They Drove Me to Drugs

by Rob

I blame it all on Costco.

You, see, there was a time when I didn’t need drugs to survive.  Yes, I smoked pot when I was younger—but who didn’t?—and I may have dabbled a bit with chemical substances, but for most of my life I’ve been pretty straight. I can’t stand cigarettes and I’ve consumed enough alcohol in my life to maybe fill a bucket.

But, you see, my wife Leila and I go to Costco almost every Sunday (our big romantic getaway) and that damn snack bar drew me in with their Mocha Latte, which pretty much amounts to a coffee milkshake.

Drinking those ML’s every week became a ritual for us. We’d do our shopping, then swing by the snack bar and pick up a couple and head on over to the next shopping center, sucking on our straws as we drove.

The next thing I knew I was buying those coffee milkshake drinks at places like Starbucks, and pretty soon I was breaking out the blender to make my own, using the mocha latte mix I bought from—guess where?

Costco.

Fuckers.

Then, after getting a publishing deal, I suddenly had to write a new book and work a day job, and every morning I wound up dragging myself into the office feeling like crap warmed over. So what did I do?

Since I worked in a conference center, I started drinking the free coffee. Twice a day. Morning and afternoon.

Problem was, that coffee tasted like something that had been scraped out of the garbage can after sitting there moldering for a few days, and I knew I had to find something better.

I stopped buying the fancy latte drinks altogether and invested in a very cheap coffee maker. A four-cupper that made a halfway decent pot. And when you have a coffee maker, you have to have coffee, so I went to Trader Joe’s and started buying their beans and grinding them in the store grinder.

But, of course, why grind them at the store when you can grind them at home? So I bought a cheap burr grinder and a bag of beans and started making my own grinds.  Sometimes I would blend beans to get the taste just the way I liked it.

Medium roast. Cream. Sugar. That’s what I craved.

Until my buddy Bill Cameron mentioned that the best cup of coffee you can get is by using a French press. I had no clue what that was, but I went in search of one anyway, carefully followed the instructions and—

—oh my god, it was amazing. Bill had not lied. There was even a little bit of grit at the bottom that I just loved. And say goodbye to medium roast, this shit was strooooooong.

So now it was French press on weekdays and an Americano (a shot of cappuccino with hot water) when I was out and about, and I finally had to admit it to myself:

I was a full-fledge coffeeholic.

Problem was, Americano’s were expensive and that French press was just a pain in the ass to wash. All those coffee grounds everywhere? Yuck.

I needed another solution.  So, there I was in Costco and I see they have a special price on the machine Alafair talked about a few days back, a super duper deluxe Keurig one-cup coffee maker.  Just pop in the pre-made cup, pour in some water (and you don’t have to pour it in every time!) and presto! you’ve got… well… you’ve got…

…a perfectly bland cup of coffee. Unless you set the thing on the lowest setting for the smallest cup, your coffee tastes like an Americano without the cappuccino.

I tried the boldest of bold coffees in that damn machine and just could not find a cup I liked. It was useless to me.

Not only that, Leila hated it, too. Not the coffee so much as the machine itself. The water light was always flashing, asking for the reservoir to be filled, and she was also concerned with the pure waste of using those tiny plastic cups every time you wanted coffee.

But we stuck with the machine. I used the little MyCup device that let you use your own grind. Unfortunately, it was messy as hell and just not worth the effort. I still couldn’t get a cup of coffee I liked out of it. I even tried some other contraption the Internet suckered me into buying and it was worthless.

Now I know there are a lot of people out there who absolutely love their Keurigs. But the Brownes? No so much. So after a month of experimenting—and a crapload of lousy coffee—back to Costco it went.

Now it was back to the French press while I hunted online for the perfect coffee maker. I found one for $250 at the Everything’s Kitchen website that uses the “steam” method of brewing, just like many Japanese coffee makers.  

That was the one for me! So I ordered it, only to discover that they were out of stock and I’d have to wait a month or so to actually get one. Sigh.

Then a few days later I was tooling around Fry’s when I came across a unit on sale.  

It was a Cuisinart 12-cup “on demand” model. Meaning it has no pot. The carafe built in and all you have to do is push a little lever on the front and fill your cup as if you’re using a watercooler.

I took this baby home and Leila and I instantly fell in love with it. Easy to use, easy to clean, makes lots of coffee and is actually kind of fun. Plus the coffee stays hot without sitting on a burner, so there’s no burnt taste after a couple hours.

Every morning, when I fill my cup, if I close my eyes and pretend, I kinda feel like I’m in a restaurant.  

Until the cup overflows and I burn myself.

In the end, of course, I remain a diehard coffee addict. I still only drink two cups a day, but I couldn’t do without them—even though my day job is now sitting right here at this desk and writing ten hours a day.

In the morning, I grind my beans (dark roast, thank you), brew the coffee, draw a cup, put in two teaspoons of sugar and a dollop of half and half and I’m good for the morning.

And it’s all because of you, Costco.

Thank you.

——

So what about you guys?  Coffee drinkers?  Strong?  Sugar?  Cream? And what kind of coffee maker do you swear by?

 

Cutting Out The Good Parts

 

By Louise Ure

 

We all know that famous Number Eight on Elmore Leonard’s list of tips for writers: try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip. I agree with Leonard but then I read about Jonathan Safron Foer, who goes him one better.  Foer not only wants to take out the parts folks might skip, but then proposes to write an entirely new book from the leavings after deletion. He started with Bruno Schulz’s book, “Street of Crocodiles,” and then deleted words to not only write new sentences but create an entirely new story.

 

 

 

My first thought was, “Dang, some publisher sprang for big bucks to produce this.” The second thought was, “Why?” Aside from topping the list for “Amusing Things You Can Do With an Exacto Blade” I don’t see the purpose. And the resulting “new book” is nowhere near as good as “Street of Crocodiles.”

 

 

 

In an effort to be more open-minded than usual, I tried to do the same with one of my favorite books, Barbara Kingsolver’s “Poisonwood Bible.”

