Can You Judge a Book by its Cover?

What makes a great book cover? Is it the title or the graphics? Do you have favorites that you think work?

by Paul D. Marks

You can’t judge a book by its cover, but its cover might just be what draws you into it in the first place. The thing that makes you pluck it off the shelf and crack that cover to see if it’s something you might want to read. So, covers are definitely important.

As to what makes a good book cover, the title or graphics, I think it’s both. An intriguing title makes me want to read something as do mysterious or evocative pictures and graphics. It’s a symbiotic thing, each element works in conjunction with the others to create a whole that, if it’s done well, will grab my attention.

I think the best way to explain is to show this is by comparing different covers of the same book. As many of you know, I like classic crime fiction from the 20th century (that sounds really weird) so let’s take some of those covers and look at them. I’m using some of the books I mentioned in my December 14, 2018 post of year-end book recommendations:
( https://7criminalminds.blogspot.com/2018/12/classic-year-end-reads.html ) .

And I will tell you up front that the pictures pretty much go in the order that they attract me. So on single rows the ones towards the right end are the ones I like better. On double rows the bottom (and more to the right side) are the ones I like better. What attracts me to them? It’s hard to say. It’s an image that evokes some kind of reaction in me. Sometimes it could simply be that the cover that I first read the book under is if not the one I like best at least towards that end. But, I’m not a purist. I don’t necessarily have to go for the original cover or the first cover I saw on a book and often don’t as you’ll see.

So, after you’ve checked out my choices, let us know what you think.

DOUBLE INDEMNITY – JAMES M. CAIN

I don’t really like any of the covers on the top row. The woman in the second from right pic reminds me of Kim Novak in Vertigo, which isn’t a bad thing if it’s a Vertigo cover. On the bottom row I like them better as they go from left to right. Though the last two on the right are pretty much tied for my faves.

 

THE CHILL – ROSS MACDONALD

My favorite Ross Macdonald book is The Chill. Here’s a selection of covers from it. Which one/s do you like? Which one/s suck you in and make you want to at least check the book out without knowing anything else about it.

TAPPING THE SOURCE – KEM NUNN

Another book I like a lot is Tapping the Source by Kem Nunn. Here’s a sampling of covers for that. Again, which ones do you like?

THE RAZOR’S EDGE – SOMERSET MAUGHAM

The Razor’s Edge by Somerset Maugham is my favorite book of all time. I like the last cover because of its ethereal feel.

L.A. CONFIDENTIAL – JAMES ELLROY

L.A. Confidential might be James Ellroy’s best known book, probably because of the movie based on it. I like the original cover and I also like the last shot, which is from the movie.

DOWN THERE / SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER – DAVID GOODIS

Down There, a.k.a. Shoot the Piano Player, is my favorite David Goodis book. Goodis has been called the “poet of the losers” by Geoffrey O’Brien. And, while I like the original cover (2nd to last), I really like the Black Lizard cover (last). I do, however, like the original title, Down There, better than Shoot the Piano Player, which came about because that’s the name of the Truffaut movie based on the book. And I have to say I absolutely hate the cover on the left and I don’t much like the movie either.

MONTE WALSH – JACK SCHAEFER

I don’t read a lot of westerns. But I really like Monte Walsh, the story of a man who’s basically outlived his time. And I really like the last cover here. It’s so evocative of a man alone in the West. A man riding into the sunset.

THE GRIFTERS – JIM THOMPSON

Except for the last cover, the Black Lizard cover, I don’t like any of these other covers. They’re just so cheesy, but not good cheesy.

DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS – WALTER MOSLEY

The book that introduced Easy Rawlins and I’ve been hooked from day one. I really don’t like any of the covers on the top row, though I can tolerate the last two. But the first two just don’t do it for me. All four on the bottom row are fine, but I like them from left to right, the last being my fave, which also happens to be the original cover.

WORLD’S FAIR – E.L. DOCTOROW

I really like this book for a lot of different reasons, but that’s for another post as this is about covers. I like all these covers, except the first one. But my two faves would be the last two on the bottom row.

