"Certainly going back to Sherlock Holmes we have a tradition of forensic science featured in detective stories"
About this Quote
Deaver slips a quiet flex into an apparently bland observation: crime fiction has always been in love with lab work, and the genre doesn’t need to apologize for that obsession. By name-checking Sherlock Holmes, he invokes a kind of origin myth - not just for detectives, but for a particular fantasy of detection where intellect beats brute force and where the world, however chaotic, leaves readable traces.
The key move is the phrase “tradition of forensic science featured.” It frames forensics not as a modern gimmick imported by CSI-era television, but as part of detective storytelling’s DNA. That matters because contemporary crime writing often gets split into “character-driven” versus “procedural,” as if evidence and emotion can’t coexist. Deaver, a writer known for clean plotting and technical detail, is defending the procedural as legitimate art: the microscope and the motive belong in the same room.
Subtextually, he’s also nodding to readers’ shifting expectations. Holmes made science feel like stage magic - chemical experiments, ash analysis, the thrill of method. Modern audiences want that same satisfiable click, updated for DNA, databases, and error rates. Deaver’s point isn’t that detective stories predict science; it’s that they domesticate it, turning institutional tools into narrative engines and giving the public a vocabulary for “proof.”
Context: a lineage argument, the kind writers make when the genre gets accused of being too clinical or too formulaic. Deaver answers by widening the timeline: if forensics feels ubiquitous now, it’s because it always worked on us.
The key move is the phrase “tradition of forensic science featured.” It frames forensics not as a modern gimmick imported by CSI-era television, but as part of detective storytelling’s DNA. That matters because contemporary crime writing often gets split into “character-driven” versus “procedural,” as if evidence and emotion can’t coexist. Deaver, a writer known for clean plotting and technical detail, is defending the procedural as legitimate art: the microscope and the motive belong in the same room.
Subtextually, he’s also nodding to readers’ shifting expectations. Holmes made science feel like stage magic - chemical experiments, ash analysis, the thrill of method. Modern audiences want that same satisfiable click, updated for DNA, databases, and error rates. Deaver’s point isn’t that detective stories predict science; it’s that they domesticate it, turning institutional tools into narrative engines and giving the public a vocabulary for “proof.”
Context: a lineage argument, the kind writers make when the genre gets accused of being too clinical or too formulaic. Deaver answers by widening the timeline: if forensics feels ubiquitous now, it’s because it always worked on us.
Quote Details
| Topic | Writing |
|---|
More Quotes by Jeffery
Add to List