 

Here’s her original opening:

“First, picture the forest. I want you to be its conscience, the eyes in the trees. The trees are columns of slick, brindled bark like muscular animals overgrown beyond all reason. Every space is filled with life: delicate, poisonous frogs war-painted like skeletons, clutched in copulation, secreting their precious eggs onto dripping leaves. Vines strangling their own kin in the everlasting wrestle for sunlight. The breathing of monkeys. A glide of snake belly on branch. A single-file army of ants biting a mammoth tree into uniform grains and hauling it down to the dark for their ravenous queen. And, in reply, a choir of seedlings arching their necks out of rotted tree stumps, sucking life out of death. This forest eats itself and lives forever.”


 

Now my strikethrough version (Exacto blades not being available yet as an Apple app):

“First, picture the forest. I want you to be its conscience, the eyes in the trees. The trees are columns of slick, brindled bark like muscular animals overgrown beyond all reason. Every space is filled with life: delicate, poisonous frogs war-painted like skeletons, clutched in copulation, secreting their precious eggs onto dripping leaves. Vines strangling their own kin in the everlasting wrestle for sunlight. The breathing of monkeys. A glide of snake belly on branch. A single-file army of ants biting a mammoth tree into uniform grains and hauling it down to the dark for their ravenous queen. And, in reply, a choir of seedlings arching their necks out of rotted tree stumps, sucking life out of death. This forest eats itself and lives forever.

 

Resulting in:

“ First, I want to be like muscular animals, clutched in copulation, strangling their own kin, sucking life out of death.”

 

Meh. I don’t think Kingsolver has anything to worry about.

 

And I started thinking about other things that were not as good when they were cut, and that brings me to Singapore. Singapore is one of those hybrid countries that like to think of themselves as democracies but behind the democratic mask is a conservative, authoritarian government that makes all the rules for how its citizens should live their lives, based on the Prime Minister’s own proclivities and preferences. Lee Kuan Yew was Prime Minister of Singapore when I lived there. His son, Lee Hsien Loong, is today.

Lee Kuan Yew didn’t like long hair on men, so any man arriving at the international airport got a haircut if his locks were longer than his collar. Bruce used to have to tuck his ponytail into a baseball cap to get into the country.

Lee Kwan Yew once stepped on some bubble gum getting out of a subway car. Soon enough, the sale of chewing gum was banned and arriving visitors were limited to “two sticks for their own personal use.”

And Lee Kuan Yew didn’t like public displays of romance or violence. My Time magazine would arrive in the mail with half the stories and ads blacked out with a Magic Marker or sliced out with scissors. No kissing. No revealing clothing. No blood, no gore, no guts. (This, in a country that has long held my personal award for Best Newspaper Headline Ever when The Straits Times ran with the 18-point type screaming: “500 Tiger Penises Seized!”)

Imagine my surprise when I got to see the real version of “Silence of the Lambs.” Granted, I couldn’t make out much of a storyline in the Singapore version of the movie (all 40 minutes of it), but I kept thinking, “Why are all the U.S. and Australian papers warning about how scary this is?”

Much like Foer’s cut up book, the Singapore-edited versions didn’t match the originals.

What about you, ‘Rati? Would you ever read a book like Foer’s? Or want to create one? And does anybody have an example of something that was better in the abridged version?

 

P.S. I’m heading to Australia for a couple of months to spend time with a covey of old friends who are eager to help ease me back into the land of the living. Since I’ll only be posting from my iPhone, I can’t promise that my Tuesday posts will be timely, long or articulate, but I’ll give it my best shot.

 

P.P.S. And don’t any of you burglars even think about a visit while I’m gone. I’ve got two friends with a very big dog staying here in my absence.

 

 



 

These Are a Few of My Favorite Things

by Alafair Burke

Ah, the joys of holiday shopping.

It took only a few images like these for me to head straight to the safety of my desk for all my holiday shopping needs. Part of me does feel guilty about missing out on the special experience of holiday shopping in Manhattan, but, wow, it’s so warm and comfy in my apartment (and much closer to the refridgerator.) I love that the gifts get wrapped and mailed by invisible elves, complete with return instructions so my friends and family members don’t even have to tell me if they opt for another selection.

Ironically, though, holiday shopping online may not actually save time, at least not in my case.  In a store, I’m so eager to leave, I grab what I want and get the hell out while I’m still alive.  But online?  I browse and browse and browse, because the choices are infinite.  And so very, very odd.

I thought you might enjoy seeing a few of my favorite (mostly ridiculous) online finds this year.

10.        Blink Ketchup and Mustard Bottles

Your hotdog and hamburger eaters will love these.  The eyes close when you flip the bottle over!

9.      Fire Bell Alarm Clock    

From one of my favorite modern design stores in New York, this clock looks incredibly cool and is supposed to be as loud as a fire bell.


8.  Girly-Girl Roller Skates

Okay, that’s not really what they’re called, but that’s what I’ve dubbed them.  As a kid, I used to skate until my feet bled.  These make me want to spin in circles until I fall from dizziness.

7.    Bacon Soap

We all know someone who says everything is better with bacon.  (Come on, people, you know who you are!)  This soap, which looks and smells like bacon, will put that theory to the test.


6.  Toph Daddy Area Code T-shirts

A few of my readers were sweet enough to bring these to my attention after my most recent book, 212, was published.  I love my 212 shirt.  They also have ones for Boston, LA, and Chicago.


5. Edible Gingerbread Playhouse

Every year I love to peruse Neiman Marcus’s “Fantasy Gifts.”  Nothing will ever beat last year’s Cupcake Car, but this $15,000 edible gingerbread playhouse gives me a new understanding of how rich, crazy people make weird, bratty kids.


Last year’s cupcake car. Check out the creepy description: “Ever had a crowd of kids chasing after you just for the crazy gleeful heck of it?”
4.  Mystery Solver Trucker Hat

This hat is actually an homage to Frank, the trucker-hat wearing writer on 30 Rock, but I suspect we’ve got a few pals here at Murderati who might just rock a Mystery Solver hat without any irony.

3. Keurig Coffee Maker

Okay, no comedy here but what writer doesn’t need a coffee maker that brews single cups with no muss, no fuss? Total time saver.

