Almost

by Pari

My holiday present to the kids this year was a trip to Sitting Bull Falls in southern NM. We hopped into the car on Friday and drove more than 360 miles — through Socorro, San Antonio, Carrizozo, Roswell, Artesia — all the way to Carlsbad, but it was too late to try to get to the falls. We stayed in Artesia and headed to the falls nice and early on Saturday. And, guess what? They were closed. Yep. Even though the local guide book said they’d be open.

We would’ve had to wait for almost 2 hours and we just didn’t feel like we could afford the time. We also didn’t feel like we wanted to pay a $1500 fine if we got caught going in and there was a ranger nearby (which there probably would be).  However, the drive had been gorgeous.

We got to see what I assume to be was Sitting Bull rock.

A lot of other rocks.

And some pretty funky flora.

Yesterday, we drove from Artesia, through Mayhill, Cloudcroft, Alamogordo, Tularosa to Socorro. This morning we were going to head out and take the very long way home via Datil, Pie Town, Quemado and Grants . . . but I had a flat tire and though I got it repaired (and that was a really nice story, but I’ll save it for another time), I just didn’t want to be 200 miles from the nearest phone transmitter.

The reason for this travelogue is that in driving more than 800 miles during the last few days, we had a lot of potential disappointments. But they didn’t end up being bummers because we were having such fun on the trip.

A few years ago I would’ve been so upset at not getting into Sitting Bull Falls. I would’ve felt like it was my fault. In so many ways, that also sums up my writing career. I aimed for a particular direction and for years was devastated that I didn’t achieve that goal. But you know what? I’m in a much better place in life than I was a few years ago. I’m going to start writing again during this break and I don’t care if a million people read or buy my work. I want to write because in long run, it does bring me joy.

It’s all about the journey, baby.

May yours this holiday season and into the New Year be sweet, healthy and filled with unanticipated pleasure.

Apocalypse Not

by Alexandra Sokoloff

Yay!  I get the Apocalypse post! 

I know, I shouldn’t joke, the day is young… but apparently they all survived in New Zealand and Australia, so I’m optimistic.

Actually this end of the world is turning out to be a lot less viral than the one with the crazy – or Really Media-Savvy – preacher last year. Maybe we just had too much lead time on the aptly named Mayan Long Count – sort of the way I feel about hurricanes as opposed to earthquakes, actually. There’s so much anticipation to a hurricane that by the time it hits, no matter how much of a disaster it really is you’re already emotionally burned out on it. Earthquakes, you get all your adrenaline rush at once.

More likely, though, we’re all too numb from our two most recent real-life end of the world tragedies, Superstorm Sandy, and the Sandy Hook massacre that Gar and PD have so eloquently posted about this week, to be able to make light of any theoretical apocalypse. It feels like we’ve had it. 

And then there’s just the ordinary anxiety of the holidays. The first day of January is really just one day after the last day of December, so why do we put all this pressure on the END of one year and the BEGINNING of another?

A better way to look at it would be that we get to let all of the baggage of the old year go and start over fresh. Maybe some people do do that and I’m just late to that party.

I think a lot of my Christmas anxiety is because my tendency is ALWAYS to think I’m not doing enough, and the end of the year brings that out (What did you DO all year, anyway?). So today I’m going to go back over my year to remind myself I got a hell of a lot done, and even enjoyed myself doing it. (Sort of like Facebook is encouraging us all to do now with some app about our 2012 Year in Review highlights.  If someone could tell me how Facebook knows what the highlights of my year were, I’d be grateful.)

But these were my own highlights, in relative order.

E books have been good to me. I got my backlist up; every one of my books is now available for the infinitely reasonable prices of $2.99 or $3.99, and I’m thrilled to have more control over my writing schedule, release schedule, and book pricing, not to mention a regular, understandable, and perfectly livable income.

I launched a new series, my first direct-to-e thriller, Huntress Moon, which instantly became an Amazon bestseller in mysteries and police procedurals, and I’m thrilled to report that it made Suspense Magazine’s list of Best Books of 2012.

Writing the series is giving me a chance to get reacquainted with all my favorite places in California, where I’m living again, though I’m still unsure if I’m going to settle in the Bay Area or the Los Angeles area. I love them both! I’m loving the research, though, and Book Two in the series, Blood Moon, will be out in late January or early February. 

My dear friends Heather Graham, Harley Jane Kozak and I had a blast co-writing the next installments in our paranormal mystery series The Keepers; this time we took the series to L.A., and the new books come out in January, March and May.  

I’ve also been teaching a film class in L.A. – basically I screen my favorite movies and talk all the way through them, raving about all the visual excellence and story structure brilliance. And they call this working! Such a scam!

This summer I was the keynote speaker at the Romance Writers of Australia National Conference on the Gold Coast, and had a wonderful time teaching my Screenwriting Tricks for Authors workshop and doing panels on e books and writing paranormal suspense with all those crazy Aussies.  Then my friend Elle Lothlorien and I did a wild road trip down to Sydney, driving on the wrong side of the road and leveling – I mean visiting – every beach city along the way.  Love the country, love the people, want to go back as soon as possible.

 

Then I came back and put my house on the market (meaning two months of the worst kind of emotionally fraught prep), and it’s currently “under contract”, so a lot of the beginning of my 2013 is going to be house-hunting. If I can ever narrow the prospective location down from just “somewhere in the world, possibly California.”

 

Throughout the year I did my usual insane conference traveling, with appearances at Left Coast Crime, Romance Writers of America National Conference, Romance Writers of Australia National Conference, the ever –inspiring Bouchercon – and I just returned from paneling, performing, and dancing the night away at Heather Graham’s Writers for New Orleans, my favorite conference in my favorite city, which is just as fabulous at Christmas as it is every other time of year. (French Quarter photo with Chantelle Osman and Elle Lothlorien)

 

Somewhere in there I did an entire website overhaul: designed by the fabulous Madeira James of Xuni.com. 

– I’ve also embraced Facebook as the virtual cocktail party it really can be. This might not sound like an accomplishment, but promotion and networking is a fact of life for authors, and to find a way to do that that feels a little like taking a break to hang out at the conference bar with witty and like-minded friends – without ever leaving my chair – is pretty damn cool, if you ask me.  

Not only that, but – even though I didn’t quite get Blood Moon finished (finished in my definition of the word) for a December release – I’ve put together a boxed set of three of my spooky thrillers called Haunted. Anyone who doesn’t already have these books can now get them all for just $5.99, and give themselves or special friends nightmares for days! 

 Buy now on Amazon.

 

And to bring this back to the end of the world: I have a brand new anthology out this weekend: Apocalypse: Year Zero, with four end-of-the-world novellas by me and my award-winning dark fantasy friends Sarah Langan, Sarah Pinborough, and Rhodi Hawk. We cover 9/11, tsunamis, Hurricane Katrina, and The Big One, as well as, in no particular order, Hollywood, sex, rage, and the Four Horsemen, who turn out to be not men at all.  (Nook link to come shortly…)

On Amazon

So if tomorrow you wake up, are still here, and feel cheated out of your Apocalypse, no worries – we’ve got you covered.

