Oh No! Not Emerald Noir Again!

Writers are so thin skinned when it comes to getting their work categorised.

That's not a criticism, as I would never bother to write a book for sale on the world market just because of the annoyance all the misunderstandings would cause. There is nothing like a literary spat to get in the way of a good day's work.

I can understand Alan Glynn's simple explanation that his "novels" are not written to fit into some commercial formula.
His ability to explore themes that are up to date and seem to resonate with today's readers as if they were designed to be socially relevant is not the brief, it seems. Jung's theory of the collective unconscious (if there is such a phenemenon) accounts for many of the similarities in theme and subject matter that many writers share. And language is the real giveaway, unless one is writing pastiche.

However when it comes to placing books on shelves in a bookshop I doubt if putting the crime writers into the pharmacology or self-help sections would be of much value. Recently I made a "faux pas" by referring to "Bloodland" as "historical fiction" which made one wicked friend ask if the characters were carrying muskets. Since anything further back than six hours ago fits into history in my book, I apologised (as usual) and hoped that I had not contributed to the demise of both civilisation and the book industry.

And just in passing, Emerald Noir conjures a nighmare scenario in my mind of a third hood in an Edward G Robinson film dressed like a leprechaun.

(For a discussion about the ups and downs of Noir and its links to melodrama it's worth dropping over to Peter Rozovsky's blog and view the post entitled "What does Noir Mean to You?"