2.  Soda Stream

No kidding around here, either, folks.  I like to think my home carbonation machine makes up for all those K-cups I’m throwing away thanks to the Keurig coffee maker.  Soda Stream even has a delivery service to send back your CO-2 tanks for refill.  Anyone who drinks sparking water should own one of these.  (Added bonus: The carbonating process makes a noise that the seven year old boys in your life, or in my case, the husband, will find absolutely hilarious.)

1.  Gee, what would I suggest as the #1 gift for the holidays?  How about… BOOKS!  You know how fun it is to discover a new writer with a backlist so you can read all the books in order?  Consider introducing your friends to new writers by buying them the first few paperbacks in a series.  Books are inexpensive, personal, and a cinch to wrap with all of those convenient right angles!

So how much online shopping are you doing this year?  And what are some of your favorite holiday finds?

 

 

The Cost of E-Books

By Allison Brennan

 

Publishing is in a flux for many reasons, the rise in e-books only one–but perhaps the primary reason.

I’m going to separate e-books into four categories for the sake of argument:

1) Traditionally published books that also have e-books as one of many available formats (i.e. my books are primarily mass market, but they are also available electronically, in audio, and large print);

2) E-books published by an e-publisher and primarily available only electronically, though there may be a POD version available or trade or mass market version on sale usually more than three months after the electronic release;

3) Self-published e-books that have never been to market and are published by the author directly to electronic format and available for one or more e-readers;

4) Out-of-print (OOP) books that had been traditionally published, but where the author has retained or regained their rights and has chosen to release the book electronically themselves, and the book is now available only in electronic format and one or more e-readers.

 

OOP books are seeing a return because authors are finding a great opportunity to publishing these books for their readership. These books all went through a traditional editing process, and while some have to be updated, most of the authors don’t need to do anything with the story itself. All the work is in making the physical formatting conform to technology. (Or, for some of the older books, re-tying the entire manuscript. Did you know that in the past, most books were written entirely on a typewriter?)

And self-published books electronically are the same as self-published books in print–the author incurs all the costs, and gets all the profit.

The November issue of RWA’s Romance Writers Report had a very interesting and eye-opening article on the cost of e-books by Sourcebooks CEO Dominique Raccah. The reason it caught my eye was because for so long there’s been this myth that e-books should be much cheaper than they are priced because they are much cheaper to produce. Raccah debunks the myth, and everyone interested in this subject should read the entire article. I’m summarizing some points here.

First, she points out that between traditional, self, and e-publishing, that 2009 heralded a record in books published (to be surpassed this year for sure) – one million. That’s 1,000,000 books.

A million. Books. In one year. Nearly five times the number published in 2008.

One of the big implications of this, according to Raccah, is that it devalues content. There is too much and too little time.

I completely agree.

With all the noise, it’s why my comments here last April still hold water: the bestsellers will continue to do well, but most of us—both traditionally published and self-published– will be fighting for sales. We’ll be spending more on advertising, more time online social networking, more time positioning our books . . . and less time writing.

What I think is important for writers and readers to understand that there is a cost to create e-books.

Raccah says, “If publishers and authors want the ebook available broadly – everywhere readers might buy their ebooks, rather than just one e-tailer – the publisher has to manage every one of those customers individually.

That also means that we have to manage their technical requirements individually. With printed books, we ship the same product to different retailers. Barnes & Noble, Borders, Walmart, Target – everyone receives the same book. That’s not the case with ebooks.

Ebook retailers use different file formats. Despite attempts at standardization, the reality is that if you want ebooks available in as many retailers as possible, you will be creating a minimum of three different file types based off that one original file. The technically savvy among you who’ve worked with InDesign might say, “easy! I select ‘Export for Digital Editions’ from the pulldown menu. Done!” And welcome to the world of broken files, widows, orphans, and stray Cyrillic symbols.”

 

To be honest, I hadn’t considered the formatting problems with e-books. I’d assume that one “good” electronic file was fine—but according to Raccah, there are a minimum of ten e-tailers and devices to prepare separate files for, and each of those files must be manually checked for quality control. 

“Just as “spell check” won’t produce a cleanly written text (in lieu of writers, editors and proofreaders) automation and technology are aids but not an all-encompassing solution for ebook production (at least not at this time). You still need human beings to check it all.”

 

With the rise of e-books, publishers must bring on technically trained staff to handle the new workflow, plus keep up with the constantly changing technology and new e-readers. 

One problem area Raccah cited was in metadata—all the information related to each specific book including title, author, ISBN, cover, etc. Each e-tailer has different requirements in how they receive that data, meaning it’s not an automated process to get your e-book up in all available e-markets.

All this is before the book ever goes to market. Editing, copyediting, proofreading, production, cover design is all part of the print process, and while e-covers are generally different formats, it’s only designed once. But even taking out the cost of printing, paper, and shipping, publishers are incurring additional costs on the technology end for each and every book. And that doesn’t even begin to speak to marketing.

I’m happy to take my lower royalties in the traditional market and not have to incur the technological costs of e-book production, in addition to editing costs, cover design, and everything else a publisher does. But if someone else wants to do it, great. I just want everyone to look hard at the costs and not get all dreamy-eyed because they can made 37.5%-70% royalties.

Now, even saying all this, I’m not happy with lower royalties across the board. What I mean is, there are extensive costs the publisher incurs to produce e-books across all e-tailers, just like they incur costs to get books in physical bookstores and mass merchandisers. The first books sold cost the most to the publisher. (For example, a publisher would always prefer to sell 100,000 copies of one book than 10,000 copies each of 10 books.)

It’s standard in the industry to have escalator clauses in publishing contracts. In mass market, the “standard” clause is 8% of cover price up to 150,000 copies sold, then 10% of cover price. In hardcover, the “standard” clause is 10% royalties of cover price for the first 5,000 copies sold, 12.5% for the next 5,000 copies, and 15% for copies over 10,000.

Traditional publishers make their money selling volume—they’d go under real quick if every book they published only sold 10,000 copies. The cost of printing, e-printing, editing, copyediting, cover design, marketing, sales, accounting—and more—for each book would be impossible. That’s why they 1) love backlist and 2) need to sell their frontlist in volume.

Right now, there really isn’t a standard royalty rate for e-books through the traditional publishers. Most houses (Harlequin is the big exception with 6% cover price e-royalties) pay 25% of net. That very roughly works out to be about 15% of cover price.