Okay, I bet you know the question of the day!  What were the highlights of your 2012?

Or if that’s too personal, let’s talk Apocalypse.  What are some of your favorite Apocalypse stories, in any media?  Yes, I am already missing The Walking Dead… and since I just got back from Australia, I’m thinking The Last Wave…

And don’t forget – today is not just the end of the world, it’s also the winter solstice, a very powerful day for manifestation. Make a wish.

Alex

Gun laws in Australia

By PD Martin

For any regular visitors to Murderati, it’s difficult if not impossible to follow up from Gar’s post yesterday. I had been contemplating two subjects for my blog today — both very different from one another (one was ‘failure’ and what it means and the other was my complete inability to get Christmas cards out on time…actually maybe they are related). However, I didn’t feel that either of those subjects was a fitting ‘follow-on’ from Gar’s amazing post.

So, I’m sticking with the theme by talking about Australian gun laws. I guess as a way of saying ‘this is what it would look like’ if America ever did change its (wicked) ways. Plus Gar’s post inspired me to explore things a little more.

The first thing I discovered was that Aussie gun laws have gone through a massive change — and it was in response to a spree killing. Specifically, in 1996 gun laws were reviewed following the Port Arthur Massacre. I should say, that gun control wasn’t really on the radar in Australia before that, because we’ve always had a relatively low violent crime rate plus we have a long history of low firearm use and gun legislation (off and on, and different for the different states). However the state laws were aligned via the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. But the fact that gun laws haven’t been a constant source of debate does make us very different to America.

Here’s what it’s like in Australia. I’ll start with a personal experience.

I grew up in Melbourne (population 4.1 million, Australia’s second largest city) and had never seen or held a gun until I went to a firing range as research for my Sophie novels. So I was thirty-five years old the first time I saw a gun. Could this be said for many Americans?   

According to Wikipedia, 5.2% of Australians currently own a gun. Under the current legislation, you must get a license to purchase a gun, and there’s a mandatory 28-day delay before the first permit is issued. You also must have a “genuine reason” to own a gun and it must be related to pest control, target shooting, hunting, etc. Self defense is NOT considered a genuine reason.

According to Wikipedia, 25% of Americans currently own a gun and about half of the entire population has lived in a household with a gun. This is something I can barely comprehend. So how many thirty-five year olds in America would never have even seen a gun? Not many, I guess. If any.

And in terms of firearms related deaths? Again from Wikipedia, in the US there were 3.7 homicides and 6.1 suicides using firearms per 100,000 people (2009) and in Australia it was 0.09 homicides and 0.79 suicides per 100,000 people (2008).

For most Australians, guns just aren’t part of our lives. We don’t own them, don’t see them, don’t want them. And I guess that’s why it’s hard for us to understand the debate in the US.

You might also be interested to know what happened in 1996 when Australia’s gun laws changed. I haven’t been monitoring how far the discussions are going in the US, but I assume people are talking about how, if gun laws were changed, you could get all the guns out of circulation. Well, this is how it worked in Australia.  It was simple: gun owners had a certain amount of time to hand in their weapons and they got money in exchange. This from Wikipedia: “Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.[23] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns.” (By the way, Medicare is our national healthcare system, and it was increased from 1.5% of your wage to 1.7% for the 1996 tax year.)

I guess it would be rude and probably naïve of me to say: ‘See America, that’s how it’s done.’ Not to mention inflammatory. We are very different countries with different histories. But from the outside looking in, it’s hard not to feel disbelief at America’s gun laws and attitudes. I’m not saying Australia is perfect — it’s not. And it’s with great shame personally and as a nation that we have to claim one of the world’s worst spree killings – Port Arthur. However, I do think we’re at least pointing in the right direction.

I’m proud that I’d never seen a gun until I was thirty-five. Proud that I don’t know anyone who owns a gun. And as a mother, I’d prefer my children to have similar experiences. I think it would be great if they only see a gun if they become a crime fiction author and need to do some research. What about you?

DECEMBER 14, 2012

by Gar Anthony Haywood

There’s an elephant in the room, and its name is “Newtown.”

Sure, I could pretend it isn’t there.  Post something today similar to all my other posts in the past, an essay on writing or the writer’s life that would amuse or inform but say nothing whatsoever about the nightmare we’ve all been living since last Friday.  But I’m not going to do that.  This seat I have at the Murderati round table is an opportunity to contribute to the discussion we as citizens of this great nation must have, and have now, regarding responsible gun ownership, if we are to avoid such horrific events in the future, and hell if I’m not going to take advantage of it.

We authors here at Muderati, as the blog’s very name implies, write about murder every day.  To varying degrees, death is our stock in trade.  Whether we write about single-victim crimes of passion or serial killers who claim multiple lives, we are all deliberately counting on the perverse thrill readers find in the act of one person murdering another to sell books, so being silent on the subject of the Newtown massacre, as if we are wholly unqualified to discuss such matters, would seem somewhat cowardly to me.  None of us have all the answers — we barely know all the questions — but I’m certain each of us has some idea why those 26 people — 20 of them small children — died in Newtown, Connecticut, last week, and what we can do — what we must do — to try and make it the last tragedy of its kind on American soil.

I’ve decided to couch my statement, such as it is, in the form of a point-by-point response to what I believe is the general attitude most intelligent, reasonable gun rights advocates have toward this crisis, based upon the online comments I’ve seen some make on Facebook and elsewhere.  That attitude goes something like this:

  1. First and foremost, our thoughts and prayers go out to the families who lost children in the Sandy Hill Elementary School shooting.  No one grieves for those kids or their parents more than we do.
  2. However, what happened in Newtown, Connecticut last Friday was not about guns.  It was about mental illness.
  3. No gun control law could have prevented this tragedy.
  4. Further, no gun control law can ever guarantee that such terrible events will not occur in the future.
  5. Gun control laws only serve to inhibit the ability of law-abiding citizens to secure weapons of self-defense.  Properly motivated, criminals and the mentally disturbed will always find ways to arm themselves.
  6. Any attempt by the government to limit the kind of weapons a U.S. citizen can legally acquire is an infringement upon our Constitutional right to bear arms, and should be viewed as the first step down the slippery slope that inevitably leads to tyranny.
  7. We can’t allow the emotions of the moment to spur us into taking legislative actions we may regret later.
  8. As tragic and heartbreaking as the deaths of 20 innocent children are, this is a relatively small price to pay for the freedoms our Founding Fathers granted us.