ASK THE DUST – JOHN FANTE

Another favorite book. If you’re into L.A. at all you have to read this – and maybe its sequels. I like all these covers in descending order except for the first, which I don’t like at all. And though the building in the last one is hardly what Bandini would have lived in in Bunker Hill in the 1930s, the whole ambience of it works for me. And I think the palm tree seals the deal.

WHITE HEAT – UNKNOWN AUTHOR 😉

Okay, I couldn’t resist. And I gotta be honest, I like both of these covers. But ultimately it’s what’s in between them that counts for all of these books.

So, what do you think? What are the ones that speak to you from above? And in general. And why?

~.~.~

And now for the usual BSP:

Dave Congalton of KVEC Radio interviewed me. Check out the podcast here. My part comes in at 20 minutes, 30 seconds into the recording.

***

And Broken Windows has been getting some great reviews. Here's a small sampling:

Kristin Centorcelli, Criminal Element: 

"Although it’s set in 1994, it’s eerie how timely this story is. There’s an undeniable feeling of unease that threads through the narrative, which virtually oozes with the grit, glitz, and attitude of L.A. in the ‘90s. I’m an ecstatic new fan of Duke’s."

"Duke and company practically beg for their own TV show."

John Dwaine McKenna, Mysterious Book Report:

"This electrifying novel will jolt your sensibilities, stir your conscience and give every reader plenty of ammunition for the next mixed group where the I [immigration] -word is spoken!"

Betty Webb, Mystery Scene Magazine:

"Broken Windows is extraordinary."

Please join me on Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.d.marks and check out my website www.PaulDMarks.com

Click here to: Subscribe to my Newsletter

Rules Are Made to be Broken

Grammar – everyone’s gotta do it. How important is grammar and what resources do you use to make sure you’re on top of it. And when do you break grammar rules?

by Paul D. Marks

Grammar is important, obviously. Look at some books and how poorly they’re written. The whole point of grammar is to be able to write sentences that others will understand. That said, sometimes we can break the rules and people will still get the point we’re trying to make. After all, we’re not writing term papers, we’re writing fiction. And we’re not writing fiction in the 19th century, so we write more casually, break more rules. That said, we still need to be able to communicate.

I have a friend who wants to be a writer more than anything in the world. And she constantly shows me her work. But it’s so hard to get through it, partly because of grammar issues, that I end up giving up and not finishing it. You have to have more than a desire to write. Writing is both a craft and an art and you have to get the craft down. And part of the craft is knowing grammar.

Grammar provides the backbone or the foundation for your writing. You have to know it before you can start breaking the rules. And if you break the rules, you have to know what rules you’re breaking and why, for what effect.

You can, indeed, break the rules to create a certain “voice” or style of writing. Or in dialogue to have people talk like real people. I often break the rules of pacing, style, cadence and repetition for emphasis, to create that voice. To that end, I often write in sentence fragments. But I have to go back over everything to make sure I’m not overdoing it or doing it to the point of distraction. One of my favorite writers is James Ellroy, probably most famous for his LA Quartet which includes the book LA Confidential, that many of us know from the movie if not the book itself. As the LA Quartet series of books progressed, Ellroy’s style become more abbreviated. More staccato. At first I liked it. But by the time of White Jazz, the last book in the series, it had gotten to be a little much. And in some books that came after the series it was unbearable, at least for me. So I skipped a couple of his books. Though with his latest, Perfidia, he seems back on track. My point is, you can have too much of a good thing.

The main thing is that you want to have clarity of thought. You want people to be able to understand what you’re saying. To get it. You also want your story to read smoothly, even if it’s written in a staccato style. It shouldn’t be so overwhelming that people stumble through it.

One place where grammar rules don’t necessarily apply is in dialogue, because people don’t necessarily talk in complete, grammatically correct sentences. But dialogue is one of the places where I think people mess up. I see some very well-known writers whose characters often don’t use contractions. But most people do. And when I come across that kind of dialogue it just sounds so formal and takes me out of the story. It makes the characters sound stiff and as if they’re not native English speakers. And this always throws me out of the moment.

So sometimes it’s better to be more nimble than correct. Better not to miss the forest for the trees. In this case the trees are correct grammar but they block our view of the forest as a whole. And maybe it’s best to remember what Mark Twain said about this: “Great books are weighted and measured by their style and matter, and not the trimmings and shadings of their grammar.”