E-published authors point to the fact that their publishers pay 35-50% royalties. Most e-published authors who go through an e-publisher, like Samhain, don’t incur any editing or publishing costs—nothing more than what a traditionally published author is expected to do (i.e. have a website.) Self-published Amazon authors point to the 70% royalty rate they get for books over $2.99 (this doesn’t include costs the author incurs to sell through Amazon, or the rules of the 70% royalty rate which I tried to understand but couldn’t—if anyone has facts to share, please do.)

Lou Aronica—author, publisher, and incoming President of Novelists, Inc, a professional writers organization—gave me permission to share his numbers for e-books costs and royalties. In light of the Sourcebooks data above—the cost of producing e-books—I think Lou’s numbers make a whole lot of sense.

He extrapolated the cost of ebooks based on firm costs—for example, it costs a “flat” rate to prepare files, metadata, etc for each and every book a publisher offers. He used a $7.99 priced book for the numbers—I can’t remember why, but it made sense at the time he wrote it. (I’ll send him a note and see if he’ll come here and elaborate.)

His conclusions:

25% net royalty: If the publisher sells 2,000 copies, the publisher loses money. The author will still make royalties on each unit sold.

25% net royalty: If the publisher sells 4,500 copies, the publisher makes money, and in fact makes nearly the same dollar amount as the author.

Now, after 4,500 copies, if the author is still making 25% net royalty, the publisher continues to see their numbers go up exponentially because the costs incurred (other than marketing and incorporating new technologies) are fixed whether the publisher sells one copy or 100,000 copies.

Lou’s argument is that, like other publishing models, e-books should be paid on a sliding royalty scale. That after XXXX units are sold, authors get a higher royalty. Based on his numbers, that first threshold is 4,500 copies.

Copies between 4,500 and 10,000 should be paid 37.5% net royalty. (He factors in increased marketing costs for books that sell more copies, and I’m sure he has data that supports this.) But once the e-book sells over 10,000 copies marketing costs don’t increase at the same rate, and thus the author should be getting 50% net for all units sold after the initial 10,000, and that when he extrapolated the data at different sales points (10,000, 50,000, 100,000, etc) his numbers held.

To summarize and compare author royalties

 

Hardcover

First 5,000 copies sold                           10% cover

On the next 5,000 sold                         12.5% cover

Over 10,000 copies sold                        15% cover

 

Mass Market

First 150,000 copies sold                        8% cover

Over 150,000 copies sold                        10% cover

 

Electronic Books: semi-standard

all copies: 25% net

 

Electronic Books: what should be standard

Up to 4,500 copies sold                        25% net

4500-10,000 copies sold                       37.5% net

Over 10,000 copies sold                        50% net

 

I am very supportive of the publishing industry as a whole, because I think they are the gatekeepers. I don’t want to be my own publisher and incur the costs of editing, design, copyediting, technology, and everything else. I’m happy to let them do it, and they should make money off their risk. That’s my choice. But I firmly believe that authors need to fight for escalator clauses for their electronic sales like we have for our print sales.

I honestly don’t care how people read my books–whether listening, in print, or electronic. I love that readers have options, because that means (I hope) that more people will read more books. I, personally, prefer to read in print, but that doesn’t mean I’d never buy an e-book (and I have bought e-books, and own an iPad.) All these changes are scary and exciting at the same time. 

My e-book sales have always been a small percentage of my total sales, while I’ve heard that my hardcover thriller friends have been seeing a substantial increase in their e-book sales—20 to 50% total sales being electronic. This may be a factor of being released in mass market—the price point for a paperback ($7.99) is better—especially in this economy—than the price point for a hardcover ($25.) I also think that e-book sales for mass market authors will grow, but most of us who have always been traditionally published in mass market (opposed to authors who started in e-publishing), we’re still seeing single-digit percentages.

This may have something to do with the discount on the electronic book for mass market is less (about 15-20% less) than hardcovers (50% or more.) I don’t know what the right price point is, but for the most part, publishers and e-tailers are losing money on the $9.99 threshold—as the Raccah article and this article written by industry veteran Bridget Kinsella shows.

“Sargent says publishers are figuring out how to manage that evolution wisely. “The way I see it,” he says, “our job is to do two things: make sure we make that transition well, and we also must protect the value of the intellectual property as we go through the transition.” Once that’s done, he adds, publishing must “make sure, in the end, that the consumer pays a price that is fair and isn’t artificially made cheaper.”

It is truly an exciting and changing time, but anything we do–as authors, publishers, or retailers–we need to decide only with facts and information, and not on fear and the unknown.

Now, to completely change the topic, my publisher is releasing an exclusive electronic novella on January 24th that’s part of my new Lucy Kincaid series. Both Steve Berry and Dean Koontz have published e-novellas prior to the release of their next big book. I was thrilled to be asked to write a short story (well, not-so-short—Love is Murder clocked in at 25,000 words) to be released electronically between Love Me To Death (12.28.10) and Kiss Me, Kill Me (2.22.11) which are both mass market originals.

 

 

 


 

After a tough breakup with her boyfriend, Lucy Kincaid needs a different kind of break. So she heads west to join her brother, an ex-cop, for a long weekend of skiing in the mountains. At a picturesque lodge tucked high in the Sierra Nevadas, Lucy finds just what she’s looking for: a peaceful retreat undisturbed by internet, television, and cell phone distractions. She also finds an unexpected group of newlyweds seeking their own idyllic getaway.

But finding one of her fellow guests dead wasn’t in the brochure. And neither was the overnight snowstorm that leaves the lodge cut off from the outside world. When Lucy’s brother suspects the honeymooner’s death was foul play, he’s mysteriously stricken ill. Now, to keep them alive, it’s up to aspiring FBI agent Lucy Kincaid to figure out which of the lovebirds trapped in the lodge is really a bird of prey.

 

So because I’m very excited about this e-book, and the entire Lucy Kincaid series, and because I believe in giving away books whenever I can, THREE randomly chosen commenters can pick any book in my backlist.