To which I would reply:

  1. I’m quite sure this is true.
  2. Actually, it was about mental illness combined with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns: a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.  All legally purchased by the shooter’s mother, who needed such an arsenal for self-defense like Donald Trump needs a home equity loan.
  3. Prevented?  Perhaps not.  But a ban on the AR-15 — such as that which was in effect until 2004, when Congress repealed it — would have gone a long way toward making this tragedy infinitely less deadly.
  4. Can we please stop talking about gun control as if it has to eliminate every gun-related homicide for all time in order to serve any purpose?  Traffic laws don’t prevent all speed-related accidents, but surely we can agree that our streets are a hell of a lot safer with such laws in effect.  Merriam-Webster defines “control,” in part, as “to reduce the incidence or severity of especially to innocuous levels.”  Get it?  Gun control is about the reduction of gun-related crime, not the eradication of it.  Opposing any form of gun control on the grounds it can’t accomplish the impossible is both foolish and indefensible.
  5. Again, sensible gun control laws aren’t designed to keep guns out of the hands of every bad person who wants one — they’re simply designed to make the task of acquiring a gun as difficult as possible for criminals and the mentally unstable.  Sure, a highly motivated nutcase could probably find someone somewhere to sell him an illegal handgun, but not with the ease of going down to his local gun show and picking one off the shelf, no questions asked.  Gun control laws create layers of complexity in the process of acquiring a firearm that not every criminal or would-be murderer is up to dealing with.  Dissuading those who would use a gun to harm others from seeking one out is the logical first step in preventing gun-related homicides, and it shouldn’t be dismissed as ineffectual simply because its reach is not absolute.
  6. I don’t want to say this is paranoid bullshit, but it’s paranoid bullshit.  Every law ever enacted could potentially lead to a slippery slope; slippery slopes are everywhere if one cares to look for them.  Our government is imperfect, and it deserves something far less than our unquestioning trust, but staying up at night worrying about it becoming an authoritarian gulag any time soon is the rational equivalent of wearing a colander on your head to keep the Martians from reading your thoughts.  While you fret over being ever-vigilant for the first signs of democracy’s decay, kindergartners are being sacrificed at the altar of your ignorance.  Wake up and take fresh stock of your priorities.
  7. On the contrary, no moment in our history has called out for us to change our way of thinking about guns with greater urgency than this one.  If we don’t do it now, we never will.
  8. I vehemently disagree, and suspect every parent who lost a child in Newtown, Connecticut, would as well.

I’m a father of four children.  Up to now, I’ve been happy to watch the gun control debate from afar.  Who needs my opinion?  I write about crimes that are merely fictional, why should anyone care what I think?

But silence isn’t going to work for me any more.  Whether twenty children dead is sufficient cause for others to demand change or not, it is more than enough for me.

To those of you still unmoved, clinging yet to the idea that we dare not let what happened in Newtown inspire us to question the sanctity of our Second Amendment rights, I will leave you with a comment I made to a similarly recalcitrant gun-rights advocate on Facebook earlier this week:

“We can’t keep giving these people EASY access to WEAPONS DESIGNED FOR WARFARE. The caps here are significant, because they’re meant to make it clear that I am not advocating a ban on weapons reasonable people could own and use for self-defense, nor am I suggesting that there’s anything we could do to keep ALL assault weapons out of the hands of crazy people. The time has come for us to MAKE IT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DIFFICULT for average citizens to buy any kind of weapon that can kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, can make an intelligent argument for allowing people like you and me, let alone sick bastards like the Newtown shooter, to buy a fucking assault rifle that does not boil down to ‘because it would be fun to play with, and the Constitution says I should have the right.’ And don’t give me any of that ‘well-armed militia’ crap, either, because that’s just a crux people use to justify the war games they like to play in their backyard. If the death of 20 kids in the span of a half-hour isn’t enough to convince you people that something about the way we worship the Almighty 2nd Amendment in this country has to change, how many dead kids WILL it take? 40? 100? What’s the number that’ll finally move you to surrender your right to legally buy a goddamn AR-15?”

I’m still waiting for his answer.

An Interview with the Inimitable Tony Broadbent

By David Corbett

I first met Tony Broadbent at the Book Passage Mystery Writers Conference in Corte Madera, California. I wondered who this handsome, smart, dapper, witty, self-effacing, charming, utterly intimidating Brit could be.

I wanted to hate him—how could he be so goddamn brilliant—effortlessly so—at absolutely everything? But as I quickly learned, hating Tony Broadbent is just not an option. Fortunately, befriending him proved much easier than I’d imagined.

Tony’s the author of three of the most intriguing, suspenseful, and beautifully written thrillers I’ve ever read, all of which take place in post-war London:

The Smoke (named by Booklist as both one of the best first novels and one of the two best historical novels of 2002)

Spectres in the Smoke (Winner of the Bruce Alexander History Mystery Award, named by Booklist as one of the best spy novels of 2006, and named an IMBA “Killer Book” for November 2005)

Shadows in the Smoke (just published—distinctions pending)

(Note: As those of you acquainted with Tony’s work well know, “The Smoke” is a nickname for London.)

Not surprisingly, Tony’s work has garnered exceptional praise. For a full sampling, visit his website. But to give you a modest taste:

The Smoke takes its time concentrating on its main suspense story; after all, there are so many dark alleys and byways in London to explore (the great crumbling theaters, fry shops like The Victory Cafe, where customers can still get “a good nosh”) that the novel is easily diverted from its spy-vs.-spy machinations. Not a problem. Jethro’s illicit adventures are entertaining, but this is one of those mysteries whose distinctive sense of place lingers long after plot details have faded. —The Washington Post

Broadbent honors—with understated admiration and moments of high-quality local humor—the spirit of London’s (postwar) inhabitants. Cary Grant could have played Jethro perfectly. —Chicago Tribune

Tony studied art in London—for a taste of his artwork, check out his covers (below), all of which he designed—then he worked as copywriter and creative director at some of the best advertising agencies in London, New York, and San Francisco, before opening his own agency. He’s now a consulting brand strategist, planner, and ideator (whatever the hell that is) for clients in the U.S. and Europe.

So—let the Q&A commence:

David: Every time I hear you discuss your books, I’m impressed by the personal connection you have with the material, especially the setting: Post WW2 London. Victory seldom looked so harsh and hollow. And yet you bring the time and place to life in a way that testifies to an incredible vigor of spirit—and earthy wit. Could you speak for just a moment on why you chose this particular time in English history, why it affects you so deeply, and why it’s so important to you to convey it to readers with the richness of atmosphere and detail that you do?

Tony: Firstly—thanks very much—David—for the opportunity to hang out—as they say—with the Murderati.

The Jesuit credo: ‘Give me a boy till he’s seven and I’ll make you the man’ holds true for the country and times we’re born into. And if I can misquote Graham Greene—‘England very much made me.’ I was born mid-century—not long after the end of World War Two—an event that radically changed the political map of the world and its peoples and led to the Cold War. Those events of sixty plus years ago still directly influence events today.

