Thoughts on shopping as therapy

When I have a bad day at work I escape the office and buy stuff I don’t need (because buying stuff I need isn’t relaxation, it’s more work). Yesterday was about a 7 on a badness scale of 1-10 so I needed a lengthy spell out of the office and consequently bought four books I don’t need (given I have about 150 scattered around my house or on various devices).

I realised as I shopped that this is something my local book store offers that its online competitors cannot compete with: the calming influence of immediate acquisition. Clicking and waiting for delivery just doesn’t cut it when it comes to retail therapy. Perhaps they should do a leaflet drop to all nearby offices.

My haul included a book each from Denmark, Iceland, Scotland and Sweden. I justify such largesse on the basis that it does the store good to know that people want these books (a fact they may be unaware of given there were four and a half shelves of James Effing Patterson books on display but that, friends is a rant for another day).

What’s your favourite form of bad day therapy? Do you have a favourite justification for buying more books than you need?

2012: The Start

It’s going to be (pardon the language) a bloody hot start to the year here in Adelaide with a predicted high of 41°C (that’s 106°F) which I have decided calls for hunkering down inside with a good book and a glass (or two) of sangria (is 10 in the morning too early to start drinking on a public holiday?).

I’ve chosen to start the new year by catching up with an old friend, private detective Kinsey Millhone, who’s just getting involved in a new case, something to do with a mysterious shop lifter. Looks like there’s going to be a connection to a local loan shark too and there’s a society lady with marriage troubles who looks like getting involved in things too. I’m set to take my mind of the heat by finding out what kind of mess Kinsey’s gotten herself involved in over there in Santa Teresa.

I’m trying to simplify my life a little this year so my reading resolutions are fairly simple: complete my chosen level of the Australian Women Writers reading challenge and knock off at least 25 books from my TBR list. I managed to reduce the TBR from 200 to 160 by the end of 2011 so this should be achievable. Of course if I were really strong I’d aim to knock the whole thing off but I’m realistic enough to know that’s not going to happen.

Warm thanks to everyone who has read, followed, liked, subscribed to or commented on the blog during 2011, all such activity makes me do a little happy dance (which you should be grateful you can’t see as I have no rhythm whatsoever). I wish you all  a 2012  full of good things and, especially, good reading.

Buying books to help others

With the aim of generating donations for victims of the devastating floods that have occurred in Queensland, Australia over the past few weeks a swag of Australian authors have donated signed copies of their books, mentoring sessions, manuscript assessments, character naming rights and anything else you can imagine relating to writing.

The auctions are being conducted at the Authors for Queensland website. Items for auction are listed as a post on the blog and you bid by making a comment underneath the item(s) you are interested in. All actions will close on Monday night (Australian time). If you win a particular auction you will be notified by email and you will then need to make a donation for the amount you bid to the Queensland Premier’s Disaster Relief Appeal and then email a copy of your receipt to the auction website.

On a quick browse through the 100+ items available for bidding here are a few that might appeal to crime fiction lovers

There are plenty more items including kids books, YA, romance novels, speculative fiction, non-fiction titles plus mentoring, illustration and other expertise on offer as individual bids.

Do head over to Authors for Queensland and browse the auctions if you feel so inclined.

An opportunity gone begging for women?

Craig Sisterson from Crime Watch reports that Auckland University is planning to run a Continuing Education course entitled ”Women Writing Contemporary Crime Fiction”. The course will ponder

Why are women such prolific writers – and readers – of crime fiction? Historically and in modern-day crime writing the woman writer, it could be argued, dominates the genre. This course aims to explore why, with reference to six major female crime authors currently writing, such as P.D. James, Elizabeth George and Kathy Reichs.

While I think it’s terrific that crime fiction is getting this kind of treatment I have to say I am underwhelmed by the selection of writers for study. In full the list consists of

  • Week 1 PD James
  • Week 2 Ruth Rendell
  • Week 3 Sara Paretsky
  • Week 4 Elizabeth George
  • Week 5 Linda Fairstein
  • Week 6 Kathy Reichs

I don’t think studying those particular authors is going to go far towards achieving the course’s first stated learning outcome of students being able to “Demonstrate a wider knowledge of crime fiction, particularly that written by women”. I’d be hard pressed to come up with a more homogeneous, narrow selection of female crime writers. All the authors are either American or English as are their dominant settings and 5 of the 6 are best known for producing a long running police/legal procedural (Paretsky’s main character is a female private investigator and Rendell also writes psychological suspense in addition to her procedurals).