But then there’s Dan Brown, whose writing is atrocious and whose sales are through the roof. So who knows? Throw caution to the wind and the Chicago Manual in the fire.

So, what do I use to make sure I’m on top of it: These days my go-to source is the internet. Various sources of grammar can be found there in abundance. But I still have hard copies of Strunk and White, the Chicago Manual of Style and others. And I do go to them on occasion. There’s also classics like The Transitive Vampire, Eats, Shoots & Leaves and so many others, too many to name.

What are your thoughts and recommendations on this?

***

And now for the usual BSP:

Please check out the interview Laura Brennan, writer, producer and consultant, did with me for her podcast, where we talk about everything from Raymond Chandler and John Fante to the time I pulled a gun on the LAPD and lived to tell about it. Find it here: http://destinationmystery.com/episode-52-paul-d-marks/

www.PaulDMarks.com

Click here to: Subscribe to my Newsletter

To Choose or Not to Choose

Do you prefer reading “classic” mysteries or contemporary mysteries? Why?

by Paul D. Marks

There’s something to be said for both. And sometimes it just depends on my mood. I probably go through periods where I read more classics than contemporary and then vice versa. But overall I probably read more new mysteries these days. And every once in a while I get a strong urge to reread something, particularly by Chandler or Ross MacDonald.


I once heard James Ellroy at a signing, I believe, say he didn’t read his contemporaries in the mystery-crime field because he wanted to do his own thing and not be influenced by them. And also because of the time involved in reading them.

I don’t feel that way. I think it’s good to see what’s going on, what the competition, so to speak, is doing. What they’re talking about, what the trends are, what’s in, etc. But that doesn’t mean I have to, or should, follow those trends or be influenced by them. I like to do my own thing and I guess if there was a report card for this the teacher would check off the box that says “not good at taking direction or following trends.” I’d hope so anyway. I spent many years “taking direction” when doing script rewrites. And one of the reasons I wanted to write fiction is to be my own boss. I understand there are editors and such, but still there’s more freedom here, if not total freedom.

Of my top 3 favorite mystery-crime novelists, two are classics, one is current. Number one with a bullet is Raymond Chandler (big surprise, huh?). Nobody can touch him. It’s like the Beatles for me. As many other rock bands that I love, they are in a class by themselves. Sui generis. I feel that way about Chandler.

My two other faves are Ross MacDonald and James Ellroy. Though I’m not as hot on Ellroy as I was at one time for a variety of reasons. And though he’s not a crime writer, I’m going to include John Fante here because I think his style and tone fit in well with Chandler and Hammett and Cain.

Other current faves are Carol O’Connell, Michael Connelly, Kem Nunn. And other classic faves are David Goodis, James M. Cain, Hammett and Dorothy B. Hughes.

When I read those classics I’m transported to a different time and it satisfies my sense of saudade for times and things that I may not even have experienced. I’ve always had a fantasy of being born in 1920, which would make me old enough for that “film noir” era after the war, as well as the war, of course. The war influenced film noir in many ways, but that’s for another post or maybe a book. And I do remember LA as a kid, when it was still the city that Chandler describes and pieces of which can still be found here and there. So, when I want to visit that time and place I either read books by these classic authors or watch movies set in that era, some filmed then, some filmed today, like LA Confidential.

So why limit yourself to one era or genre? There’s a whole world of great crime fiction out there. More than we’ll ever have time to get to, unfortunately.

***

And now for the usual BSP:

Vortex is on sale in e-form at all the usual places.

And there’s Goodreads Giveaway for Coast to Coast: Murder from Sea to Shining Sea running for a few more days. Maybe win a FREE copy. https://www.goodreads.com/giveaway/show/161413-coast-to-coast-murder-from-sea-to-shining-sea

The Best of Both Worlds

Which is more important, to tell a story that compels readers to turn pages, regardless of writing craft technique OR to spend time on each sentence, on each word, to fine tune your writing so that your prose is admired by critics and scholars?

by Paul D. Marks

I think Susan and Robin really hit the nail on the head in response to this question on Monday and Tuesday. (And since I’m writing this on Tuesday I haven’t yet read the other two Crim Minds, but I’m sure they will too). But I’ll see what I might be able to add to what they said.
There are really two kinds of writers…story tellers and writers.

