Casting Call: Old Friends

Q:  It's hardest to impress those who know us best. What unexpected acknowledgment have you experienced from folks who knew you way back when?

- from Susan

Note to self: Acquire some people who knew me way back when.

Honestly, other than my two wonderful siblings and an ex-husband, I don’t have connections with people who knew me ‘way back when.’ We moved a lot when I was growing up. I was active but reserved in high school and since my father was the most visible TV newsman in the city, other kids respected my self-protective bubble. College was bifurcated for me and when I went back fulltime, I sometimes had my quiet toddler in class with me. Never went to a class reunion, moved far away right after high school, and, because I was married with a family, never hung out with other students campus. Gee, I sound like a great candidate for the CIA, don’t I?

I had a couple of women friends I met when I worked at Mills College in the 1980s, older than me and mentors before we became good friends, who were really my anchors, the kind of women friends I think some people make in their youth and stay friends with forever. After I left the non-profit world, they were almost as excited as I was when I got an agent and sold my first book. I thanked them in the first couple of books, and am so glad I did. They have both since died and I miss them and the kind of support they gave. Neither were writers so there was never the slightest whiff of competition or envy, and in its place a pride in my getting to that point in my new career. I envy people who have those kinds of friendships going back to childhood or college. I wish Helen and Doris were alive today.

My sister and brother may know be best and they are are proud, but say they’re not surprised that I’ve made it since I have been the writing-est person they’ve known since childhood. My sons are proud and inspired – both are writing fiction now, and they’re talented! My grandkids are almost proprietarily connected to Grandmom’s newest books, and very present in the room at my book signings when they’re in town. Charming and sweet. My fellow authors, including the wonderful Sisters in Crime members, are always there to cheer me on, as I cheer them.

So, I’ve missed some of the unexpected accolades, some of the special relationships that add weight to the acknowledgement of a career success. Truth is, most people who have known me at all know that I’m a born writer. Which is a good thing, given that I’m not a born mathematician, singer, artist, carpenter, or waitress – all talents I admire and skills I don’t possess in any measure.

Buy Me!

Authors are increasingly expected to shoulder the time and expense of book marketing and promotion. When was/is enough finally enough? Where do you draw the line and why?

From Jim

I’m not sure where to draw the line. You can only control so much of the promotional side of the business. For me, the most important aspect is selling yourself. We’ve got to get out there in front of readers. And the best place to find new readers is at writers conferences. Follow these simple guidelines and you too can win yourself lots of fans.

At the Conference

(Photo removed)

If you’re lucky enough to be assigned to a panel, remember that the microphone is to be shared.The same does not apply for awards.

Don’t drink from the water glasses on the table. If the organizers have provided bottled water, you may drink it provided you’ve opened it yourself.

Avoid talking politics. Stick to safe topics such as religion or which of your fellow panelists is a hack.

Resist the urge to be funny. You’re not. At least not on purpose.

Wear pants. Someone might inadvertently lift the table skirt. I’m not falling for that one again. (Bill Fitzhugh knows what I’m talking about...)

Don’t snort when the author to your right mispronounces Gillian Flynn’s name.

Don’t forget to remind the audience that the villain is the hero of his own story. This is a sine qua non on every panel.



Face-to-Face Interaction

At conferences, panels, signings, and even in the bar, assume everyone is looking at you. That means no picking of noses, scratching of rears, or staring of daggers across a crowded room at that writer whose success you so begrudge.

Smile. People like happy people. But if smiling’s not your thing, don’t force it. You’ll end up creeping people out. And definitely don’t smile if you’re a drooler. Come to think of it, forget about smiling altogether. Just assume a neutral expression.

Talk. Nobody ever sold books by keeping silent. That said, don’t monopolize the conversation, the microphone, or the oxygen. A conversation requires a give and take, a back and forth between two people. Otherwise it’s a versation.

Ask. Ask questions of the person whose ear you’ve been chewing off about your magnum opus. Everyone likes to feel included (read drone on about themselves, too). Whether it’s a potential reader or a fellow writer, give them the floor from time to time and catch your breath.

And finally, listen. Listen to what that person twaddling at you is saying. You can communicate your interest, genuine or feigned, in a variety of ways.

Focus your eyes on her. And—this should go without saying—I mean her face, guys.

Throw in a well-timed cock of the head. This creates the illusion that you are intelligent and weighing the merits of your interlocutor’s thesis. Even though you’re not.

