Tribe has a long interview with Michael Langnas, the editor-in-chief of Murdaland that I recommend. I've been reading my copy of Murdaland off and on since returning from Bouchercon, and so far I've read stories by Anthony Neil Smith, Patricia Abbott, Ken Bruen, Daniel Woodrell, and David Goodis. All top-notch work. If you don't have a copy, you need one.
I don't see Murdaland as a competitor to EQMM or AHMM at all. It's a different kind of publication, a literary magazine that looks a lot like a trade paperback, and it's aiming for a different audience. I see it as more of a complement to the other publications, and I'm really happy that it's around. The more short story markets, the better, I say, and if Murdaland provides a market and a platform for stories that are edgier and more explicit than the ones found in the newsstand magazines, that's great. The first issue lives up that, so check it out.
5 comments:
I don't see Murdaland as a competitor to EQMM or AHMM at all. It's a different kind of publication, a literary magazine that looks a lot like a trade paperback, and it's aiming for a different audience.
Fine, but then what do you think of Langnas' disparaging comments on EQMM and AHMM?
I think he said those things to create a little controversy. He says he's not putting down the writers or the editors, just aiming to be provide an alternative. I know and like both Janet Hutchings and Linda Landrigan, and I've subbed to EQMM for many years. I read stories in both magazines and would be happy to publish in either one.
So would I, though I guess I'd be more in line with EQMM than with Murdaland. :-)
Still, I must admit I have difficulty with the arrogance and sectarianism of some "noir" propagandists. I mean, even Raymond Chandler and Dashill Hammett are not edgy enough for those folks. But then I'm admittedly (and desperately) old-fashioned. Congratulations for your blog.
"Still, I must admit I have difficulty with the arrogance and sectarianism of some "noir" propagandists."
That's pretty funny. They've been thumped from all sides--not literary enough for the literary crowd, not "mystery" eouhg for the mystery crowd. Yet they're "arrogant and sectarian"? I propose that most of the new noir writers I know read very widely and have a strong grasp of the history of not only noir, but the mystery and literary arenas as well. So I can't agree with you that they're "sectarian". But arrogant? Hell, why not? It's fun. I think it's a riot. Literature is filled with legendary feuds that spark debate and fuel the fires of younger writers. Much more interesting work brewing that way rather than when everyone's playing nice.
ANS
I would halfway agree with Xavier here. A lot of noir writers take the genre Very Seriously, and think because it's dark and downbeat that it's superior to cozies.
I would agree with Langnas that it was bad for mystery for the two dominant magazines to publish essentially the exact same type of stories.
Post a Comment