Mystery Sub-genres - Which Comes First

Writers have to know the genre or sub-genre of their story. Whether traditionally published and bookstore bound, or self-published e-book, sooner or later, someone is going to ask, “What kind of book is it?” And that’s genre.

Most genres today have a lengthy set of sub-genres. Today I’m going to focus on mysteries. I looked at lists of mystery sub-genres from a half-dozen sources and came up with over thirty. The ones that appeared on most or all of the lists included:

• Cozy and its cousin, the Amateur Detective
• Classic Whodunit
• Heists and Capers
• Historical
• Medical and Legal (Courtroom)
• Police Procedural
• Private Eye, including the darker side Noir
• Romantic
• Suspense and Thrillers, including Techno-thrillers
• Spies and Espionage

And most included mention of mixed genres, such as Mystery mixed with Sci Fi, Paranormal, Urban Fantasy, etc.

Suspense and Thriller are also considered genres in their own right with many of the same sub-genres as given for mysteries. The same is true for Crime Fiction.

Lists and definitions for oodles of sub-genres are easy to find. Take any mystery/suspense story and it will probably fall under one or more of those listed above. It’s the “more” that can cause a problem. What I did not find in my search of sub-genres was a hierarchy. Which sub-genre takes precedence of another?

Is a story about a private eye and a CIA agent who solve a murder while falling in love a Private Eye/Spy/Whodunit/Romantic Mystery? What about a spine-tingling thriller with a cop as the main character – Thriller or Police Procedural?

Obviously, some stories are easy to define. Others not so much. What do you think?

For writers - Is there a written or unwritten hierarchy for defining genres/sub-genres? Should there be?
For readers, how defined do you want the genre of a book to be before you buy?

Groaner of the Day:  (Just a short one today.)  The butcher backed into the meat grinder and got a little behind in his work.

When Do You Bail on a Book?

My monthly book group, Tea & Mystery, met last night.  Although some of our members prefer coffee to tea, we all love reading the same mystery and discussing it.  Through the group, I've found many titles and authors that have become favorites of mine.

This month's selection wasn't one of those.

At the beginning of the meeting, over half the members admitted they hadn't finished the book.  I was one of them.  This is very unusual for me.  I always make an effort to get the group book finished in time for the meeting.  Occasionally I run out of time but I don't recall ever just deciding not to finish.

For one thing, I'm very character driven.  Once I make a connection with a character I simply have to find out what happens to him/her.  Even if the story is weak or the writing doesn't appeal to me, I stay with it until the end.  I can't walk away without knowing.

With this book, I read well past the introduction of all the major characters and story threads (there were a bunch), but there was no connection.  I tried to force myself to keep going but I reached a point where I had to admit I had no interest in finishing this book.  I really didn't care what happened to these characters or who had done what to who and why.  I also decided my time is too valuable to waste reading a book I didn't enjoy.

Wow.  What a concept.  A bit of an epiphany for me.  I didn't have to finish.

How about you?  Once you start a book, do you feel you have to finish it? 

How far do you read before you decide it's not for you? 

Do you have a point of no return - if you made it that far, you'll stay to the end?

What will make you give up on a book?

Do you think readers are quicker to give up on a book now than they were twenty years ago?

If you're a writer, do you think you're more inclined to finish a book (knowing all the work that went into writing it) or more inclined to bail (because you read with a more critical eye)?


Groaner of the Day:  Steven Spielberg was discussing his new project - an action docudrama about famous composers starring top movie stars. Sylvester Stallone, Steven Segal, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were all present.

Spielberg strongly desired the box office 'oomph' of these superstars, so he was prepared to allow them to select whatever composers they would portray, as long as they were very famous.

"Well," started Stallone, "I've always admired Mozart. I would love to play him."

"Chopin has always been my favorite, and my image would improve if people saw me playing the piano," said Willis. "I'll play him."

"I've always been partial to Strauss and his waltzes," said Segal. "I'd like to play him."

Spielberg was very pleased with these choices. "Sounds splendid." Then, looking at Schwarzenegger, he asked, "Who do you want to be, Arnold?"

Arnold says........
.
.
.
.
(wait for it)
.
.
.
.
(oh, come on, you know what's coming)
.
.
.
.
(okay, here it is)
.
.
.
.
"I'll be Bach."

 
(hee hee hee)