I could ask any number of questions–I probably went too long in this commentary!–but I think I’ll just say let me know what you think about this whole thing, and if you have anything to share, please do! If not? Then enjoy this new picture of my daughter’s kitten Nemo as he “helps” me write:

 

 

The Essence of Character

– by Alexandra Sokoloff

I so loved Stephen’s post on character yesterday I wanted to continue the discussion, from a slightly different angle.

First  I just have to say this.  In just a few paragraphs – tiny black marks on paper, or bits on a screen – Steve put a REAL PERSON into our heads.   An unforgettable person.  

That’s great writing.   But I don’t think you can break it down into the words he used and what order he used them in.   It’s not a technical skill so much as – well, as another Steve says in On Writing – it’s telepathy.   Steve  – Our Steve – was struck to his core by a unique human being and so moved by the experience that he used his own being to communicate that profound encounter to us – whole – so that we could have that encounter with Henry, too…

AND IT WORKED.

How awesome is that?

That is the real magic of writing.

And that doesn’t have a lot to do with details, really. It has to do with ESSENCE.

Note what SJS didn’t put into his characterization of Henry.  He didn’t say what he was wearing (didn’t need to – we’ve all seen how men dress to move furniture).  He didn’t say if he was married, with or without children, gay, straight.  He didn’t give us his long and involved back story, what kind of cereal he likes, what team he roots for, what side of the bed he sleeps on, what his astrological sign is.   There weren’t even any descriptions of fascinating tattoos.

I’ve seen character bio forms that have writers list all of those things and more, and they always make me uneasy.   It’s too much information.  A character comes through not because of a mountain of details, but because of those one or two unmissable things that define him or her – in this case, Henry’s infinite patience and presence in a frustrating, mundane situation (and the contrast of that personal serenity in the body of a bruiser.).

Steve’s portrayal of Henry doesn’t have much to do with the words he used, either, with technical skill.  Oh, we need technical skill all right, but mainly so that we don’t get in our own way while we’re writing.   We learn all those things, the words, the pace, the grammar rules and how to break them, iambic pentameter (yes, we all use it if we’re writing in English…) – but that’s just a pianist’s scales, or a dancer’s barre work.   We do those things so that we have a finely tuned instrument that is always ready on a moment’s notice to communicate the pure ESSENCE of a character (or love scene, or  fight, whatever we’re needing to communicate in our story.)

I think I’m going on about this because – well, of course it’s what I do, but also I’ve been thinking about the essence of character because I went on a Reacher binge recently and caught up on a few of the older books I hadn’t read yet.  And then I wanted more, and I started up rereading the ones I’ve already read.

As I have confessed here before, I’m not much of a series reader.   I realize that part of it is that I am generally doubtful and cynical that any one author can continue to build depth and complexity in the same characters for more than three or four books.  And that’s if they’re really good and really lucky.   With a series, I am always bracing myself for ennui to set in.   Now, I think TV can do series brilliantly – but TV has the incredible advantage of having ACTORS along with a whole staff of writers looking after character development.   And actors are fanatically devoted to exploring their particular character, exclusively.   That specialization and focus can, in the best of circumstances, carry TV characters much farther than authors are usually capable of carrying them.   That’s by no means a slight on writers, it’s an acknowledgement of the art, craft, magic and specialization of actors.

But Lee Child’s Reacher is an exception, and so is Michael Connelly’s Harry Bosch, and that has to do with unbelievably great plots, for sure, but I think it also has to do with character essence.

In any Reacher book you care to pick up, on the first few pages you are going to find this character who is almost always out on the open road, and preternaturally observant. Okay, sometimes you meet him right before a fight in which he is always outnumbered and always the last man standing, but the fight will be portrayed moment by moment so that we experience Reacher’s mental and psychological calculations at every second of the action.    I don’t much think about what Reacher looks like – muscle seems to have very little to do with anything that happens.  In fact, Reacher is huge, but is constantly dispatching bigger and stronger men because he’s fighting with his brain.  It’s the Sherlockian powers of observation, whether in a fight or in the course of an investigation –  that are compelling about the character.

There are a few other constant, essential things about Reacher that make him unique.  He HATES a situation in which a big guy, whether an individual or corporation, is dominating or oppressing a weaker person or entity; he is driven to right that imbalance time and time again.   He hates having any encumbrances – house, clothing, place, or even money.  And he must have the companionship of an intelligent, unique woman to feel balanced and whole – that is, as balanced and whole as Reacher will ever even temporarily be (he doesn’t say this, but it’s constantly played out).  

Harry Bosch is another character I never get tired of.  Harry was devised with a particular back story of being a tunnel rat in Vietnam, which – without being stated – gives a sense of why this man is damaged.  And Harry is wounded, no doubt – while he is often heroic, you worry about him, wonder how he even gets through a day, sometimes.   As an LAPD detective, Harry is constantly up against overwhelming forces – it’s not just about the case he’s working on, but the bureaucracy and sometimes malignance of the police department in general, or superiors in the department in particular.  Sometimes the very family Harry is trying to help is working against him.   Sometimes there’s a bigger, amorphous evil like racism.   In fact, there’s always a sense of a greater evil that might finish Harry off for good.  Harry is on some level aware of these larger forces and still he goes out there and does his job with a dogged determination that is both relentless and slightly – autistic, is the word that comes to mind.

Of course both Reacher and Harry are wounded knights, an archetype that has captured the popular imagination for hundreds of years, if not since the beginning of time.

I loved Denise Mina’s prickly, scrappy Paddy Meehan instantly because of her in-your-face Scottishness.  Irishness.  Mongrel-mixedness.  She’s a new journalist from the wrong side of the tracks and too young to have any practical experience who ends up uncovering more than any of her male colleagues combined because of sheer cussedness.  The lone woman up against a force of often hostile male colleagues has always done me (the brilliant BBC series Prime Suspect is one of the best examples I’ve ever seen) because it’s so true to my own experience.   Paddy’s also like Tess’s Jane Rizzoli, who startled me as a female lead because she is so desperately unhappy, so NOT a Cinderella.  In the book which was Jane’s introduction, The Surgeon, Jane DOESN’T get the guy – she nearly gets killed instead.   She gets no respect on the job because she’s a woman and she gets no respect from her Italian family because she’s a woman.  And experiencing her pain and outsiderness made me a devoted fan.