Utter an occasional “really?” or “you don’t say.” Your long-winded interlocutor will appreciate these verbal fillers. They demonstrate that you are indeed still conscious but not threatening to turn the subject back to yourself.

And, most important, resist the urge to look around for someone better to tell about your book. Unless you spot Lawrence Block or someone like that. Then it’s okay to ditch.

I can’t tell you how other authors do it, but follow these rules and I promise you’ll be on your way to the New York Times bestseller list. Guaranteed. (Individual results may vary.)

Making money and spending time

Authors are increasingly expected to shoulder the time and expense of book marketing and promotion. When was/is enough finally enough? Where do you draw the line and why?

by Dietrich Kalteis

The way I see it, promotion is part of effective marketing. Along with the marketing efforts that my publisher puts in, there are the promotional things I do: speaking engagements, writer events, interviews, podcasts, book launches and tours. Updating my website, writing blogs, soliciting reviews and keeping a presence on social media are all part of it. I haven’t tried book marketing services so I won’t talk about them. And I haven’t tried building a list for newsletters, but I think it could be a good way to update and inform readers. Paul D. Marks has a good one that he sends out regularly.

Attending crime fiction conventions and festivals can be costly, but what a great way to network with writers and readers alike. It’s always fun chatting with readers of the genre, and what a fun and supportive bunch those who write about the most heinous things can be. 

Sometimes it’s hit or miss, and the efforts to promote a book don’t pay off like expected. I’ve taken part in some successful book events with great turnouts, but it’s often hard to predict the outcome. Last year I traveled with a carload of author buddies to a reading engagement several hours away, and when we arrived there were more authors than audience. Okay, we didn’t sign a lot of books that day, but we had a great road trip and a lot of fun, and if there’s ever a chance to do it again, sign me up. 

While some things should be obvious — begging readers and stalking agents is out. And nobody needs to tell me to avoid those marketing gimmicks like websites where, for just a few dollars, somebody will sing praises about my book while hula hooping in pasties and a G-string. Other things may be less obvious, like checking that a book’s metadata is right. It’s what internet search engines use to list entries. 

Where do I draw the line on marketing and promotion? That’s easy. It’s not just about making money, but of spending time. If too much of my focus is on marketing and promoting then who’s writing the books? So, while I do my bit, I avoid becoming distracted by anything that keeps me from writing. And that’s the best effort of all, writing a book worth marketing and promoting, earning some good reviews, building a body of work and gaining an audience. 

And while we’re on the subject of marketing and promotion, I’ll mention the German version of The Deadbeat Club, called Shootout, will be out on May 7th through Suhrkamp, translated by Susanna Mende. Also, my sixth novel Poughkeepsie Shuffle will be released September 11th by ECW Press. Then I’ve got a short story called “Bottom Dollar” in Vancouver Noir, a crime anthology by Akashic Books, edited by Sam Wiebe and coming November 1st. Oh, and if you’re in the Vancouver area, our next Noir at the Bar has a great lineup of authors and is set for May 2nd.

An Unusual Thriller

Our challenge this week was to write a jacket cover for a famous work of fiction as if it were a novel in the mystery genre. I changed it a bit to write it as a review rather than a synopsis.

The reviewer today is Terry Shames, who tackled a thriller that the crime-reading public has awaited with great interest:

ow better to prove Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy’s  chops as a top-notch thriller writer than with his new sprawling, muscular epic, War and Peace. Spanning across Russia during the Napoleanic invasion of 1812,  this historical mystery bounces the reader back and forth between the stultifying, intensely boring life of parties and flirtations that is peace, and the scintillating, riveting drama of a ghastly war. During the war segments the reader may find herself wandering in a fog, much like Tolstoy depicted the Russian soldiers in before a major battle with the French—except that their fog is real, adding to the intense question of exactly what Tolstoy is up to.

Within these confines, we become acquainted with characters who alternately puzzle us and endear us—but all of whom have secrets. Is Natasha simply a world-weary ingénue looking for a man? Or is she a spy? And what of Nikolai? Is he really worried about being a coward as he goes into battle, or is Tolstoy merely toying with the reader? And then there is Andre, driven to acts of supreme sacrifice…but by what, exactly? Is he a patriot? Is he insane? Or just eaten up with the desire for glory and fame? But most intriguing of all is the character Pierre. A seemingly hapless intellectual who professes his admiration for the enemy’s leader, Napolean Bonaparte, Pierre falls in thrall to an international conspiracy. I won’t spoil the fun for the reader by revealing what the group is up to, but trust me before the novel ends, you will be more baffled than ever.