The Second World War—and its aftermath—was very much a time of heroes; ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times. It’s been hailed as “the Greatest Generation”—and quite rightly so in my opinion—and we continue to owe them a huge debt. They’d won the War, but then had to survive the peace.

In England, the government was forced to introduce severe austerity measures that went on well into the Fifties. Bread was rationed—and it hadn’t once been on ration during the war—as too were almost all consumables—foodstuffs, beer, clothing, furniture, motorcars, and petrol (gas). Meat was on ration until 1956. Sweets (chocolate and candy) came off ration in 1953 as ‘gift’ to the nation’s children to mark the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II—after which they put it back on ration for another three years. (Probably the reason why so many of my generation still have sweet-tooth cravings.) All of which led to a British mind-set that harked back more to the ‘Thirties’ than the future. And which—in many ways—gave rise to the ‘angry young men’ movement of late-Fifties British theatre and literature and film and—in all probability—the teenage yearning for and addiction to rock ‘n’ roll and ultimately the explosion of the ‘Swinging Sixties’. 

And as with everyone else in postwar Britain, I was steeped from birth in the mythology of the times. So writing The Smoke novels not only gave me the opportunity to go back and explore the country—and the city—that made and formed me—it’s allowed me to appreciate it all the more.

As for that ‘postwar’ London of bombed-out broken buildings and bombsites—it was all still there—well into the Sixties. And when I was nipper—a very young kid—my father would take me up to London—for the fun of it. (He loved the city.) So I actually visited many of the areas I write about—Church Street and Petticoat Lane (street markets) in particular—and actually saw Jack Spot—‘Spottsy’—one of the Lords of The Underworld—on Church Street. And I suppose our ‘body memories’—the sights, sounds, and smells of time and place—never really leave us—not if we’ve truly loved them in the first place.

 

David: Each of the books explores a distinct aspect of post-war austerity, adversity, and survival. You’ve tackled the threat of Communism, the surprising rise of post-war fascism (and the ties between British Royals and the Nazis), the rise of organized crime amid the bombsites and ashes. Is there a historical arc intended in the books? Or are there at least certain historical or societal events or changes you find particularly compelling, and use for your stories?

Tony: The arc of The Smoke novels—publishers willing—stretches from the late Forties through to end of the Fifties. Postwar Britain seemed immeasurably grey and forever frozen in black and white—and not only because of newsreels and newspaper photographs of the period. The actor Terence Stamp—who grew up in postwar London’s East End—once said that it was only when The Beatles burst onto the scene in 1962 that the whole of England—London particularly—seemed to erupt into Technicolor.

So the stories—all of them based in ‘The Smoke’ (Cockney slang for London Town)—and most all of them steeped in London’s criminal underworld—take the reader from the wartime government directive of ’make do and mend’ all the way to the emergence of the consumer society. And along the way—as background—I touch upon various key UK events; everything from the surprising and very alarming resurgence of Fascism (in response to Clement Attlee’s 1945 Labour Government), the 1948 London Olympics, and the 1951 Festival of Britain, to Cold War espionage, the Deadly Fog of 1952, the Queen’s Coronation in 1953, and the Suez crisis of 1956.

David: You’re not just a master of setting and milieu. The other brilliant creation in the series is its hero, the cockney cat-burglar (or “creeper”) commandeered by MI-5, Jethro—Last Name Unknown. In him you’ve given us a completely British creation who nonetheless adheres to the Chandlerian diktat: He walks the mean streets but is not himself mean. Where in the smithy of your soul did you find him?

Tony: There’s that old saw, to ‘always write what you know about.’ So I peopled The Smoke with people, places, and events I knew of or had heard of or read about. Jethro—the Cockney cat burglar and jewel thief—is based on the father of an old friend of mine­­­—who I never ever met—but who was an honest to goodness London cat burglar. And as my ‘old china’ (Cockney rhyming slang: old china = old china plate = mate) had a career in the London theatre, I put the two together—added a dash of one or two of my favorite British actors and—‘voila’—I came up with our Jethro.

I also cast my own dad as a character—cast a wonderful old teacher of mine as another—and based another key recurring character on a friend from my days at art college. Later, when I found out the father of a writer friend of mine had served in the OSS and then CIA during and after the War—I had him as one of the main characters in Spectres In The Smoke. The reason? They’re all heroes in my book—which is why I also have Ian Fleming and David Niven—two other particular heroes of mine—in major walk-on parts. Then I have them all meet up—back in London—back when they were all in their prime.

So all the characters—Jethro especially—are amalgams of characters witnessed—real or imagined. I’m a child of my times and thus I’m very much a child of mass media—books, comic-books, pop-songs, radio, television, films. And so Jethro is a reflection of those times—and if not exactly a working class kitchen-sink hero—even though one reviewer likened him to a proto-Bond—he’s not a ‘clubland’ hero, either. I hope he’s someone you’d like to have a drink with—spend some time with —in a pub or on a long walk.

David: You’re justly praised for your command of cockney slang—and feel free to riff on that if you’d like—but I think your style in general is simply marvelous. I always sink in to your books because you draw me in so completely with the world you create through language. Your voice is unique and yet natural. You trained in the visual arts and in music—Little Known Fact: You design your own covers—where did you develop such an engaging prose style?

Tony: Thanks David—that’s very kind of you to say so. Language—voice—is very much a part of time and place and so as much as I can I try to follow the rhythms and patterns of London itself—very much a character in the stories—but I also then try to make it all very accessible—rather than merely a dry historical tract—by adding copious dashes of humor and—dare I say it—humanity.

I write in first person—and refer to the stories as it were told by Jethro as ‘Creeping Narratives—(in this case ‘creeping’ referring to the Cockney slang for burglary)—even so, the pacing is measured in that I only ever reveal what Jethro would actually know at any one time. So fast food it isn’t.

When I write—I always hear Jethro in the voice of Michael Caine—born and bred in London—and one of Britain’s finest film actors—and very much a man who oozes humanity and humor. Though the younger Murderati out there will perhaps know him best as Alfred the butler in the ‘Dark Knight Rises’ film trilogy starring Christian Bale as the caped crusader (Again—our heroes are ever important—regardless of how they might kit themselves out)—Caine has made some truly wonderful films over the years. All I have to do is read some lines of narrative in Caine’s (younger, Cockney) voice and I’m away and running, so to speak.

Cockney or Rhyming Slang evolved in the East End of London over hundreds of years—its natural habitat, the docks, the markets, the streets, the theatres, the taverns and pubs. It’s thought to have originated from the soldiers and seamen—and thieves—who frequented London’s vast docklands and the waves of immigrants—Russian, Jewish, French-Huguenots, Irish and Chinese amongst others—all of whom at one time or another have called the East End of the city, home.

