Hitchhiker’s Guide to Mystery Fests

Jeffrey Cohen

If you spend enough time reading online listservs about mystery books (yes, DorothyL, but others, as well), you can get the impression that authors spend most of their time attending mystery conventions. Conversation generally begins with “how will we know each other at B’Con (Bouchercon, to the uninformed)?” and moves on to “did you go to Mayhem in the Midlands?” with such stops along the way as “just got back from Left Coast Crime (LCC to the really hip) or “was that Lee Child I spotted at Deadly Ink?” (Can you tell I just learned how to link?)

That’s the tiniest tip of the iceberg. There are mystery conventions, it would seem, every 20 minutes, in every corner of the globe. Yesterday, I attended the Backspace Conference in New York City (not limited to mystery, but about writing generally), and it was lovely–not to mention less than an hour from my house. Each and every one of these conferences seems to attract some of the most respected and famous names in the mystery biz (the aforementioned Mr. Child was in attendance, for example). As a fledgling mid-list author, I have some questions:

1. Where do these people get the money to travel all over the place so frequently?

I have been a mystery author (of sorts) for about six years, and my first book was published just a hair short of four years ago. In that time, I have traveled to exactly one mystery convention by air: Bouchercon 2004, in Toronto, CA. Other than that, I’ve attended three Malice Domestic conferences (“Malices” to the in crowd) in Arlington, VA, because I can drive there in about four hours, two Deadly Inks in Parsippany, NJ, my home state (sorry I couldn’t make it this year–ironically, because I was flying into Newark Airport that day–but I promise I’ll be back in 2007) and have considered, and abandoned, plans to go to Left Coast Crime twice, through no fault of the convention organizers.

According to a quick search on Expedia, a flight from Newark, NJ (near where I live) to Madison, WI (home of this year’s Bouchercon) on the dates necessary (a day before the convention begins, returning on the day the convention ends) would cost at least $276. Now, that doesn’t sound too bad. Then, add the hotel–and while it’s an extravagance, I always (always! Four times so far in my life!) try to stay at the convention hotel, just to give me a place to recharge my batteries during the day–which in this case would be about $115 per night for three nights, or $345. Again, not enough to break the bank.

Convention registration for this year’s Bouchercon is $185. So add the expenses together, and the bill is $806. Okay, it’s a bit of a bite, but not outrageous. Except I haven’t eaten yet. Nor paid for parking at the airport. Nor gotten myself from the Madison airport to the hotel (rent-a-car? airport shuttle?). Nor bought drinks for friends at the bar, which is where one must see and be seen at such events. So, let’s say $1200, going on the cheap all the way around, for a convention that’s not terribly far from my home.

Now, multiply that by, again conservatively (a word which doesn’t flow freely from my keypad), six times a year. That’s $7,200. And they’re not all going to be close to home. In 2006, Left Coast Crime was held in Bristol, England. In 2007, Bouchercon will take place in Anchorage, Alaska. Those airfares are considerably higher.

Where are these authors getting this money? Sure, the bestselling authors can afford it, and good for them, but the rest of us aren’t exactly putting extra wings on our homes with book advances. How can someone afford to be an author these days?

2. Where do they find the time to write?

Seems like a lot of authors are at every single mystery convention. I realize this is physically impossible, but every time you look up, they’re there. Since this is a time-consuming process, I can’t figure out when they have the time to write books.

Here’s my theory: Lee Child is actually a fat, short, slavish man who sits in a cramped garret in a less-than-fashionable area of Manhattan and crafts his novels 365 days a year. He rarely leaves the house, has food sent in and has no friends. But he writes really well, and takes time out to watch the occasional Yankees game, his only source of joy (until this week, but that’s another whole blog).

In order to keep the myth alive, he has hired a tall, handsome Englishman to wear nice suits, drive a flashy car and attend mystery conventions, film premieres and perhaps awards ceremonies. This guy probably can’t write a word (other than to autograph books with Child’s name), and for all I know can’t read, but he’s personable as all get-out and can speak very eloquently on writing and Lee Child’s books.