In a quote that will tell you what the heart of the novel is about, the author inserts himself into the book long enough to opine, “A Russian is self-assured just because he knows nothing and does not want to know anything, since he does not believe that anything can be known.” Tolstoy uses the thriller genre to great effect to illustrate this trope. One of the great questions of the book is whether the reader will know anything by the end.

In an aside, this reviewer would advise Mr. Tolstoy to stick to using English names in future attempts, as Russian names are too damned hard to follow. And one further note of caution: Count Tolstoy, commonly known as “Leo” would do well to find himself a good editor. He’ll find that many people will be put off by the book’s length, 1350 pages, and its weight, a little more than two pounds, making it a difficult bathtub read.

Just before this went to press, we were advised that Count Tolstoy intends to write another thriller, as yet unnamed about a woman, Anna Karenina, who comes to a bad end. We’ll be waiting to see if Tolstoy is able to pull off a thriller with a woman as a main protagonist. It will be interesting to see what kind of strength she brings to a genre that depends highly on physical prowess.

Character Archetypes: The Comfort Food of Writing

Which crime fiction archetype do you find truly essential to the genre? Which would you like to see retired for a while? 

Note: Instead of a Jungian interpretation, I'm going for something crime fiction related, e.g. introspective gumshoes, screaming police superiors, alcoholic ex-investigators, reluctant detectives, that sort of thing. 

by Paul D. Marks

Which crime fiction archetype is essential?

Archetypes are a funny thing. On the one hand they’re familiar. They allow us to get into a story quickly and relate to the characters. We know them, without having to be told a lot about them, at least initially. You know, the dreaded info dump. It’s like comfort food only comfort characters. So that’s a good thing. On the other hand, archetypes can become hackneyed and clichéd. And therefore lifeless and dull. Predictable. So it’s a fine razor’s edge (my favorite book btw) that one has to walk to keep that from happening.

For me the noir anti-hero, who’s been kicked to the gutter and comes back for more, is one of the essential crime fiction archetypes. I think it’s something that most people can relate to on some level – we’ve all been down, though hopefully not to the extent of a noir protagonist. And I think this is one of the things that draws people to crime fiction in the first place – we want to root for the underdog (even if we know s/he’s doomed as is the case with most true noir “heroes”). We want to believe that people can be redeemed and can come back from the lowest point and fight for justice, even if they never achieve that justice. It’s the human struggle that we all understand.

David Goodis and Jim Thompson are two of my favorite noir writers. Okay, neither is very original or out of the box, but good is good (and Goodis is Goodis). And both often write about people on the skids, who often don’t stop skidding and even if they do they never really get back to a place of normalcy. Even Walter Mosley’s Easy Rawlins is someone who’s constantly fighting to maintain his place in the world. In Nightmare Alley, by William Lindsay Gresham, Stanton Carlisle truly falls from grace (if he ever really attainted it) and the ending of the book is much more noir than the movie. And so many more.

***

Which would I like to see retired?  

I can think of a few but the main one that bugs the $^%@&*# out of me is the investigator that magically pulls rabbits out of hats. They bombard us with red herrings and then out of nowhere they have some clue so obscure that Miss Marple, Sherlock Holmes, J. Edgar Hoover and the dataminers at Facebook couldn’t find it in a Google search (and, as we know, they know everything about everyone and everything) and – voila! – crime solved. I’m not sure if this is really an archetype or not, but it drives me nuts.

Along with the above and often in the same corporeal body is the busy-body amateur who’s always there when someone’s murdered! If you’re a neighbor or friend of this person, you better get all your affairs in order ’cause you’re probably not long for this world. I mean …come on… how can one person run into so many crimes in such a small space? Or if not a small space everywhere they go.

Jessica Fletcher comes to mind. Everywhere she goes: dead bodies. She’s the Typhoid Mary of Murder. One can understand this in the case of a cop or a P.I. as they deal with crime and criminals on a regular basis. But she’s neither. She’s a middle-aged, middle class (maybe upper class) woman in a small town, and a writer to boot (how many dead bodies have you come across in your writing career or any career if you’re not in law enforcement or a first responder?). I’m surprised there’s anyone left in Cabot Cove at all. Maybe she kills them so she has something to write about for her books ;-) . – And don’t get on my case about her, I’m just kiddin’ around. The show is fine. She’s fine. You’re fine…just as long as you’re not in the same state as her.