Slang—usually defined as colloquial alternatives to standard language—is probably as old as human speech—and on the surface it might appear as being little more than linguistic playfulness—but Cockney Rhyming Slang and its sub-set, ‘back-slang’— “rouf”; “neves”; “yob”—was originally a ‘secret’ language that intentionally excluded the uninitiated and was as exclusive a London club as any to be found in Pall Mall or St James’s. Much the same could also be said for polari—the secret language of London’s gay community when homosexuality was strictly forbidden by law and subject to swingeing prison sentences.

David: What comes next for Jethro—and you?

Tony: The next book in the series is called Skylon In The Smoke—and follows hard on from events in Shadows In The Smoke. It sees the start of a major power shift in London’s Underworld—witnesses the Festival of Britain—and touches upon MI5 and the emerging dark and murky world of the postwar atomic spies. And all before Jethro even has a chance to put on his turtles (a little more Cockney rhyming slang: turtles = turtledoves = gloves) to go do a bit of burglary.

 

David: One last question. I mentioned music in a preceding question. You had something of a career in music as a youth in London, and you’ve written a book with a unique look into the Beatles. Could you share a little about either of these endeavors—or, happily, both?

Tony: Again it was more a function of the times—than true musical ambition or design. The Beatles opened up the door for many a lad in Britain in the Sixties. I just jumped through the opening with a guitar in my hand, along with almost everyone else I knew. And was lucky enough to witness—up close—the early days of some now legendary bands. Also, being in a rock’n’roll band and playing rhythm and blues was a great way to meet girls or ‘birds’ as they were called back then. All wonderfully captured in the words of the great Bob Dylan—“The times they are a’changing.”

We had no idea—of course—of the true extent of any changes and absolutely no way of knowing the long term effects we might have on society or even on ourselves—but to be a teenager—back then—and share in the music—somehow made you feel you were connected to every other teenager in the world—language or culture didn’t seem to matter at all. It was the attitude—the hope—that ‘a way’ was opening for something really new—something that would be better for everyone. It truly seemed to be a magical time.

As I mentioned before—it’s all to do with the teenage yearning for meaning that for me—in my youth—was all part of the ‘pop’ culture explosion—in popular music, the arts, fashion—even sexuality—of the ‘Swinging Sixties’. A little of which I’ve tried to explore in the mystery novel I’ve just completed that revolves (at thirty-three-and-a-third) around the early days of The Beatles—and others—in the Liverpool, Hamburg and London of yesterday.

* * * * *

So, Murderateros—any questions for the Inimitable Mr. Broadbent–Art? Music? History? Cockney Slang?

* * * * *

Jukebox Hero of the Week: I asked Tony to name the hero for this post but he graciously declined, deferring to my judgment. And following along in that spirit of generoisty, I’ve chosen an hour-long concert by Elbow, a British act that whose lyrical genius and melodic inventiveness calls to mind that former UK vanguard Tony remembers so fondly above.

(Note: I owe my introduction to Elbow to frequent Murderati contributor Gordon Harries, who also introduced me to Richard Hawley, who makes a featured appearance on the following video, joing Elbow for “The Fix is In”):

The Lists

By Tania Carver

Well, it’s that time of year again. I don’t mean Christmas or the holidays or whatever you call it. I mean the time of year when people bombard you with lists. Best book, best movie, most profound cup of coffee, whatever. Newspapers love lists. They’re great space fillers, no brainers. They remind their readers what happened during the year and they’re cheap to produce. Even better if an editor can solicit someone else’s opinions. They can do the heavy lifting for them. You’re an author, what were your three favourite books? You’re a war photographer, what were your three favourite conflicts? You’re a porn star, what were your three favourite positions? Legal ones, please, if you don’t mind, it’s a family paper. You know the kind of thing.

So why should we be any different here?

My first thought was, obviously, books. But I honestly don’t know if anyone cares enough for that. I’ve read some great books and some not so great ones. The great ones have made me want to give up, the not so great ones have made me feel like that in different ways. I haven’t chosen a best novel of the year or even a top five. I figure everyone else will be doing that.  And as a writer I feel I can sometimes become a bit monocultural: only talking about books, only reading books, only writing books. So I decided to cast the remit wider than that. But I did want to do some kind of list thing.  It’s traditional.

So I’ve decided on best cultural event of the year. Obviously this is a personal thing and I wouldn’t expect everyone (or anyone) else to agree with me. So what kind of cultural event do I mean? Well, something that moved me in some way, that changed the way I felt about things. Something that spoke to me individually and directly.

There were two. So here they are.

The Flicker Club Presents Hammer At The Vault.

The Flicker Club organise special screenings of classic movies. But more than that, they also pay homage to the literature that spawned them. In the past they have given us such events Night Of The Hunter with Mark Rylance channelling Robert Mitchum in a reading from Davis Grubb’s original novel, two screenings of It’s A Wonderful Life, with Bill Nighy reading Philip Van Doren Stern’s original short story and John Simm the next time and Scrooge with Tom Hollander reading Dickens’ original. You get the idea. They take classic movies and turn them into an event, a celebration.

That’s how it was with Hammer. The Vault is an incredible venue to start with. Behind Waterloo Station in London are a vast amount of railway arches, all cold brick walls and vaulted ceilings. And here’s the thing: the one they staged the Hammer retrospective in used to be the mausoleum for the necropolis railway. Heard of it? It was opened in 1854 as a response to severe overcrowding in London’s cemeteries. It was supposed to take coffins down the line to Brookwood cemetery in Surrey. The Necropolis. It’s no longer in use but the tunnels are still there.

The Vault was decked out in plush red velvet cinema seats with a small stage in front of the screen. The events were given full introductions and the guest reader brought on. And there were some great guests. Liz White, the titular character, read from The Woman In White before the film, the gorgeous Madeleine Smith did a couple of stints, reading from Le Fanu’s Camilla before the screening of The Vampire Lovers and from Frankenstein before Frankenstein And The Monster from Hell, both of which she starred in. Mark Gatiss read from the Conan Doyle original before The Hound Of The Baskervilles. You get the idea.

And I loved it. Couldn’t get enough.

I’ve been a Hammer fan since my earlier teens, if not earlier. Hammer films were staying up late to be scared, the thrill of the illicit. They were suave vampires and body-reviving counts, buckets of blood and of course cleavage-heavy nubile young women. What teenage boy wouldn’t want that? I’ve collected magazines devoted to the films, books, comics, posters, t-shirts, even mugs. Yes, I’m a bit of a fanboy.

So I went along. I should explain that I’ve got most of these films on some format or other at home. VHS or DVD or Bluray.  So why did I go to the trouble and expense of seeing them on the big screen? The answer’s in the last phrase. The big screen. I’d only ever seen the films on TV. The chance to sit there, in plush, blood red velvet seats, in a Victorian mausoleum with stars from the original films in attendance was too good to miss. So I didn’t. And it was brilliant.

