British poet and author slams anti-crime snobbery

There was an interesting Reuters interview earlier this week with bestselling British writer Sophie Hannah (pictured right), who has published several books of poetry, children’s literature, a collection of short stories, and psychological suspense novels.

I currently have Hannah’s A ROOM SWEPT WHITE near the top of my TBR pile, but as yet I haven’t read any of her work. In the interview with Martin Roberts of Reuters, conducted during the Semana Negra (Noir Week) crime writing festival in Spain, one of the biggest literary fairs in Europe, Hannah admits she doesn’t mind being labelled a crime writer, but flat-out rejects the value judgments some place on that label.

“I don't agree with what a lot of people think which is that somehow crime and mystery fiction is a lesser species, because I just don't think it is,” says Hannah, who has also been elected a fellow of Lucy Cavendish College at the University of Cambridge, which organises the Woman’s Word literary festival every year.

“The crime novel can be a brilliant novel,” continues Hannah. “The snobbery aspect of it of it I think is ridiculous, but I think it has a lot to do with people wanting to seem clever. People who are insecure about their own cleverness say, "I read crime fiction but only Scandinavian," because that sounds more high-brow, and they want to be seen reading literary novels because it makes them look clever. I personally, I know I'm clever and I like reading mysteries and don't think that it makes me any less clever.”

I completely agree with Hannah, and it’s a point I’ve made to others here in New Zealand. From my personal standpoint, I have two university degrees, have studied Shakespeare at university, have worked as a lawyer and now as a writer/journalist, and even way back in the day topped the entire country in a high school English exam - so it’s not like I prefer crime fiction because I’m not smart enough to read literary fiction. And it really annoys me when people place such value judgments on crime and thriller writing - the best of which is truly superb writing, as well as good storytelling.

While there may be some conventions in crime, that doesn’t mean there is less creativity, or literary merit (well, it doesn’t mean that automatically - there is plenty of shoddily written crime out there, just like there is plenty of shoddily written romance, sci-fi, fantasy, action, literary fiction, poetry, short stories, and any other type of writing). It’s the creativity within the convention, like with music, or Shakespearean sonnets. And, as I believe Neil Cross said to me in an interview last year, literary fiction itself is in fact a genre, a type of writing. It's not an inherently superior form of writing (although there is of course some great literary fiction, just like there is some great crime writing).

As I said in a comment elsewhere on the web this week, it reminds me a lot of those who fawn over art-house films and automatically deride anything remotely ‘commercial’ when it comes to movies - there’s a sneering superiority there at times, which seems to me more to do with the people involved wanting to feel better about themselves. You see it in some critics and reviewers too (God, I hope I don’t come across that way sometimes...). Fortunately, there doesn’t seem to be that sense of superiority or pretentiousness amongst the dozens of crime writers, New Zealand and international, that I’ve been fortunate enough to meet and interview in the past 18 months. From unknowns to those who have sold tens of millions of books, I’ve found them all to be genuine, down-to-earth, grateful and generous people.

You can read the full Reuters interview with Hannah here.

What do you think of the literary fiction vs crime fiction debate? Does crime writing have literary merit? Do labels matter? I’d love to read your thoughts.