Where’s the geographical diversity? There are so many fantastic modern female crime writers based all over the globe including these:

  • Australia – Kathryn Fox, Leah Giarratano,
  • France – Dominique Mannotti
  • Iceland - Yrsa Sigurdardottir
  • Ireland – Alex Barclay, Tana French
  • Norway – Karin Fossum, Anne Holt
  • Scotland – Karen Campbell, Ann Cleeves, Denise Mina
  • Spain – Teresa Solana
  • South Africa – Sarah Lotz, Margie Orford,
  • Sweden – Karen Alvtegen, Liza Marklund, Mari Jungstedt

At the very least you’d have thought they’d take a look at New Zealand’s own crop of new crime writers like Vanda Symon.

There’s not much sub-genre diversity here either. Modern crime fiction is about more than solid old British and American police procedurals isn’t it? How about taking a look at Megan Abbott’s noir or the highly popular capers from Janet Evanovich or Lisa Lutz?

I realise none of the authors I’ve mentioned have the vast body of work of a Ruth Rendell but surely such a course should be about quality. In a cynical moment I wonder whether a course this bland is just a grab for some extra dollars by the always cash-strapped university sector or whether it’s been cobbled together by people who aren’t really fans of crime fiction. But even if neither of those things is true and the intentions are entirely pure I’m still saddened. A course such as this would have been a fine opportunity to expose people to a broader range of crime fiction than the ubiquitous titles stocked by my local K-Mart.

Adaptable Agatha

A contribution to the Agatha Christie Blog Tour celebrating the 120th anniversary of Christie’s birth, September 2010.

If you were in any doubt about the ongoing popularity of the works of Agatha Christie I’ll draw your attention to just a couple of facts that might make you think again. On the 120th anniversary of Christie’s birth, 15 September 2010, Google UK honoured her by adding one of its delightful doodles to its search front page and HarperCollins signed a 7 figure deal for the global rights to publish her works which still sell one million copies annually. ‘Nuff said?

Avowed Christie fan (and host of this blog tour), Kerrie at Mysteries in Paradise, has listed a dozen excellent reasons for the continued interest in the works of Ms Christie but I am convinced there is one more driving factor: adaptability. More than any other author I can think of Christie’s stories have been adapted for whatever the popular storytelling medium of the day happened to be (stage, big screen, small screen etc) and have been so almost from the outset. What this does is expose the stories to the widest possible audience which has, in turn, fed interest in the traditionally published works. Whether she knew it or not, whether it was deliberate or not, Christie was perhaps the first entertainment brand.

In 1928, only eight years after her first book was published, the first film adaptation of one of Christie’s works was produced. The Passing of Mr Quinn, telling the tale of a mysterious man who comes and goes almost invisibly and ‘speaks for the dead’, was based on a short story (The Coming of Mr Quin) and was adapted by the film’s director, Leslie Hiscott. In the 1930′s and 40′s adaptations of Christie’s works for film started to attract big names including 1937′s Love From a Stranger which starred Basil Rathbone and was adapted from the stage play of the same name which, in turn, was adapted from the short story Philomel Cottage.

Although it was only a fledgling medium Christie’s works were adapted for television in the very early days. A different version of Love From a Stranger aired in 1938 and other TV adaptations included 1949′s Witness for the Prosecution. One of America’s first TV series, Kraft Television Theatre (sometimes called Kraft Mystery Theatre), included an episode entitled Murder on the Nile in 1950, which was based on one of Christie’s most famous novels, Death on the Nile. Christie’s works continued to be incorporated into these kinds of television shows including General Electric Theatre

All the while Christie’s novels continued to be adapted for the stage (in addition to the material she produced as plays in their own right such as The Mousetrap). The stage play of Peril at End House, originally adapted by Arnold Ridley who would later go on to star in the TV show Dad’s Army, might have had a short run initially but it was re-staged as an audio drama for the BBC and remains a popular favourite among amateur dramatic societies ( I speak from personal experience having appeared as Mrs Croft in a version of it some years ago). From the 1950′s onwards the BBC broadcast a variety of Christie’s stories as radio plays and these continued right into the 1990′s with a successful series of dramatisations starring John Moffat as Hercule Poirot.