If you look at Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code – the go-to book for this kind of question – you’d have to assume that good writing doesn’t much matter. Great idea, not so great execution. Did it matter? No. He’s a great story teller, but not a great writer. And poor Mr. Brown, ’cause I know I’m not the only one who uses him as an example. And there’s plenty of others who we could mention here, too. But we all know the story.

Clearly we want readers turning pages. Without that we have nothing. Let’s face it, we’re writing genre fiction. We’re not writing Gravity’s Rainbow, Infinite Jest or other literary works. We want our stories to be entertaining and breezy, with intriguing characters and fast-paced, exciting plots. But what’s wrong with trying to give them a little extra polish in terms of the writing?

We all want our work to be recognized and there’s always that fine line between art and a pure entertainment. But why not go for the best of both worlds?

I find that a lot of the very popular best-selling authors have great stories, but I’m often disappointed because story isn’t everything. Sometimes the writing is flat or other elements like characterization, dialogue and plot are obvious and unoriginal. But they’ve hit on a sort of formula of storytelling that works, but is predictable and boring. And sometimes they might even have good characters and dialog and an exciting plot, but nothing that ‘stirs the soul,’ so to speak. When a book really knocks my socks off, it’s because it has all the elements, great writing, descriptions, dialog, characters and a compelling story and the soul stirring stuff.

James Ellroy seems to have hit that mark of compelling stories as well as being someone who critics like. He developed a distinctive, energetic style in the latter two books of the LA Quartet, LA Confidential and White Jazz. But then he went overboard with that staccato, short-sentence writing to the point where I couldn’t read him anymore. Though I have picked up his latest, Perfidia, and it seems that, while he’s still using that style, he’s toned it down a bit, so hopefully I can start enjoying him again. And if I’ve mentioned this before about Ellroy, sorry if I’m repeating myself.

For my Show and Tell visual example, think of the flat lighting of many TV shows and movies made for TV vs. the more sculptured lighting of theatrical movies. The lighting adds to the atmosphere and in some ways can be a character in itself – just look at any classic film noir from the 1940s.



Well-crafted writing is like the lighting that makes big-screen movies stand out from made-for-TV-movies. Sometimes the same story can seem more magical and rich when produced for the movie theater. Take a look at the original theatrical version of Double Indemnity vs. the TV remake. The latter is flat in lighting and everything else. The lighting creates a mood, just as good writing does.

For myself, I hope my writing is a compelling read and well written. I start off writing a mess of a draft. And in the second draft I start the pruning and adding and fleshing out. That continues for the next couple of drafts. But the later drafts focus more on the fine tuning, where I do try to make sure that the sentences flow and come alive. And that I use the right word. Like Mark Twain said, and I’m paraphrasing, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.”

The bottom line is that a marriage of storytelling and craft is the best of both worlds.

* * * * *

And please join me on Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.d.marks and check out my updated website www.PaulDMarks.com

Subscribe to my Newsletter: http://pauldmarks.com/subscribe-to-my-newsletter/

Hope to you see at the California Crime Writers Conference

 
(http://ccwconference.org/ ). June 6th and 7th. I’ll be on the Thrills and Chills (Crafting the Thriller and Suspense Novel) panel, Saturday at 10:30am, along with Laurie Stevens (M), Doug Lyle, Diana Gould and Craig Buck.

The Good, The Bad and The Bookly!

Is it true that bad books make good movies and good books make bad ones?

There's no hard and fast rule about whether good books make bad movies or bad books make good ones. There's only about a million factors involved, from the screenwriters to the director, the producer, cast and probably even down to the crafts services personnel. And let's not forget the source material.

Books and movies by their natures are very different beasts and require different aesthetics and elements. Movies have to convey a lot of information in a small amount of time, so overly complicated story lines can drag a movie down. Books can handle information in a more leisurely manner, description of places and people are more important, and you can get more into the heads of the characters, examine their thoughts and feelings. A book has to wrap you up inside itself because it can’t rely on a visual picture to get across the look and feel of the characters and settings. And a movie should grab the essence of the book, without necessarily being true to every detail of it (see LA Confidential below). These changes can – on occasion – make the movie better than the book.

