Readership was not an early consideration. I tried categorizing Residues after the fact, but it contained elements of multiple genres, and I found it difficult to classify. I understand that with a murder/mystery novel, for instance, a reader expects a body to turn up in chapter one. In Residues this happens in chapter two, although ‘murder’ might be too strong a term.
There is romance; how can there be no love interest? It may not be up to the expectation of romance novels, but it weaves throughout the novel cementing the characters and exposing their strengths and weaknesses. Is there sex? Sure; could a relationship flourish without consummation? But the scenes are not gratuitous and are moderated, and have been included as a device to gain a deeper insight into the characters’ hidden layers. It was a challenge writing love scenes where the strongest term was ‘nipple’. I guess that may not be enough for some, but it’s fitting for Residues. I think it will be easier writing a raunchy love scene between a couple in their twenties, than a tender encounter between a middle-aged couple – there is such a scene in Residues. (I was tempted to read Fifty shades of grey or Lady Chatterley’s lover (apologies for the association), before tackling the love scenes to see how others have dealt with this topic, but resisted. I was cautious it might sway and influence what I had in mind.)
I’m not sure there is much mystery – unless human nature is taken into account. What makes us do certain things; where are our boundaries; why do we cling to concepts we are prepared to die for? Are our morals a fixed, ingrained quantity, or can they adjust and adapt to our circumstances? Should they?
Perhaps ‘literary fiction’ is the closest regarding genre classification in that more time was set aside for character development. Residues was never intended as a commercial undertaking, and I set out writing the book I would enjoy – if it could be categorized or not. I hope others will have a similar, gratifying experience as I have had writing the book.
I came across an interesting perspective Joshua Rothman had written in The New Yorker magazine linked below;