In the 1970′s all-star extravaganza movies were at the pinnacle of entertainment offerings (think The Towering Inferno or The Poseidon Adventure) and once again adaptations of Agatha Christie’s works were well and truly in the mix. 1974′s Murder on the Orient Express was a resounding success, garnering multiple Oscar nominations and a win for Ingrid Bergman (as Greta). The film was literally dripping with big-name stars including Albert Finney (in my opinion the creepiest Poirot ever seen on screen), Lauren Bacall, Sean Connery, Anthony Perkins and John Gielgud. Four years later came a big screen adaptation of my favourite Christie novel, Death on the Nile, with Peter Ustinov as Poirot and featuring another superstar cast including Bette Davis, Mia Farrow, Angela Lansbury (in a brilliant performance as the always drunk Mrs Salome Otterbourne for which she deservedly won the BAFTA that year) and David Niven. The third star-studded Christie film from that period was, for me anyway, the most disappointing of the three but was still successful. 1980′s The Mirror Crack’d (based on The Mirror Cracked from Side to Side) again starred Lansbury (but this time poorly cast as Miss Marple), Elizabeth Taylor and Tony Curtis.

The adaptation of Agatha Christie then moved back to television with British network ITV producing both Agatha Christie’s Poirot, a series of tele-movies starring David Suchet (voted the best man to bring Hercule Poirot to life last year) and later Agatha Christie’s Marple first starring Geraldine McEwan and now Julia McKenzie in the title role. The first episode of this version of Poirot aired in 1989 and new episodes are still being made. Personally I am looking forward to seeing Suchet in Murder on the Orient Express (which aired in the UK and US earlier this year and is making its way to Oz via carrier pigeon) because it’s a great story but Albert Finney spoiled the big-screen version for me.

I could go on. There are dozens more adaptations of Christie’s works I could talk about, including those in less traditional media such as graphic novels and computer games. But, I think, my point is made. Of course it’s partly a chicken and egg argument: adaptations could not have been made if her works had not been popular but ultimately I think her works continue to be popular because the stories have been made accessible to people who wouldn’t, ordinarily, read her books (or any books for that matter). I’m certain that sizable number of the 1 million sales of Christie’s books for each of the past few years for example has been directly due to people seeing David Suchet as Poirot in those wonderful TV films full of luscious costumes and gorgeous art deco buildings.

The biggest fear most publishers of consumable art (music, movies, books etc) seem to have these days is that someone will see or hear the art in question without having paid for it. Accordingly a not so small fortune is spent ‘protecting’ the artistic products via arcane copyright restrictions and obtuse digital rights management. All of this is of course completely daft. Because what they should be deathly afraid of is that no one will see the art at all, paid for or otherwise. Either intuitively or serendipitously Agatha Christie and later the people who have managed her portfolio of works since her death seem to have understood the fundamental truth that people have to see and hear your art to grow to love it and when they do they’ll queue up to pay for it. By allowing adaptations of Christie’s stories to a variety of media almost since her first book was published in 1920, her audience has continued to expand. Although some people undoubtedly do all their consumption for free (watching on free to air TV for example) a healthy number of them are paying for the privilege. There’s a lesson to be learned there.

Last in, first out

It hardly warrants complaining about but sometimes the sight of my TBR shelves sends me into a tailspin. Which one of the 150-odd books will I read next? I literally dither about in indecision some days (and no we won’t discuss the fact I now have a new eReader on which to cleverly hide TBR books).

When I saw a package from Book Depository on my doorstep as I arrived home tonight I decided I’d read its contents and not force myself to decide which book to select from the shelves. I rarely do this (it normally doesn’t feel ‘right’ to read a book that hasn’t done a fair stint on the sidelines) but it’s only my silly rule not a national law (yet).

I am chuffed the package contained Nigel McCrery’s Tooth and Claw. I can still remember in vivid detail the opening to Still Watersthe first book of McCrery’s that I read nearly two years ago. It created an image that has stayed with me to this day (and made me look askance at every little old lady with gardening shears I have since encountered) (which makes the fact I have taken on the role of creating a local community garden something of a psychological torture let me tell you). The rest of the book was darned good too, offering a great story with a quite powerful commentary about how we treat the people who live differently to ‘the norm’ or on the fringes of society. I rated it 4.5 out of 5 and still recommend it to friends.

I have no clue what this follow-up novel is about. I pre-ordered it as soon as I saw it was by McCrery and featured the same protagonist as the other book (a detective with a neurological condition that means most noises he hears triggers a taste in his mouth which might be bearable when the noise is the telephone and the taste is ice-cream but would undoubtedly be madness-inducing if the sound of your child’s laughter induced the taste of vomit).