So, some good books make good movies and some good books make bad movies. And some bad books make good movies and some make bad movies. Well, of course, nothing is true all the time. And I wouldn't venture a generality, but it works both ways.

It's hard to narrow it down to a few examples as there's so many choices of each combination. And it's also hard to distill down the essence of why this worked and that didn’t, as each one that I've chosen could stand an entire essay on that subject. Here's a sampling, though I'm sure not everyone will agree with my assessments. And I'm sure I'll offend somebody with each one, but here goes (in no particular order):

Spoilers ahead:

In a Lonely Place (Dorothy B. Hughes): Good book, great movie. This is tied for my second favorite movie after Casablanca. I like it for a lot of reasons, but especially the story of the angry and alienated screenwriter. And I know I may offend some people here, Dorothy B. Hughes fans in particular, but for me the movie version is a huge improvement over the book, and I liked the book, but I didn't love it. The book, as I recall it, is a pretty straight-forward serial killer story. The movie takes the basics of the book and adds an ambiguity that leads to a much more bittersweet and poignant story and ending than in the book. So this is a case where the filmmakers did change a certain essence of the story, but it works out for the better. And if you want to hear a really good song based on this movie check out the Smithereens' "In a Lonely Place," which even cops a couple of the film’s most famous lines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro6mucYQeN4

The Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown): Bad book, bad movie. Sometimes bad books make bad movies. I know a lot of people like this, but in my maybe not so humble opinion, the book was very poorly written. It's a prime example of a great idea poorly executed. And the movie didn’t try to break out of the cardboard characters created in the book. It concentrated on remaining relatively faithful to the plot and didn’t stray so the movie remained as weak as the book.

Bonfire of the Vanities (Tom Wolfe): Great book, horrendously horrible, piece of garbage movie: Why? Because, if I recall, as it's been a long time since I've seen it and I won't punish myself with wasting two hours of my life again, the producers didn't have the courage to do the book. The book is filled with various sensitive and controversial elements that deal with race and our perceptions of justice in society and the producers didn't have the courage to do that on the screen, so they turned it into a lame parody of what the book was trying to convey. And the movie was bad on every possible level.

The Godfather (Mario Puzo): Okay book, a fun and quick read, great movie. In fact, one of the greatest American movies of all time. The movie, through great acting, directing, cinematography, a haunting sound track and a terrific screenplay, took a pulpy story about gangsters and made it a saga about family honor, tradition, a way of life and the struggle for the American Dream.  

LA Confidential (James Ellroy): Good book, great movie: Curtis Hanson and Brian Helgeland took Ellroy's sprawling novel, condensed it, pureed it and simplified it, making a tight, cohesive and powerful movie out of it, while still keeping the essence of the novel intact.

Mildred Pierce (James M. Cain): Good, maybe just okay book, good movie (the 1946 version w/ J. Crawford). Here the screenwriters and director took a major liberty with the book. SPOILER AHEAD: In the book the Monte character (Mildred's second husband) does not get murdered. In the movie he does. And this brings more tension, drama and mystery to the movie, without, IMO, messing with the basic integrity of the story line. And while the Kate Winslett mini-series follows the book more closely, to me it was more plodding and in a word, boring. Though I guess I'm in the minority here as on IMDB the Winslett version gets 7.7 out of 10 stars, and the Crawford version 8. So almost a neck and neck tie. Oh well.

The Long Goodbye (Raymond Chandler) – Great book, wretched movie. Okay, I know a lot of people love this movie, think it's some kind of cult classic, etc. To me the only really good thing about it is the location of Marlowe's apartment, the Hightower Apartments in Hollywood, where I once looked into renting a place. Really cool building. But Elliot Gould's Marlowe, despite what some say is a Marlowe for the times (the 1970s), is not Chandler's Marlowe by a long shot. And Chandler was, and probably still is, rolling over in his grave at this one. And now that I've pissed off a bunch of people, I've got the Kevlar helmet and flak jacket ready to take the incoming.

 
And now for a little BSP: in addition to my novel WHITE HEAT, just out is LA LATE @ NIGHT, a collection of noir and mystery short stories. So far available on Amazon for Kindle and in paperback. And other venues shortly too.