But not just in a nostalgic way, although obviously that played a big part. The films themselves, for the most part, really held up well. They come from an age of film-making we just haven’t got in this country (or any, sadly) any more. They weren’t made to be great pieces of art to stand the test of time. Their purpose was to scare, to entertain. Then to disappear and be replaced by the next double bill. They were put together by jobbing craftspeople who knew exactly what they were doing. There was no pretension about them at the time.

But . . .

They’ve survived. Not only that, their critical reputation has grown over the decades. And when you watch them again, on the big screen like they were intended to be seen, you can see why. They still have something, a fascination, a spell to weave over an audience. Yes, they might be a bit clunky and laughable in places now. But they were never less than the best that their makers could do. There was some damned good work in them by actors, writers, designers and directors who spent the majority of their careers being underappreciated.  Some of the directors’ families came to the screenings. It was very moving to see their reactions, the pride they had in the work.

I came away with a renewed sense of what cinema – and art – can achieve with the most miniscule of budgets and the hugest amount of belief.

So that’s my list. It’s a short one. The only thing that came close was a gig I attended in April. I was booked to do an event alongside Mark Billingham and Val McDermid at the Laugharne Festival in Wales. Linda and I went for the weekend and had a wonderful time.

Laugharne is, of course, famous as the birthplace of Dylan Thomas. Some of the events take place in what used to be his boathouse and his writing hut has been preserved exactly as it was. The festival takes place every spring and it isn’t confined to one venue – it takes over the whole village. And it’s not just about one thing: there’s literature, music, theatre, comedy, art, everything. We saw John Cooper Clark do what I thought was the best show of his career (or certainly the best gig I’ve seen him do – and I’ve seen him lots of times), My old mate Lydia Lunch did an event with Viv Albertine, late of The Slits, comedian Graeme Garden was there, as were plenty of others. But the highlight of the festival was Y Niwl.

Who? What? Y Niwl. It’s Welsh for ‘the fog’. They’re a surf guitar band from North Wales. Intrigued? Listen to them here:

It was a proper dad rock night out. We’d all had dinner at the hotel and knew that Y Niwl were playing at midnight. Did we all feel like going back out? Well . . . maybe. Maybe not. Oh go on, let’s. So we did. There were five of us. We got to the venue, upstairs in the rugby club. And waited. And waited. Midnight came and went. No sign of them. We would just have one more drink then head back. One o’clock was almost upon us when the doors opened and in they came. Hurrying to set up instruments on the tiny stage, soundchecking as they went. They had finished a gig in Wolverhampton earlier that night and driven straight down. They got set up in record time, the doors opened, the audience came in and off they went.

And it was, no exaggeration, one of the best gigs I have ever seen. They blew us away. Short, sharp melodic, instrumental surf rock. None of the songs have names, just numbers. In Welsh. Brilliant. We were all on such a high after that. Fantastic.

I’d go as far to say as they’re probably the best live band currently operating in Britain. They deserve to be seen by as many people as possible. Buy their records. Go to their gigs. Tell them Martyn sent you. You won’t be disappointed.

So there you have it. Two events. One looking backwards, one looking forwards. Just the thing for the end of the year.

Happy holidiays. 

CRAZYWOOD

By Stephen Jay Schwartz

Due to a severe lack of creative genuis, I’m reposting an old favorite this week.  If you’ve never read it then it’s BRAND NEW! 

 

Comparing the world of publishing to the world of filmmaking reminds me of the fact that, while I hate Hollywood, I really love Hollywood.

I’m not alone.  Anyone who only loves Hollywood has never really met Hollywood.  Hollywood is a deceitful little bitch, but God she’s cute.  Sure, she can be admired from afar, but if you get too close, those little vampire teeth start to come out.

But I do have some telling stories about my days as a D-Guy, and one came to mind the other day….

This is the story of how I made the transition from being an Assistant to being a Story Editor when I was working for film director Wolfgang Petersen.  I ultimately transitioned to Director of Development, but the real crucial segue happened at this earlier stage, when I found it essential to prove that I had enough “story sense” to become a D-Guy.

By the way, this is a tale that reveals more about the dysfunctional chaos of Hollywood than it does about the qualifications I did or did not have to fill the position.

At the time, there were two people in our development office:  a Director of Development, and me, the lowly Assistant.  It was her job to find the next big Wolfgang Petersen project, and my job well, to answer phones.  But, as anyone in Hollywood will tell you, most of the submissions are read by the assistants first.  Especially if that assistant wants to move up the ladder.

Now, I knew the kind of films Wolfgang wanted to direct.  Big films with a social or political theme, films that dealt with universal issues, with social ramifications that could be felt around the world.  “Outbreak” was a great example of the kind of idea that excited him—how one little virus could polarize a nation, could ultimately take out a significant number of the world’s population if it wasn’t held in check.  What would we, as Americans, do to stop this from happening?  Would we destroy an American town?  These were the kinds of questions Wolfgang liked to consider.

So I received this spec script submission and, by God, it had everything I knew Wolfgang was looking for.  It was a very complex story about an American scientist who discovers a plot to bring a Russian nuclear weapon into America and detonate it in New York City.  It was a very smart script, much more akin to “The French Connection” than to any of the popcorn terrorist scripts that had been circulating at the time.  But the plot was so complicated it required a very focused reading just to “get it.”

There were clearly problems with the script.  But they were problems that could be addressed in development.  The important thing was that it was a smart political thriller that met Wolfgang’s requirements.  I felt that he should know about it and at least have the opportunity to read it and say “yes” or “no.”  The Director of Development wasn’t willing to stand behind the project.  She said that I was free to pitch it to Wolfgang if I wanted.

Now, I wasn’t really sold on the script as it stood; I was sold on what it could grow into, with Wolfgang’s guidance.  But I had to make a decision – do I stick my neck out for this or not?  I decided I would.

That decision was the key that turned the switch to Crazywood.

Wolfgang didn’t have time to read the script, but, based on my pitch, he felt we should go for it.  Go for it…what the fuck did that mean? 

His producing partner turned to me and said, “Well, that’s it then.  It better be good, Steve.”

And we went for it.  Which meant that we took the script to our studio and asked them to purchase it for us.  Suddenly Wolfgang was “attached” to the project.  And the town reacted. 

Now, remember, I was THE ONLY ONE at the company who had read this script.  And suddenly every production company in town was demanding to see it, and many were passing it up the ladder and submitting it to their studios.

But no one really took the time to READ the script.  Those who did, read it quickly, paying little attention to the details.  As things started heating up my producer came to me and said, “Steve, I’m getting all these calls from producers I know and no one understands this script – they can’t follow the story.  Either you’re a genius or you’re duping this whole town.”

Okay.  No pressure there. 

So the studio where we had our first-look deal passed on the project, which freed us up to take it to other studios. 

What happened next characterizes the world of Hollywood and is the stuff that keeps the sane from crossing the Arizona border into California.

Now, Universal Studios had just hired a new President of Production, and this guy was intent upon making a name for himself, and quick.  He was determined to create relationships with top film directors by purchasing their pet projects and launching them into production.  So, when he saw that Wolfgang was “attached” to this spec script, he swooped in and made a preemptive purchase of the script for 500 against 1.2. 