Will this one give me nightmares too?

Out Of Step

Yesterday’s announcement of the shortlist for the Ned Kelly Awards for Australian crime fiction* reminded me, once again, that I am generally out of step with the rest of humanity (or at least judging panels) when it comes to book awards.

Of the three books shortlisted in the best fiction category for this year’s awards I rated Michael Robotham’s Bleed for Me a disappointing 2 out of 5 and failed to finish Garry Disher’s Wyatt. I haven’t yet tackled Lenny Bartulin’s The Black Russian so can make no personal judgement about that one.

In my opinion the best work of Australian crime fiction for the eligible period is Peter Temple’s Truth but it was not considered, apparently at the request of Temple himself, but even taking that into consideration there are several books on the longlist that I think are better than those selected and a couple that didn’t even make it that far.

It’s not only Australian award givers with which I am out of step. I’ve recently read the winner of this year’s Theakston’s Old Peculiar Crime Novel of the Year and found it the opposite of everything the judging panel said it was and the winner of the 2010 Edgar Award for best novel which was a decent read but not, in my opinion, the best of those on the shortlist. Even the winner of this years International Dagger Award for best translated crime fiction wasn’t my personal favourite of the shortlisted novels (though it is a superb novel). I don’t even have much luck with non-crime related awards as I have only gotten a third of the way through the winner of last year’s Man Booker Prize despite it being a work of historical fiction about a period I enjoy. Sigh.

I’m no longer surprised when my opinions don’t match those of the people who matter but the fact that it happens with alarming regularity is the reason I rarely seek out books that are shortlisted for or have won awards. Whether it’s because I don’t have a clue what makes a good book (entirely possible) or because it’s all a pretty subjective game of chance in the end, choosing books by virtue of the accolades that have been showered upon them doesn’t really work for me.

What about you? Do you deliberately look for books that have won awards? Do you have more luck than I do when it comes to award winners? Do you think some awards panels set out to make controversial choices to generate discussion and, if you do, is that a bad thing?

*I deliberately haven’t linked to the Awards website, it is utterly devoid of useful information though appears to be undergoing a revamp which I assume (hope) will be completed before the announcement of the winners next month.

Link of the Week – Irritation Insurance

Sometimes I come across a newspaper article, blog post or op ed piece that makes me paranoid about the possibility that other people are reading my thoughts because they’ve written exactly what I’ve been thinking. I am in complete agreement with author Timothy Hallinan’s need for insurance that pays out whenever the insured has to suffer one of life’s myriad of minor irritations. As someone who seems to pay an astonishing amount of money each month for insurances that I never use I adore the idea of a scheme that I would be able to make claims against (and before you start, yes I am very grateful that my house, health, income, car etc. are all pottering along nicely without the need of insurance).

I could add considerably to the excellent list provided by Mr Hallinan but will pick just three extra items that I would like to be insured against:

  • Being coughed on by a fellow commuter. Honestly I don’t mind using public transport if it will save the planet from environmental disaster but is it really too much to ask that people cover their damned mouths when they’re coughing up a lung on the morning commute? $9.53
  • Being forced to listen to talk-back radio of any political persuasion. I regularly have to catch cabs during the work day and the driver always seems to be listening to loud talk-back radio where somebody is shouting about the ruination of our country/world by illegal immigrants/drug addicts/single mothers/greenies/some one else to hate. It’s tiresome. $7.27
  • Seeing anyone wearing a lycra cycling outfit when they are not currently competing in the Tour de France. I’m all for exercise and strongly in favour of transportation that might save the planet from complete collapse under the weight of our collective self-absorption, but I don’t understand why I should have to walk with my eyes forever downcast for fear of seeing a 50-year old bloke wearing Lycra that shows off all the wrong bulging bits. $3.52

Enough. The article made me laugh which is always much-needed. As did the one book of Tim Hallinan’s that I’ve read (so far, I do plan to read more).

Weekly Geeks 2010-19 – Getting Graphic

Terri has posed this week’s discussion topic about graphic novels. She asks
Do you read graphic novels or memoirs? Who are your favorite authors? Which books do you recommend? If you haven’t read any, why not? Some people have the impression that graphic novels are glorified comic books, are unsophisticated or don’t qualify as “serious” literature. What do you think? If you track your book numbers, do you count a graphic novel as a book read?

