we will do it right; my personal taste does not come into it. And again for the record, I don’t and never liked “the Lefty” as I felt it unnecessary; we did not give it in ’97
Because no one on the LCC committee CARED but we will in ’07 because it’s required by the convention rules. I don’t think having more awards makes the mystery field any better. And that’s separate from my bafflement at the nominees often; I’m just not mainstream enough within mystery or whatever. Almost every year I’m dumfounded by my lack of recognition of the books up for the Edgar, and often those nominated for other awards. Not must that I didn’t like ‘em, often I’ve never heard of them. And I’m a voracious reader, a reviewer and I like to think I keep up. I don’t like juried awards as I don’t think they’re representative of anything but that particular mix of people that particular year. Since the jury changes every year on something like the Edgar, I don’t know what exactly it represents other than the taste of 4 or 5 people who volunteered to be on the jury – tough job. But the Edgar is prestigious so again, I’m obviously not getting something.

Point three. I admire, welcome and consider thrillers and their creators as part of the genre I love. I was SO pleased when Den and Gayle said “yes” to our LCC invitation. In ’97, the Kellermans (who arguably are thriller writers and are some of the founders of ITW) were our guests of honor. It’s right that they’re part of this community, however we define mystery or thriller or crime novel.

But dammit, I am hugely dismayed that of the three book categories for the ITW’s awards (I know zip about the films for the same reasons as the books – I seldom go to thriller movies because they scare me.) every nominee is male. I spent a lot of time above ensuring you don’t think I’m attacking the jurors or ITW. I’m not. I don’t see this as intentional. I don’t see this as representing bias. But I DO THINK SOMETHING’S WRONG.

I spent several years doing disability work – training folks in disability “awareness”, working with employers to ensure they weren’t discriminating against disabled applicants, or providing assistance when accommodations were needed. I worked with a lot of people – mostly people who WANTED to do the right thing. But I noticed over and over that some didn’t. AGAIN, I am not accusing any juror of this – I don’t think it’s the case. But in GENERAL, in the world where I was working, I couldn’t get folks to think about hiring disabled people. They just didn’t. Often because, they claimed, no one applied. Sometimes that was clearly intended – the “no one comes to our restaurant so why SHOULD we ramp it?” syndrome. None of these employers were aware of any negative feelings about disabled people and swore they’d hire qualified applicants. But they didn’t have to, so they didn’t. They usually hired people they were more comfortable and familiar with. And yes that tended to be similar in race, gender as well.

I’m not sure what’s going on here since as I say, I refuse to believe that these folks ruled out books by women because they don’t like thrillers by women. I have NO idea how they got the books the y considered. Some juries you gotta send copies, you gotta submit your books. (this is why, by the way, sometimes at the Emmy Awards, the obvious people aren’t nominated – because you gotta submit a nomination and if you don’t – or your people screw up – you’re not on the ballot. It’s happened.) However, Elaine Viets listed at least 16 female authors who she said submitted books to ITW. I don’t know most of the books – I know most of the authors and only read one of their books and tried maybe 3 others. But I know the names, and know how well thought of MANY of these women are.

Some of the complication DOES come with the fact that in order to avoid conflicts or event he appearance of conflicts – and kudos to ITW for those – you cant’t submit a book for an award if you’re a board member. It means that books by co-founder and board member Gayle Lynds, by Tess Gerritsen and MJ Rose as well as, if you wondering why he’s not there, Lee Child, cannot be nominated. MWA doesn’t have that rule, but Mike Connelly STILL pulled one of his books from Edgar contention when he was presidents; appearances matter. But wow, what a weird weird development.

I’m completely incompetent to compare what was nominated to what wasn’t; of the 15 books listed, I read one. I tried a few others and never got past page 25 or so. The one I read was (remember back when I said “in a second”?) CITIZEN VINCE by Jess Walter. Which won the Edgar this year. Which is on my “best of 2005” list , along with possibly several other books which might be thrillers. I don’t KNOW. I find it only a smidgen amusing that one reason I believe ITW began doing its own awards was the sense that the Edgars never went to thrillers – and yet, here’s Walter’s book. Everywhere. My list of books I thought really worthwhile in 2005 also included TO THE POWER OF THREE by Lippman, DRIVE by Sallis, MISSING PERSONS by White, FLESHMARKET ALLEY by Rankin. And books by Laurie King and Harley Kozak and John Daniel that by no argument can be thought of as thrillers I don’t think.

I’m not nearly as angry about this as Elaine Viets. Maybe because I know so many of the people involved. I’m not tiptoeing around so I don’t offend Gayle – she’s stronger than that and we understand each other, I think. She knows I’m not a big fan of thrillers – we’ve talked about that and I hope will continue to talk about it. She’s my convention guest of honor and no, I’m not going to be rude about her but I have no desire to be. I think she and David and the others have had a good idea with good intentions. I AM DISMAYED and I want to know what the hell is going on here, when inside of a few days, the contributions women have made to mystery seem to be invisible. Something is wrong.

I’ll get angry if someone starts talking about a conspiracy. I’ll get pissed off if anyone suggests these jurors had agendas because that’s bullshit. This is not a hugely prestigious award to be fought over – it’s brand new. There’s no track record. And I still remember with some rage the rumors some years back- with not an iota of any proof but still it came - that Sisters in Crime was “responsible” for stuffing the ballot box when there were 6 nominees for the Best Novel Anthony and 5 were women. I hate that shit.

So I don’t know what’s wrong. But I know something is wrong. And I know that it’s not the obvious. These folks are not biased – the women on the juries are not “traitors to their gender” and the men are as open-minded as anyone else. Sure maybe someone came in with a secret agenda – such a lot of work for such small gain, I’d think, given how onerous the job is – reading HOW many books in HOW short a time? But something IS OFF.