Mystery Lovers! discussion

In honor of International Women's Day, an online poll has been launched to find the four modern-day 'Queens of Crime', the Mt Rushmore of the mystery genre, in terms of outstanding and influential female writers.

Historically, Agatha Christie, Ngaio Marsh, Margery Allingham, and Dorothy L. Sayers were known as the Queens of Crime of the Golden Age. Who would be their modern-day equivalents?

What makes greatness when it comes to crime writing? Sales? Awards? Critical acclaim? Longevity? Influence on the genre and those that follow? Who would be the four 'greatest' living female mystery writers around? It's a tough choice, with some outstanding nominees who've achieved hundreds of millions of books sales, dozens of major crime writing awards, #1 bestseller status, widespread critical acclaim, and even shifted the genre. You can vote here: https://riddle.com/a/55021

Nifty. I voted for Sue Grafton, who is really the only name I personally like/admire from that sampling you have displayed. Just my personal taste talking of course. Mystery fiction is by no means my area of expertise.

There were others of similar ilk whom I might also have voted for, had they been represented. Several came to mind. Was looking for P.D. James, but did not see her. Looked for Martha Grimes, did not see her. Looked for Ruth Rendell, Mary Stewart, ditto.

Otherwise, good clean fun. Nicely presented round-robin engine.

It's a vote for greatest living crime writers Feliks, and unfortunately both Ruth Rendell and PD James passed away in recent years. But yes, they would undoubtedly be there otherwise. True giants.

p.s. the question of 'what makes greatness' appeals to me, it reminds me of endlessly recurring debates like, 'what are the five greatest rock bands of all time'?

Well. The way to solve such questions is to avoid opinionizing as much as possible and look instead at objective measures which apply to all the choices. You touched on some of them, (revenue, copies sold, longevity, etc) but each of these measures needs to be tested-for-fairness before being arrayed.

In music, one looks at things like originality, instrumentation, variety, longevity, output, power, impact, innovation, lyricism, musicianship..however, each one of these areas can be fraught with pitfalls. If someone really wants to insist that the Beatles were poor songwriters, you have a battle on your hands because not everyone realizes that simplicity can be powerful. How do you reconcile an opinion like that?

It's even harder when it comes to cinema.
'Objective measures' in that field are so vexed and ephemeral. There's only a few: 'Box office returns' (horrible quagmire); 'audiences', 'awards' & finally 'critics'. All of these are flawed. In film, the truest ranking & comparison is a task fit only for academics and scholars, and that is tracing the impact of one filmmaker on others. Extremely difficult.

This is really difficult, but I've voted for Louise Penny. A couple of hers are superbly crafted and rise head and shoulders above the rest - in my opinion, of course. Sadly, I fear she has now peaked.

P.R. wrote: "This is really difficult, but I've voted for Louise Penny. A couple of hers are superbly crafted and rise head and shoulders above the rest - in my opinion, of course. Sadly, I fear she has now pea..."

Since it's Four Queens of Crime, you can 'up-vote' four contenders if you like PR. That's what I've done (Penny, McDermid, Paretsky etc). You could actually upvote as many as you like, though that kinda defeats the purpose, so I went with a 'Mt Rushmore' or 'Four Queens of Crime' approach with four votes :)

Craig wrote: "P.R. wrote: "This is really difficult, but I've voted for Louise Penny. A couple of hers are superbly crafted and rise head and shoulders above the rest - in my opinion, of course. Sadly, I fear sh..."
Thank you Craig! I'm in that silly place now, where having wished I had more than one vote I don't know how to cast the other three... I think maybe I'll stick with the one vote :)

You just need to click on the little upwards arrow beside the author's name, on the left, above the number of votes they have. It will be blue if you haven't voted for them, and green if you have. So any blue ones you can still upvote to green, so to speak.

Craig wrote: "You just need to click on the little upwards arrow beside the author's name, on the left, above the number of votes they have. It will be blue if you haven't voted for them, and green if you have. ..."
Thank you! It was really pure indecision on my part. I too wish there were others of my favourites on the list. I hate to admit this, but I find it hard to vote only for women authors when my personal choices are a completely mixed bag. I think your idea of a 'Mt Rushmore' is a really good one, so I'll possibly try and vote the other three along those lines.

The other three I have now voted for are: Denise Mina, Val McDermid and Camilla Lackberg.

Craig wrote: "It's a vote for greatest living crime writers."

I see. Hmm. If so, then 'Modern Queens of Crime' seems more fair to me.

For example, just because the Beatles disbanded, wouldn't make them unlisted among the biggest musical groups of all time. They always have to be listed whether they're still extant or not; because their accomplishment will continue to stand unequaled no matter what happens.

Whereas, yes--every fifty years you could nominate four new queens of crime, but if the 'bar' constantly meets only "living queens", --rather than 'reining' ones; then the scale is constantly sliding downward, right? Rendell, James, Grimes, Grafton--compare very well to Marsh, Christie, Sayers, and Tey. These others? They're living/publishing but not 'household names'.

Just thinking out loud

Feliks wrote: "Craig wrote: "It's a vote for greatest living crime writers."

I see. Hmm. If so, then 'Modern Queens of Crime' seems more fair to me.

For example, just because the Beatles disbanded, wouldn't mak..."
I like the point you are making about 'greatest'. I suppose what we are being asked to vote for here (out of the candidates) is the creme de la creme of female crime writers, designated 'Modern Queens of Crime'. But what leads to such a title? Sales? Awards? Or sheer volume of readers, feedback etc. And as you say, the scale slides all the time. Should an author be eliminated as soon as she dies? I think I might prefer to nominate an all-time Queen of Crime, although I fear the one I nominated would be dead :)