Keep in mind that we’re being asked about the critics’ perspective here, not the passage author’s. The critics aren’t comparing the talents of critics and novelists—they’re just commenting on the writing of one novelist, P. D. James. They think James is wrong to abandon the conventions of the detective genre, and should just stick to her lane.

Keep in mind that we’re being asked about the critics’ perspective here, not the passage author’s. The critics aren’t commenting on what critics should or shouldn’t do—they’re saying what P. D. James shouldn’t do. They think she shouldn’t abandon the conventions of the detective genre, and should just stick to her lane.

There’s no reference to the English landed gentry in the passage. The only references to James’s characters are extremely general (she features detectives, murderers, victims, and bystanders), and no one suggests that she should adjust her focus on any of those character types.

The author calls the views of some critics an “inverted snobbery” because those critics accuse James of abandoning the conventions of the detective genre in favor of highbrow literature. Those critics must hold the view that detective fiction writers like James should stick to their lane instead of ambitiously aiming for a highbrow style.

The critics don’t comment on James’s portrayal of violence. They just comment on how she abandons the conventions of the detective genre—conventions like laying out and then solving a mystery. The subject of violence and how it’s portrayed doesn’t come up in the passage.