Margaret Maron, to me, captures the essence of the South in her Deborah Knott books.   Margaret’s own laser perception masked by that “Who – little ol’ me?” Southern slyness oozes through in Deborah.

Cornelia’s Madeline Dare is a fascinating character to me because she lives in – or at least has lived in – a world that is completely alien to my experience, and yet I completely relate to her razor-sharp smarts, wicked tongue, and feminism.  SJS’s Hayden Glass being driven by this demon of addiction is compelling to me in essence.  Ken Bruen’s  Irish cop Jack Taylor’s essence to me is his wide-open heart and purity of soul.   

Okay, you know what I want from you today.   Who are YOUR favorite series characters and what is it about them – what is the essence – that draws you back, again and again?

Alex

 



CHARACTER

By Stephen Jay Schwartz

The thing I find most challenging about writing stories is drawing believable, three-dimensional characters.  We are complex critters, you know—a lot deeper than simply words on a page.  And there’s nothing I like less than reading stock characters engaged in stock activities in a cliché plot.

It all begins with character.  If the character is fundamentally real, and if he accepts the world in which he lives as real, and if he reacts to the sometimes odd or bizarre world around him as a real person would, then we will believe the story as the story unfolds.  Remember, the protagonist takes the reader through his or her journey, and the reader needs to be able to empathize or at least identify with the protagonist if the reader is going to take the ride, believe the ride, enjoy the ride.

When I start to play with ideas for a new novel I open my eyes and ears and brain to the world around me and I let everything in.  Everything gets its say.  A plot idea might morph into a character idea, which might suggest a setting, which makes me think of what might happen in this setting, which makes me think about what kind of person would do such a terrible thing in this setting, which brings me back to character.  It always, always, always comes back to character.

Sometimes I’ll read a screenplay or novel where the plot is so BIG (think Independence Day) that the characters—the supposedly REAL people who participate in this story—have no other function than to appear at crucial plot moments to deliver critical bits of dialogue necessary to forward the plot.  Writers who are aware that a book or screenplay should have a “romantic subplot” also take those stiff, non-dimensional characters and force them to coo at one another, giving them plot-specific opportunities in which to take off their clothes.

Just because a movie is BIG doesn’t mean it can’t have unique, well-developed characters.  We can all think of five or ten big-budget types that titillate us with action and also bring us to tears with character pathos.  Bladerunner comes to mind for me.  It’s a big, action, sci-fi thriller, with wonderful, intriguing and believable characters.  Every one of them is real. 

It’s not hard to identify exceptional characters – just look at Elmore Leonard’s Out of Sight for how he developed charming, daring, believable characters using mostly dialogue and a handful of reactions to specific events.  Leonard’s work is brilliant in this respect.  But recognizing a well-drawn character and actually building one are two different things.

When I spent my years doing development in the film business I rarely read convincingly believable characters.  Most screenplays were plot-driven and the screenwriters who had the plot “chops” usually got more work than the “character” writers.  But often, after the testosterone drafts made their rounds, a “character” writer would be brought in to do a “polish,” with the intention of making the characters more believable.  We did this on Outbreak, bringing Carrie Fischer in to do an 11th-hour “character” draft.  So, the character writer is supposed to improve dialogue, provide believable characters to inhabit what can be an unbelievably action-packed world, and take a little edge off with some comedy, when necessary.

Tackling character problems that late in the game doesn’t work, unless the writer goes back to the drawing board to tackle plot and action, too.  You can’t simply adjust knobs on a character in hopes of creating new hues and tones.  The characters need to move around in the plot, make decisions for themselves, change the plot if they have to.  Film producers, for various reasons, want to “lock down” the screenplay.  They’ll say “the script is 85% there, we just need you to do a dialogue polish and make the characters come alive.”  To me, that’s a page-one rewrite.  However, many screenwriters take that assignment and deliver a quick draft they know will never really work—they’re just trying to appease the producer and grab some quick cash.

What I mean to say with all this is…character work is hard.  And it’s the most important thing to get right.  Everything in a good story evolves from and revolves around good characters.

So, how do we write good characters?  Well, we have our own characters to lean on.  Parts of my character influence my protagonist as well as every other character I write.  So, like Freud, we look inward, to our own psychologies.  We can also look at mythic archetypes—certain types of characters who appear over and over again in our folktales, mythologies, biblical stories and nursery rhymes.  Alexandra has written some the definitive blogs here regarding archetypes.  We also learn about character from reading other authors to see how they handle character.  Find your mentors.

Another way to develop great, believable characters is to observe the people who enter your sphere.  Like a good Method actor, look for the little facial tics and the speech impediments and keep those ears open for the little wisdoms that might come your way.  I got my lesson this week when I was moving from house to apartment.  I hired this mover who ended up being a bit of a Buddha.  Black, maybe fifty years old, muscles galore.  Patient as the day is long.  I’ve never met a soul quite as patient as him.  We spent twelve hours straight on the move, and we encountered one problem after another.  Finally, the last big object to go in—the refrigerator—and it just ain’t fitting through the doorways.  We had to take off the front door of the house to get the damn thing out, and then, at 2:00 in the morning, we had to force it into the apartment.  We had to remove the apartment door now, but the spikes in the hinges were all rusted and we had to POUND at them with different objects.  And this guy was calm every moment of the day.  At this point he merely said, “Geez, why is it always the very last thing that gives you all the trouble?”  If it were me, I’d be screaming at the top of my lungs, “God!  What have I done to you, huh?  Because it sure does feel like you’re torturing me.”  I would have pounded my fist and stamped my foot like a very angry rabbit.

But this man, my mover Henry, was as stoic as if he were sunning on a lily pad.  And I realized that my twelve hours with this man was a blessing, that he’d been placed before me so that I may study character in action.  He existed as a real human being, not a stereotype or cliché.  To study him is to study life, and to infuse my characters with qualities like his—like patience—brings dimension to a character that might have only existed to service the plot. 

Look around you.  Study everyone.  If you’ve walked out the door you’ve entered the classroom.

Sorry I haven’t been around for the past couple weeks…I’ve been moving and I’ve had no room in my life to do anything but work, move and write.  At least I’ve been writing, thank God.