That means that the writer was paid $500,000 for the script and, if it went into production, he would get another $700,000. 

Just to make sure that we’re all on the same page here—this studio executive had not read the script.

When the dust settled and people actually READ the script, everyone turned to me and said, “What’s this story about?”

It was at this point that I was bumped up from Assistant to Story Editor.

I sat down and wrote a 25-page, beat-for-beat synopsis of the script, putting it in the simplest terms I possibly could.  I never said the script was ready to go, I only said that it seemed like the kind of material Wolfgang would like.  Suddenly I was responsible for a $1.2 million dollar deal and a marriage between Wolfgang and Universal Studios.

But wait, it gets worse.

This was the exact moment when a little studio called Dreamworks was born.  Spielberg, Katzenberg and Geffen.  They were their own studio, but they existed on the Universal lot.  They had a deal and a working relationship with Universal.  They had been developing a project that would become their very first feature film.  The storyline had been kept under wraps from everyone except the most inside of Hollywood insiders.

As it happens, it was exactly the same story as the spec script Universal had just purchased for Wolfgang.  Suddenly we were in a war with Spielberg.

And this was a huge embarrassment for the new President of Production for Universal, who really should have known what was being developed at his own lot.  He shouldn’t have gone out and bought a project that competed directly with the debut film from their boy wonder’s new film company.

Spielberg got hold of our project and read it and agreed that it was a smart script.  He suggested that we combine efforts, with Dreamworks producing and Wolfgang directing.  We read their project and we agreed that ours was smarter, more interesting, more realistic.  But ours still needed a huge amount of development work.  Spielberg’s project was almost ready to go.  Wolfgang declined their offer and we went to work on developing the script we had purchased.

Dreamworks moved quickly and cast their project with George Clooney and Nicole Kidman.  We were still rewriting drafts of our project when they went into production for “The Peacemaker.”

“The Peacemaker” was no “French Connection.”  It was the popcorn version of what could have been an extraordinary film about the real-life consequences of the fall of the Soviet Union.  But it was Dreamworks’ first film and its release effectively killed our project.  So, our writer never did get that additional $700,000.

But the process gave me my Story Editor stripes.  I think my salary was bumped up to $35,000 per year.

As crazy as this was, how could it not be fun?  How could I hate Hollywood when the ride was always this dynamic?  It was great, as long as I didn’t put my heart into it.  The day I really began to care was the day I had to leave.  And heal.

 

A cautionary seasonal tale

Zoë Sharp

I lay no claims to the following, but when it was sent to me earlier this week by my friend Shell, it seemed wholly appropriate in light of the season of over-indulgence that is almost upon us, and I couldn’t resist sharing it.

In the beginning God covered the earth with broccoli, cauliflower and spinach, with green, yellow and red vegetables of all kinds so Man and Woman would live long and healthy lives.

Then using God’s bountiful gifts, Satan created Dairy Ice Cream and Magnums.

And Satan said, “You want hot fudge with that?”

And Man said, “Yes!”

And Woman said, “I’ll have one too—with chocolate chips.”

And lo they gained 10 pounds.

And God created the healthy yoghurt that Woman might keep the figure that Man found so fair.

And Satan brought forth white flour from the wheat and sugar from the cane and combined them.

And Woman went from size 12 to size 14.

So God said, “Try my fresh green salad.”

And Satan presented Blue Cheese dressing and garlic croutons on the side.

And Man and Woman unfastened their belts following the repast.

God then said, “I have sent you healthy vegetables and olive oil in which to cook them.”

And Satan brought forth deep-fried coconut king prawns, butter-dipped lobster chunks and chicken-fried steak, so big it needed its own platter.

And Man’s cholesterol went through the roof.

Then God brought forth the potato, naturally low in fat and brimming with potassium and good nutrition.

Then Satan peeled off the healthy skin and sliced the starchy centre into chips and deep fried them in animal fats, adding copious quantities of salt.

And Man put on more pounds.

God then brought forth running shoes so that his Children might lose those extra pounds.

And Satan came forth with a cable TV with remote control so Man would not have to toil changing the channels.

And Man and Woman laughed and cried before the flickering light and started wearing stretch jogging suits.

Then God gave lean beef so that Man might consume fewer calories and still satisfy his appetite.

And Satan created McDonalds and the 99p double cheeseburger.

Then Satan said, “You want fries with that?”

And Man replied, “Yes, and Super Size ’em.”

And Satan said, “It is good.”

And Man and Woman went into cardiac arrest.

God sighed and created quadruple by-pass surgery.

And then Satan chuckled and created the National Health Service.

***

So, ‘Rati, care to share your most—and least—healthy food temptations over the coming holidays? Is there something so calorific that you only dare have it at this time of year when all bets are off? Or how do you dutifully keep yourself on the dietary track until the New Year?

This week’s Words of the Week are several Daft Definitions:

impeccable: bird-proof

microbe: tiny dressing gown

pandemonium: black and white musical instrument that won’t breed in captivity

Please feel free to add more of your own!

And finally, as this is indeed the season of indulgence, how about a few small treats that will not add to your waistline—a book or two?

I’m sure I did more than enough utterly shameless self-promotion in my last Murderati blog but if I might add to that a small mention of the new US e-edition of THIRD STRIKE: Charlie Fox book seven, just out complete with an excerpt of the next book, FOURTH DAY, and also a taster for PD Martin’s excellent HELL’S FURY.

Happy Holidays, everyone!

Caring to Care

By David Corbett

Breaking News: I’ve just learned my interview with Mysterious Press’s Rob Hart is packaged with Otto Penzler’s interview with Nelson DeMille on a just available FREE podcast through iTunes. Just go to the iTunes store, search for Mytserious Podcast, look for the MP logo among the offerings, and there it will be.

This time of year is often called the Season of Caring—the better to distinguish it, I suppose, from the rest of the year, aka the Season of Sneering Unconcern. (Or: the Season of Scaring.)

Caring has been on my mind not just because of the season, though. Two recent articles in the New York Times had me thinking a bit more deeply than usual about the whole issue of caring—how much we can, for how long, and why we often try not to.

In her piece titled How to Live Without Irony, Christy Wampole argued that the current zeitgeist, especially among millennials, requires an almost kneejerk rejection of caring, or at least seeming to care.

 

She blames some of this on the obsession with digital technology, which overwhelms slower, more demanding, more human connections.

But there’s also the lingering fear of finding one’s passions and desires wanting. Christy admits when it comes to gifts, she’d rather give a kitschy knick-knack, good for a moment’s laugh, than try for something meaningful and have the recipient disappointed.

In this view, irony is the terror of the pain that accompanies being authentic, imperfect, human. It’s a kind of armor against shame.