But, all that said, I think a writer can make any archetype work if they make the character fresh and don’t rely on trite character ticks. I used to teach a class on screenwriting and would tell my class that “character” is not smoking a stogie or picking their nose with a .38 (as a producer once put it to me), it’s their actions and the choices they make. So go ahead and have your character wear a deer stalker hat, but let them do something that grabs our attention and makes us say ‘wow’ that’s original.

What are the archetypes you think are essential and which should be retired?

###

And now for the usual BSP:

My Shamus-winning novel, White Heat, is being reissued in May by Down & Out Books. It’s available for pre-order on Amazon.  Release date is May 21, 2018:

Check out my website: www.PaulDMarks.com

Click here to: Subscribe to my Newsletter

~.~.~.~

...And now for even more blatant BSP:

There’s still time to nominate for the Anthony Awards if you haven’t already voted. Ballots are due by April 30, 2018.

I have four stories eligible for Best Short Story and one book for the Best Anthology category:

“Windward” – Coast to Coast: Private Eyes from Sea to Shining Sea (and as a note: this story has been selected by Louise Penny and Otto Penzler for The Best American Mysteries of 2018).

“Bunker Hill Blues” – from the Sept./Oct. 2017 Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine – now available to read on my web page: http://pauldmarks.com/stories.The others you gotta buy – but, hey, support mystery publishers.

“Blood Moon” – from the Day of the Dark anthology, Wildside Press, Kaye George, editor

“Twelve Angry Days” – from the May/June 2017 Alfred Hitchcock Mystery Magazine

Coast to Coast: Private Eyes from Sea to Shining Sea – for Best Anthology. Edited by Andrew McAleer and me. From Down & Out Books.

Hopefully you’ll have time to check out my stories, as well as others. Thanks!

***

My Dear Watson

"Are there archetypes in crime fiction you wouldn't be without? Are there any you'd happily never meet again?"

By Catriona

I do love a sidekick. Holmes' Watson, Poirot's Hastings, Wimsey's Bunter, Myron's Win . . . the supporting character saves us ploughing through a lot of internal pondering and delivers instead my favourite element in any novel: dialogue.

"I wondered how much longer I could spin out this one drink, when the barman would swipe the glass with its puddle of ice-water out from my grip and show me the door."

OR

"Don't drink so fast."
"We're on expenses."
"Who pays the expenses, genius? Oh God, here comes the barman. Spit those ice-cubes out and let them melt."
"I'll share them if you don't stop bugging me."

I know which I prefer.

Some traditional sidekicks bumble and make the hero look even more dashing and heroic (Hastings and Watson himself), some do the technical stuff that's never going to make a scene sizzle (Bunter with his camera and his insufflator), and some do the dastardly deeds that might need done but which would tarnish the hero's halo beyond all re-buffing. Win, in Harlan Coben's Myron Bolitar series, is a psychopath by any way of reckoning. He's got a little wart on his psychopathy, granted, in that he loves Myron. But for the rest of us, who're not Myron? I'd rather spill Tony Soprano's drink than Windsor Horne Lockwood III's. Wouldn't you?

In my own writing, Dandy Gilver's sidekick, Alec Osborne, does the dull bits and spars with the heroine but he's not a bumbler. They get a pretty fair share of the lightbulb moments each (I think), and their crotchety, competitive, nearly good-humoured dialogues are the most fun I ever have writing these books.

When I started a new series (SCOT FREE: out in the US this Sunday!) it was supposed to be an ensemble piece. There's the heroine, Lexy Campbell, and six more people - wait, seven - who she befriends at the outset of her first case, when she checks into the Last Ditch Motel. By about a third of the way through, one of the seven had become her Watson.  And looking back now, it was inevitable from the get-go. Lexy meets Todd when he barges into her motel room, demanding that she help him dispose of a spider.

“Tis gone,” I said, coming back into my own room. Todd was under the covers again.

“I heard the faucet. Did you just wash it down the plughole? Because they come back.”

“I didn’t just wash it away,” I told him. “It’s dead.”

“What did you- No! Don’t tell me! But what did you- No!”

