It is often accepted as axiomatic that crime fiction is inhe essays

It is often accepted as axiomatic that crime fiction is inhe essays Why is this? What is the relationship between the form of crime fiction and its perceived reactionary status? Use at least two examples in your essay. In this essay I am going to describe how crime fiction is inherently reactionary while I take the counter argument into consideration. I shall be comparing and contrasting Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon and Henning Mankell's Faceless Killers. I shall also speak about the idea of a Hard-Boiled Detective, and how, if at all it applies to the subject matter. Crime fiction is based on the times in which it is written, it is a reflection of the society that it represents. This is, however, not always the case. Crime fiction in the form of movies, for example, in the 1980s, in the Steven Segal series of movies and the Lethal Weapon series shows that the only crimes worth depicting are crimes involving major drug dealers and how one man alone takes them down or in the case of Lethal weapon, two men alone!!! Contrasting Crime Fiction in the form of movies between the 1980s and the 1990s onwards brings with it some differences, in the 90s the hero is not after drug dealers, but instead he is after middle-eastern terrorists who has somehow caused the hero some grief, or inadvertently killed someone close to him. This depiction of Crime Fiction is not reflective of the society in which these movies are set. People do not read books or watch movies about an old lady having her purse stolen or a car speeding on a country lane. Crime fiction is a form of release for the masses in which they can enter into and watch a heroic character solve an insolvable crime or to overcome unbelievable odds in their quest for justice. The masses dont have to think about the outside world as they watch these heros succeed in their quests. The people who come to watch these movies or the ...