The short answer is no. I don’t read graphic novels. I’ve read one, a re-print of Will Eisner’s A Contract with God that was originally published in the 70′s but was re-printed a few years ago. And I only read because someone gave it to me as a present and waited patiently for my opinion. Thankfully I wasn’t writing reviews then because I would have struggled to come up with much more than the “it was nice” I said to my generous but slightly misguided friend.

Why don’t I read graphic novels? I’m just not a very visual person and the pictures get in the way of the storytelling for me. I felt the same way about the comic books I was given when I was a kid. I’m sure it sounds odd but I’m the sort of person who would choose a book over a movie every time. I don’t just mean that I would choose the book versus its movie adaptation (though I invariably would) but when offered a choice of what entertainment to consume in a given period I will choose words (in written or audio format) over pictures every time because I find that a better storytelling medium for me. Perhaps it’s because I have a vivid imagination and create my own pictures or perhaps it’s because my brain is wired oddly but if I want to retain information about what I’m consuming I need to read it or hear it.

Just to be clear I’m not ‘against’ graphic novels, I don’t think they’re a less sophisticated form of storytelling and I don’t think I’m superior to those who do enjoy them. It’s simply that just as some people can’t listen to audio books because the words don’t sink in the same way that written words do, illustrated stories of the kind found in comics and graphic novels just don’t sink into my brain.

Weekly Geeks 16-2010 – Secret Pasts and Peculiar Presents

As a new member of the team of book bloggers who look after the Weekly Geeks meme this week was my turn to post a discussion topic (and we will not discuss how much I despise using Blogger in comparison to any other platform on the net which is why the format of the post is screwed up). In a selfish sort of way I thought I’d find out what others think of an issue that I have been pondering for a while now. In brief it is the issue of whether or not I can, or even want, to separate an author’s non-writing existence from their fictional works.

It all started because I very much enjoyed the two Susan Hill novels that I’ve read and already had the next book in her Simon Serrailler series on my audio book playlist. Then I discovered, via the author’s opinion column in a UK newspaper, that I don’t particularly like her personality or what you might call her ‘small p’ politics. I found this rant about the charity bookshops Oxfam mean-spirited and inaccurate and the fact that it included yet another misuse of the word bullying was the icing on that particular cake. I haven’t counted (obviously) but I think it is the second most over used word in the published English language these days (after the word tragedy) and because of that any real meaning the word ever had is long gone. Because this one piece made me particularly cranky I went on to read some more of her columns and realised that she is not someone I would want to have a beer with.

I have some pretty odd opinions myself and I manage to rub along quite nicely with friends and family who have wildly wrong  different views to mine so it should be far easier to ignore the opinions of someone I am socially removed from such as an author. Except that I’m a big advocate of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is or, if we’re being pedantic, not putting one’s money in the mouths of people I don’t respect. So if I find out that a company uses practices I don’t agree with I make it a personal goal not to purchase products that company produces if I can possibly avoid it. I won’t pretend I actively seek out such information for all the companies I deal with but if I am making a major purchase or investment I do my best to find out about things like the company’s trade practices and the sorts of investments they make themselves. It therefore feels a bit dishonest not to follow a similar personal rule with respect to my entertainment budget (almost all of which goes to books). It just doesn’t feel right to actively provide income to someone whose opinions I find fairly repugnant. So I am done with the Simon Serailler books which is sad because I enjoyed the first two but it doesn’t hurt to have one’s principles genuinely tested every now and again (and no I’m not angling for a humanitarian award here, there’s plenty of tests I fail and it is only a couple of books after all).

The other part of the question I raised related to how people would feel if they discovered that an author they liked had committed a major crime. Like murder (as in the case of Anne Perry which I thought about after seeing a post about her at Crime Watch). Perhaps perversely I have far less trouble with this one although to be honest I’ve never been truly tested. The closest I’ve come is being a moderate fan of Jeffrey Archer’s and for the record I was completely nonplussed by the fact of his conviction and prison sentence for the crime of perverting the course of justice.

I’m pretty confident that the fact I’d rather one of my favourite authors was a murderer than have social opinions I find abhorrent is pretty screwed up. But there you have it.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Do check out some of the other thoughtful and thought-provoking answers to this week’s topic (check the Mr Linky below the post). All the posts have been interesting to me but the one that still has me pondering is from KT at Literary Transgressions who has written a terrific responseabout her relationship with author Phillip Pullman both before and after she discovered that Pullman the man isn’t someone she likes very much.