 

In a Flash

So I’m neck deep in my current manuscript, and realized I had little time this week to really concentrate on my post for Murderati. Actually, the problem is my head is so in the book, I can’t think of a decent enough topic to discuss. So I decided I’d do something different…a little early holiday fun…

Several years ago I published a few works of flash fiction online. It’s been awhile since any of them appeared anywhere, so I thought I’d post one of my favorite today. Some of you may have read this already, so apologies. Those of you who haven’t, I hope you enjoy!

 

VENTI LATTE

By Brett Battles

 

“The large one.”

“You mean venti?” the barista asked. She was probably just barely out of high school.

“Sure. Venti. That’s the large, right?” the man asked.

“That’s the large.”

“Good.”

“Can I get your name?”

The man looked around. “Why? Is there a line?”

There was no line.

“Right. Sorry. I’m a little nervous,” she said.

“This your first day?”

“No. Third.”

“You’re doing fine.”

And she was, too. Her customer service was all he could have expected.

“How much?” he asked.

She hesitated for a moment like she hadn’t understood what he was saying, then shook herself and rang up his drink.

“Three forty-five,” she said.

“Annie.” It was one of her co-workers. The red-headed kid who looked like he could use a little sun. “Just give it to him.”

“It’s okay,” the man said. “I don’t mind paying.”

He pulled a five dollar bill out of his pocket and handed it to the girl. Once she had given him his change, he dumped it all in the tip jar.

While the rest of her co-workers and pretty much everyone in the coffee shop watched, Annie made the venti latte. No one offered to help, but she seemed to have everything under control.

Somewhere in the distance, there was the faint sound of a siren.

The man waited contentedly as she finished frothing up the milk and adding it to his cup. Once she was done, she put a lid on top and slipped a safety sleeve around the base. Her hands weren’t even shaking as she handed the drink to him.

The sirens were closer now, probably only six or seven blocks away. The man took a sip of the latte, then smiled.

“This is great.”

“Thanks,” Annie said.

“You have a good day,” he told her.

“You, too.”

Except for his footsteps on the tiled floor, the coffee shop was silent. Everyone’s eyes were on him, but he acted like he didn’t notice. The only abnormal thing he did was step over the dead body of the would-be robber lying in the middle of the floor.

The unlucky bastard’s gun was still in his hand. An ancient .38 special. God only knew how much damage the kid had done with it in the past.

As the assassin opened the front door, he glanced back at the counter. Annie was still there, watching him. As he gave her a little wave, she mouthed the words, “Thank you.”

He smiled and walked out to his car. A glance at his watch told him he was still ahead of schedule. That was fine. It was never good to kill someone when you were in a rush.

 

Pakistani Hobbits and Blue-Eyed Jesus

by J.D. Rhoades

It’s sort of an unwritten rule here at Murderati that we don’t talk about politics, because such discussion too often descends into controversy and acrimony. We try to shy away from such alienating material. So you’ll be happy to know that today’s post is about something a lot less polarizing.

I’m going to talk about race.

Sort of.

Recently, a controversy arose when a casting agent working on Peter Jackson’s film adaptation of THE HOBBIT placed an ad in the New Zealand papers looking for extras. Only those with “light skin tones” were invited to apply. The same agent , according to an article on Entertainment  Weekly’s website:

.was also reported to have told a prospective background extra, a woman of Pakistani heritage named Naz Humphreys, that she wasn’t suitable to play a Hobbit because of her skin color. According to The Waikato Times, video footage shows the casting agent telling people at an audition, “We are looking for light-skinned people. I’m not trying to be … whatever. It’s just the brief. You’ve got to look like a Hobbit.”

Jackson’s people, after downing an extra large dose of Mylanta to deal with the heartburn they knew was coming over this, insisted that they never specified any particular skin color for Tolkien’s hairy-footed creations, and the casting agent was promptly  sacked. But once that cat was out of the bag, there was no containing the controversy. Ridiculous political correctness, some claimed. Of course Tolkien intended his characters, whose roots were in Northern European mythology, to be Caucasian. Well, that’s just the problem with Tolkien, innit? Some replied, noting the author’s predilection for casting “swarthy” and “squinty-eyed” persons as henchmen of the Dark Lord. Still others, in full geek mode, noted that one particular branch of hobbit-kind, the Harfoots, were described as “darker skinned,” and mention is made in the prologue to LORD OF THE RINGS  of the hobbits’ “quick brown fingers,” so why couldn’t you have a black or Pakistani actor play a hobbit?

You’ll be relieved to know that I’m not going to re-hash that whole argument.  You want to jump into that fray, you can find it at several places online. But it did get me thinking about the assumptions we make about some of the characters we read and write.

A few years ago, I was having one of those discussions about what actor we’d pick to play particular characters. when we got to Jack Keller, someone said “How about Denzel Washington?”

At first I laughed. Had to be a joke, right?

But then I thought, Hmmm, why not? He’s big enough. He’s a hell of an actor, one of my favorites in fact.  Anyone who’s seen MAN ON FIRE knows he can do brooding intensity and lots of ultraviolence.

 

 Keller’s described in the books as blonde, but that’s not so much a part of his character that it would be ruined by having an African American actor play the role.  

On the other hand, casting a black or asian guy as Tony Wolf, the protagonist of BREAKING COVER, might be a bit problematic. Wolf’s on the run after an undercover assignment in which he infiltrated an outlaw motorcycle gang went sideways in a very ugly way. Now, there are probably some black motorcycle gangs, but they tend to be  predominantly white. I think it  would just stretch credulity too far to  have, say, Jamie Foxx play the role.  

Likewise, I can’t see casting a white guy to play Walter Mosely’s Easy Rawlins or George Pelecanos’ Derek Strange. Those characters’  stories are so entwined with the history of racial issues in this country that casting, say, Harrison Ford in either role would just be bizarre, like casting a   blue eyed  Gentile to play Jesus.


Wait, they did that.  Anyway…

Jane Rizzoli’s Italian heritage is a big part of her character, so you need a dark haired white girl like the delectable Angie Harmon.

 

 

But could Gina Torres play Charlie Fox (assuming she could pull off the accent)?

 

She certainly kicked enough ass in FIREFLY.

