Fascinating interview with an enraged Val McDermid in today's Guardian G2: Women section.
She has been set up by the media as engaged in a slapfest with Ian Rankin in which her sexuality (the epithet 'bloodthirsty lesbian' has featured in headlines) has been foregrounded and the contributions to the debate of a self-declared heterosexual woman crime writer totally ignored.
She has also been criticised by another woman crime writer, Joan Smith, on the grounds of her 'books were full of dead bodies and gratuitous violence towards women'. (Duh? goes with the territory, surely, and feel that these motifs also figured in JS's novels - perhaps less graphically?)
Also, although she doesn't say it in so many words, the whole thing raises the question of how, if men write about graphic violence and gory death, it's gritty and dark and existential and intense, but if women do it, it's somehow Their Pathology rather than a comment on How Things Are In The Real World.
She also notes the
snobbery in the literary world when it comes to the crime genre. "It is manifestly clear, however, from the kind of critical acclaim we get, that there are now very good crime writers." It will be a "good day", she continues, when a crime novel wins the Booker prize.
I do have to admit that I don't much care for McDermid's more recent work myself, but that is just about my own lack of resonance with the 'creepy psychological serial-killer' subgenre. I quite enjoyed her earlier series, even if I suspect, in retrospect, that they may have been trying a bit to be Paretsky/Grafton/Muller in UK setting. It's a while since I read them, so I may be misjudging them on that count.
However, the interview itself raises a lot of fascinating issues, including her experience as a guinea-pig in a hot-housing academically pressurised experimental programme at Kirkcaldy High School (shared by Gordon Brown).