I learned to care when I stopped trying to be the smartest guy in the room—or the class clown—and realized I actually wanted a meaningful connection with someone else. It truly hit home in my marriage—no more so than when Terri got sick and passed away. (Or, as one of Christy’s friends put it: “Wherever the real imposes itself, it tends to dissipate the fogs of irony.”)

And yet a lack of irony can be just as self-defensive and false. Tyrants lack irony, zealots lack irony. For them the hyper-sincerity of unquestioned belief is the armor against shame.

Regardless of the emotional spectrum—dour with power or hip and flip—it’s genuine connection with others, the ability to care and accept the pain of loss and rejection and error, which proves to be the most difficult thing.

The second article I read that had a real impact—“New Love: A Short Shelf Life” by Sonya Lyubomirsky—concerned what’s known as hedonic adaptation—or, more colorfully, the hedonic treadmill. (No, it won’t firm up your thighs.)

Hedonic adaptation is the now widely accepted and broadly verified phenomenon by which we naturally “normalize” experiences of profound joy or bliss or excitement after a certain period of time. Sexual passion for a loved one normally lasts about two years, for example. A new toy may lose its fascination well before nightfall on Christmas Day.

Being happy, it turns out, is a lot like being tall. After about age thirteen, the fix is in. Your general state of personal happiness is largely hard-wired.

And this is significant to the extent we pursue caring because of the joy it brings us. I don’t know about you, but I tend to think caring born of fondness is more likely to survive than concern born of moral obligation. But maybe I’m wrong.

To truly care deeply one has to crawl out of the foxhole of the ego and both see someone else clearly, as best you can, and allow yourself to be seen. It’s simple to state. Why is it so hard to do?

Why are we so beholden to an idea of ourselves? Our persona, our identity, our ego—call it whatever you want—it’s the collection of tactics, impressions, and feelings that make up who I usually consider myself to be. It’s the machine that allows me to go out in public and not be afraid I’ve got my fly down—or toothpaste on my chin.

And yet few experiences are as rewarding as when you find someone who lets you put down that mask. It may well be that there’s just another mask waiting, a slightly deeper one perhaps. There may not be a ‘true self,” just one “personality” after another, like the layers of an onion.

But there’s one bit of advice I got in my early twenties that’s as true as anything else I’ve ever learned: You don’t know yourself by yourself.

This can lead down a false path as well, of course. We all know people who “live for others,” and who seemingly would collapse into an empty husk if left alone. Solitude is maddening for such a person, a haunting scream of emptiness. It’s not that they’re lonely. They’re afraid, without someone else there as echo, that they cease to exist.

I guess I’m looking for a golden mean, on the one hand rooted to some core sense of who I am, and on the other open to the kind of change meaningful connection offers. Because if we’re not going to allow others to affect us, to make us feel and worry and laugh and give—to make us care—why bother? And caring changes us.

Sartre had it exactly backwards—hell isn’t other people, it’s ourselves. It’s being locked in the isolation of “personality.” (Interestingly, Sartre himself came to this same conclusion after the war, and devoted himself to political and social engagement.)

The truth is hard, not because it’s complicated but exactly the opposite. Human truth is simple, which is what makes it maddening. We want to love and be loved. We want to care. If it weren’t so sneakily difficult due to the habit of ego and the pieties of selfishness, we wouldn’t restrict that caring to a mere one month per year.

I could connect all of this to the writing of our characters, but this post is already far too long. Maybe I’ll get to that next year. (Oh please don’t, I hear you cry.)

Meanwhile: Who is it in your life that most instinctively arouses your impulse to care?

How has your connection to that person grown over the years?

How has the manner of your caring, or the things you care about, changed with that connection?

Happy Holidays everyone—I’ll see you next Tuesday for Wildcard Tuesday

with the British/American thriller writer Tony Broadbent,

and again the day after Christmas.

Merry Merry, Don’t Be Scary.

* * * *

Wait! It wouldn’t be Christmas without blatant self-promotion:

My short story, “A Boy and a Girl,” is the featured offering in the sweetly named Out of the Gutter 8, edited by the inimitable Joe Clifford. It’s available in Kindle edition now, with print versions forthcoming.

Also, as mentioned last time, I’m teaching a ten-week online course through UCLA Extension beginning on January 16th. The course is titled The Outer Limits of Inner Life: Building Consistent but Surprising Characters, and covers the art of characterization from conception of the character through development and execution on the page.

Last, Open Road Media and Mysterious Press have re-issued my third and fourth novels — Blood of Paradise and Do They Know I’m Running, respectively—in ebook format. Follow the links to purchase the titles.

* * * * *

Jukebox Hero of the Week: It’s time for those Christmas Classics, and the chestnuts haven’t roasted till Robert Earl Keene, Jr. sings “Merry Christmas from the Family:”

Holiday Traditions — Intentional, Habitual?

by Pari

Last Saturday eve I grated the potatoes and onions, added the egg, flour, salt and pepper, and plopped this year’s latkes in the waiting hot sunflower oil. The deep sizzle growl of frying food, the gloriously seasonal smell, brought a fundamental comfort and sense that all was right with the world. I started celebrating Hanukkah with my kids when they were tiny. I wanted them to have the language of latkes and lighting candles. I wanted that closeness to be part of their molecules.  Now my kids are in their teens and this tradition is a warm part of our family’s expression of enduring love.

Traditions are the scaffolding of identity, the bones of how we experience — and often judge — the world around us. Some, such as my latkes on the first night of Hanukkah, are deliberate. Others come into being by slovenly default, habits no longer imbued with meaning other than the necessity of doing them.

Always at this time of year (is this a tradition?), I reflect on the holiday-actions I do out of choice and those I feel compelled to perform merely because they’re what I’ve always done — or what I think is expected of me . . .

Gift giving
Card sending
Money donating
Champagne drinking
Party going
Overeating  . . .

Habits get taken for granted.

Intentional traditions have the potential to live in hearts for as long as memory allows. Some of the ones I share with my children are:

* Making the latkes
* Lighting the candles and singing the prayers together
* Buying the most oddly indulgent prepared foods for a blowout on New Year’s Eve
* Putting luminarias out on New Year’s Eve to welcome the New Year
(luminarias or farolitos are put out in NM on Christmas Eve to welcome the baby Jesus)
* Writing down our wishes for the New Year and burning them, in a pot outside, on New Year’s Eve

I also have a few nascent possibilities that may become personal traditions. Last year, I felt it important to be deliberate on my first Christmas alone in 18 years. I knew I’d miss my kids tremendously. I also knew I’d be spending most Christmases alone from there on out. So I watched foreign movies all day — mostly Bollywood — and topped the night off with Whale Rider. Yes, that might become a tradition; I’ll know this year, if it feels like the right thing to do.

I’m also considering other options . . .

How about you?

What are your happy intentional traditions?
Which defaults might you want to shed?
Are you thinking of any new actions that might transform into welcome traditions in the coming years?