“It’s not out the window. It’s not in your bin. It’s not over the rail. It’s not back here with me. It’s gone.”

“Gone where? Don’t tell me!”

“Okay,” I said. “Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go. I need to bail a friend out of jail this morning and I’m running late.”

“Would you like to borrow a hat?” said Todd.

‘It’s too hot to wear a hat,” I said.

“Hot?” said Todd. “It’s not going to be hot today. I’ll get a hat for you,” he added, standing. “The judge is never going to let your friend walk free with your hair like that."

He's got a big heart, a big brain, a lot of free time, a car, and absolutely no boundaries. He's the perfect sidekick. I know I shouldn't say this about a character I wrote, but I love him.

Now, to the second half of the question. I was going to say I found "will-they-won't-they" a bit played out, but then I remembered Robert Galbraith's novels (three and tapping my foot: where's the fourth?). They've got a terrific hero in the shambling, ex-army misfit, Cormoran Strike, but I find Robin just as compelling and the relationship between the two has breathed new life into the venerable crime-fiction trope of unresolved sexual tension. The genius of the Strike novels is that none of the tension is in the characters. They're just offered to us: Strike with his horrible ex, and his ill-judged one-night stands; Robin with her passive-aggressive fiance and her kindness. It's us, the readers, who're screaming at them to go for it. Maybe it's just me. But I'm screaming pretty loud.

Everything old is.... by Cathy Ace

Craft: Which crime fiction archetype do you find truly essential to the genre? Which would you like to see retired for a while?

Having been briefed to not use a Jungian interpretation of the word “archetype” for this blog, I shall also add that I will also do my best (WARNING: it’s going to happen however hard I try!) to avoid alluding to the work of Canadian Northrop Frye, who was instrumental in developing an at-the-time revolutionary understanding of literary criticism, placing at the center of his “archetypical criticism” the idea of a framework of shared mythology lying behind any “current” ideology that might be expressed.

I should also tell you – by way of full disclosure – that I studied literature at university, until I was completely turned off by a tutor whose almost-manic espousal of the Cambridge Critics’ approach led me to change my specialism from literature and philosophy to psychology and sociology. I’m glad I did, because it allowed me to seek to understand the human condition on my own terms – then interpret it in my writing – rather than spending years critiquing how others wrote about it, with no suitable background knowledge: a process of literary criticism based upon linguistics, sociological, psychological and philosophical insights needs an understanding of those very issues…so I decided to start there, rather than with the criticism itself.

To be clear, when it comes to archetypes I’m talking about the slutty femme fatale who'll do anything to get what she wants...which usually involves the use then downfall of a man;  or the divorced cop/PI with a drinking/smoking/etc. problem who, nevertheless, pursues justice at all costs; busy-body sleuths who are actually motivated by an overwhelming sense of right vs wrong, and are determined to see that those who do wrong are punished; the brilliant if eccentric investigator who bobs and weaves through complex puzzle plots, often seeming to want to solve them for the sake of the puzzle not the victim...and so forth. 

And, to answer today’s question – I like them all, and believe they are all as necessary today as they have ever been. And when I say “have ever been”, what I mean is they have always been there, since the earliest mythologies.

Why do I like them all?

I see these archetypes as being the benchmarks against which readers read, and I believe we authors write with them in mind, write around them, and write against them as we craft our tales, and the people who populate them. We cannot ignore them, because they are so deeply entrenched in our crime-fiction-fan minds that they are a constant reference point.

As an author, I constantly refer to our collective understanding of archetypes, and I don’t think any of them need to be retired because…what’s the point? They still exist in every reader’s mind, even when they aren’t on the page, and each reader has enough choice of authors and titles available to them to avoid any that irk them, personally.

To be honest, I believe many readers are drawn to archetypes, because they allow for so much character-based storytelling to be dealt with in what’s effectively a “shorthand”, allowing the author and the reader to work in cahoots…until, maybe, the author throws a twist into the tale to delight the reader…which, in itself, usually uses the “rules of archetype” to allow the twist to be a twist.

Good writers give us new interpretations of archetypes; the best writers nuance them to the extent we can even see a potentially new archetype emerge. But even then – even if they manage that – the benchmarks are still there. 

You can find out more about Cathy, her work and her characters at her BRAND NEW website, where you can also sign up for her newsletter with news, updates and special offers: http://cathyace.com/