You kind of need white actors to play Lehane’s Patrick Kenzie and Angie Genarro, because their characters are so rooted in the culture of white, working class Dorchester, that you couldn’t have, for example, Russell Wong play Patrick.

 

It would be like having a mostly Caucasian cast in the live action version of the anime classic THE LAST AIRBENDER.

Wait, they did that too.

 

 

So, your questions for discussion, if you dare:

1. Favorite “race bending” casting.

2. Least favorite.

3. Take your favorite character and play with their race. Make a white character Hispanic, a black one Asian. How does it work? Does it matter?

And Denzel, if you’re reading this: call me.

 

 

I’m there but I’m not

by Tess Gerritsen

I just spent a lovely week with my family, cooking Thanksgiving dinner for ten, hanging out with my sons, catching up with out-of-town relatives, and watching the latest Harry Potter movie plus a season’s worth of “Mad Men” DVD’s  I’d like to report that I was completely focused on family and friends but, sadly, that is not the case.  Because no matter how scintillating the conversation, or how shocking the movie plot twists, there was always something nagging me, nibbling at the edge of my consciousness, sucking away from complete enjoyment of the here and now.

And that would be my book in progress. 

It’s the curse of the working novelist.  I hate to sound ungrateful for my good fortune — and yes, anyone who’s a working novelist, who actually has a contract with a publisher and an audience waiting for her next book, is a lucky duck indeed — but there’s a price to be paid for it.  And that is, your brain is not your own.  You may think you’re in control of it.  You think you can sit down to a nice turkey dinner and enjoy family conversation, but in reality your mind has been commandeered by thoughts of that novel in progress.  During Thanksgiving dinner we traded family news over champagne and turkey, yet all that fascinating gossip couldn’t drive thoughts of THE BOOK out of my head.  I’d be in the middle of a conversation with my darling niece and nephew, and suddenly, wham!  A snatch of dialogue would pop into my head, and I’d have to fight the urge to bolt from the table and head upstairs to my desk to write it down.  Or I’d see the way the candlelight glowed on my son’s face and I’d want to snatch up pen and paper to describe the image.  Or I’d get that searing jolt of anxiety about the fact my deadline is only two months away, and I’m having a leisurely dinner with the most important people in my life.  

When I really should be writing.

That’s a curse, it really is.  It keeps us from living in the moment, from being totally engaged with the ones we love.  And the ones we love sense it.  Even as we talk to them about what’s happening in their lives, they see that faraway look suddenly drop over our eyes and they know we’re somewhere else.  We’re in another universe with people who don’t exist.  

If you’re lucky, you have a family who tolerates your eccentricity.  Maybe they murmur to each other: “Oops, we’ve lost her again.”  And they tolerate you as they would the crazy aunt.  I acknowledge that I am the crazy aunt.  Here one moment, gone to Mars the next.  “What was that you said again, dear?  Sorry, I was thinking about ligatures.  Yes, the turkey is juicy this year, isn’t it?”

So that was Thanksgiving dinner this year at my house.  I cooked, I ruminated, I thought about strangulation. 

Next year, I promise, will be different.

 

Crossroads: Do I need a publisher?

by Pari

Since July 1, my grand experiment of committed daily writing has yielded: a YA novel, a lengthy novella (just shy of 30,000 words) and seven viable short stories ranging from 1500 words to nearly 7000. If you add those to the wonderful mystery I wrote that we couldn’t sell because it was “too original,” the novel I completed for NaNo, and about four or five more good short stories written since the beginning of 2010 . . . I’ve got quite a bit of inventory piling up here. And I’m adding to it every day.

Unlike many of my fellow ’Rati, I’ve never had the experience of publishing with a big NYC house. My chops come from a small press. At the time, it was a perfect fit; my work tended to the quirky (still does). But my fiction has never financially, completely, supported me. That doesn’t make my experience as a published writer any less valid than what my friends have experienced with St. Martin’s, HarperCollins or Simon & Schuster.

I’d argue, however, that it does yield a very different perspective because I haven’t had the benefit of
1. a New-York-centric view of the book/publishing industry
2. active editors who spend time looking at the story and working with me to make it better
3. major PR/Marketing departments pushing my books at trade shows and with the media (especially big national media), getting me online appearances, soliciting reviews etc etc (let’s not even think about funded tours)
4. active and built-in distribution & automatic ins with national retail outlets 

Though — embarrassingly — I felt sour grapes at one time, I am NOT complaining now. I’ve been in the field long enough to see the mercurial rise and fall of favored authors, the uncertainty they live with, the deadlines and publishing dates moved, the increasing responsibility/expectation for self-promo biting into dwindling advances, beloved editors dropped without a moment’s notice, publishing lines x-ed out, contracts neglected, pay withheld, e-book rights grabs . . .

I used to be one of those writers that scoffed at self-publishing. I thought people who opted for that decision – at least most of them – simply didn’t have the patience to do it the “right” way . . . to pay their dues and go through the fire of external vetting.

Now I have writer friends – some previously published by those big NYC houses, some never formally published – putting their work up on the internet themselves. They distribute their own books to Nooks and Kindles, on Smashwords and Lulu, they create online stores on their websites. They’re getting their work directly to readers without any middlemen whatsoever.

A particularly interesting development are the writers that have banded together to create a brand; my favorite group so far is Book View Café.

Sure, some of the creative work online is just crap. The same thing can be said for books/stories published traditionally. AND a lot of online fiction is well-edited and good. The same can be said for traditionally published works.

So what do I do?

Do I send my work out and wait — and wait — for publishers to respond? To tell me that my book is well written and fun but that they don’t see it having a big enough audience for them to publish?  Do I give up on that model and get my work out into the world immediately (after editing, thankyouverymuch) and embrace a totally paperless approach?

Is it even either/or?

Argh! I don’t know. That’s why I’m writing this blog.

Writers:
1. What are the real benefits NOW, today, of sticking with the traditional model of publishing? Or is that model obsolete?
2. What are the real benefits of striking out on your own?

Readers:
1. Do you look at publishers to make your purchasing/reading decisions?
2. Are your own opinions about self-publishing/traditional publishing changing? 

Help! The stories are piling up in my computer . . . and I write to be read.