Other authors are probably into this impersonation gambit, as well. Robert B. Parker has three (!) series going at once, and writes the occasional standalone while waiting on line at the movies. He doesn’t have time to, you know, live. You know that guy who shows up at Kate’s in Cambridge MA every once in a while is an impersonator. Parker’s at home trying to figure out how Spenser and Hawk can still beat everyone up despite being over 70.

3. How do they know which convention they’re at?

Now, I’m not saying all mystery conventions are the same. First, as I’ve noted, I haven’t been to enough to say so intelligently. Also, each one definitely has its own personality. But if you go to enough of any type of event in a short period of time, you start to lose perspective. Hotels tend to look alike, hotel bars definitely look alike, and if you keep running into the same authors (and sometimes the same fans) in hotels and hotel bars, I don’t care how well-run the convention is, you’re going to forget where you are.

Bestselling authors have assistants (or escorts) who guide them on book tours and, assumedly, to conventions. The rest of us have the airport shuttle, and that’s not a big help. So, how do authors know where they are?

My guess: they have crib sheets written on their cuffs, like in school. Or on their arms. Or, for all I know, on the insides of their eyelids, which they see by closing their eyes are tilting their heads toward bright lights. But there’s some trick to it, for sure.

Next year, when my first book from a large publisher is released, I’m going to make an effort to attend a few more conventions. I’m starting to save up now. But if you see me at one, and I seem disoriented, like I don’t recognize you or can’t remember your name, please don’t take it personally.

I’m like that at home, too.

ON THE BUBBLE WITH ALEX KAVA

Touted (and rightfuly so) as the master of psychological suspense – with six blockbuster books-a short story in ‘Thriller’s (ITW Anthology) – over three million books and published in twenty-two countries – could it happen to a nicer gal?   If you don’t believe me – just pick up Alex’s newest – A NECESSARY EVIL and when you can’t turn off the lights when you go to bed – just don’t blame it on me.

We had a little chat , and here’s what Alex had to say:

EE:  I was wondering if that music on your website is what you play whilst you scare the heck out of us.

AK:  It’s absolutely impossible for me to write with any music playing or I start singing along, humming,tapping, dancing – none of which is a pretty sight.  I prefer silence or I can’t hear the voices.  We all hear voices, right?

Uh, yes …but not quite as scary as you hear!

EE:  Word is, Alex, that Ralph Lauren has been badgering you to be his new’ Florida Face’, but you’be been putting him off.  What’s the lowdown on that?

AK:  Ralph refused to replace that little embroidred polo player with a Westie.  How can you reason with a man who doesn’t see that trend coming?  (By the way, I happen to have three Westies.)

Well, hells bells, I don’t blame you at all.  No sense in being behind the curve.  Three Westies?  Oh, I love those little critters!   

EE:  Other than writing those mega-best sellers, which talent would you most like to have?  Don’t tell us you’re still hoping to go on the poker tour either, okay?

AK:  Scorpion killer!  I actually tried it at this year’s ThrillerFest.  (Seriously, I found one in my cottage.) But I was told squeezing a scorpion between a Kleenex with your bare fingers is NOT the way it’s done.  In my defense, it was the closest weapon I had available at the time.

You could have shown the scorpion the cover of your new book – it would have keeled over with fright!

EE:  We all have a fiction heroine, or hero – so other than Mrs. Danvers and Heathcliff, who might they be?

AK:  Scout Finch from To Kill A Mockingbird.

Ohh, yes.  Wonderful choice!

EE:  Here’s a killer question – who would be your ideal panel mates?

AK:  That’s a tough one.  Over the years I’ve had the privilege of being on panels with some incredible authors.  Maybe it’d be fun to take some of my favorites and combine them into one panel: Peter Robinson, Laura Lippman, William Kent Krueger, Gregg Hurwitz and Lee Child.

We could sell tickets to that one!

EE:  My new spy hit me with a real juicy tidbit.  He swears up and down he saw you and Tess Gerritsen in a huddle with Dominick Dunne at ThrillerFest.  So…what was that all about, hmmm?

AK:  For those who might not know, Tess did an autopsy at this year’s ThrillerFest.  Now just think on those same lines for next year but add Dominick to the mix…well, I hate to spoil the surprise.  As a hint I’ll tell you that Tess needed to use some of my research I did for SPLIT SECOND on putting body parts in take-out containers.  Which by the way, a few weeks ago when the New York Times reviewed the ITW anthology, Thriller – that was my short story’s "Pie Topped With Spleen" that made it into the headline.  I couldn’t have been prouder.

Oh.

EE:  Excuse me for a minute.  I need to take a deep breath.  Okay.  I’m fine now.  Uh, so, Alex, uh…I’m almost afraid to ask, but which writer would you love to have all to yourself in a cozy corner of the bar?

AK:  Jack Reacher.  And don’t tell me he wasn’t there this year, because I know I saw him.  Oh, wait, you said writer, not character.  Hmmm….I’ll have to think on that one.

Whew.  Lee?  Pssst…think ‘Pie Topped With Spleen’ if she finds you, okay?

EE:  We all have a Walter Mitty dream or two – what’s yours?  Keep it clean, and under 50,000 words.

AK:  But I thought I just answered that in the question above?  Jack Reacher all to myself in a cozy corner of the bar.

Oh, right.  Sorry.  Yes, you did say Reacher.  Well, I’m sure he’d be delighted.

EE:  Okay, Alex – get serious, okay?  So – if you were to plan a special dinner party, say – six guests – dead or alive – who would they be and what would you serve?

AK:  Me prepare dinner for six guests?  What are you, nuts?

Thank God you don’t cook!  I was ready for you to say ‘Pie Topped With Spleen’!!

EE:  What book do you wish you’d written?

AK:  To Kill A Mockingbird – it’s still my all-time favorite.

You had me scared for a minute there.  I was afraid you were gonna say The Silence of the Lambs.

EE:  Rumors running around Thrillerville is that you turned down a small part in The Soprano’s.  Uh, why?  I mean, here you had an opportunity to play Tony’s biographer and you said ‘no’???

AK:  Umm…are you saying I didn’t get the part?  Because no one’s called me yet.

Uh, gosh, do you think it might be they read your short story in Thrillers?

EE:  Okay – last probing question, Alex:  Who would you love to do a book tour with?

AK:  You have to ask?  Jack Reacher.

I shoulda known!

Ladies and Gents of On The Bubble: A huge round of applause for Alex Kava!  A terrific writer, an absolutely delightful gal with a wacky sense of humor and more – and I didn’t even have to drag her here screaming and stomping her feet.  But, I must confess – the minute I found out she had three Westies – I decided to go easy on her.  I mean, Westies are cute as hell – but they can be very protective! 

Oh, by the way – check out Alex’s website!  It has to be one of the most creative author sites on the web!  It is truly a knock out.  http://www.alexkava.com

And – if you’re a member of International Thriller Writers – Alex is the Chief Award boss this year.  A call has gone out for judge volunteers for next year’s Thriller Award – so give her an email if you’d like to be considered.

   

Beach Reads

JT Ellison

I’m on a “working vacation,” which means I’m trying to get work done on the new book, casually read email and blogs, but also try to rest and catch up on reading. Hubby and I are sunburned, tired, have eaten some great food, and feel nice and relaxed.

More importantly, I’ve achieved the daily word count (and then some) and have read. A lot. So instead of an essay, I thought I’d share some of the books I plowed through this week.

RUSTY NAIL –  J.A. Konrath

Review to appear at Reviewing The Evidence

I was really looking forward to reading this book. I enjoy the Jack Daniels series, but to be honest, someone piqued my interest in this book a while ago. A friend whose opinion I trust had mixed emotions about the book, mostly due to the exceptionally graphic nature of the crimes committed. That made me want to read it immediately – face it, I’m a controversy hound. I see what she’s saying, the crime scenes are a little over the top, but the storytelling is solid, the criminals creepy and the laughs off the hook. Konrath captures morbid cop humor so well, and in RUSTY NAIL I think he made a leap past the simple “joking” and plugged into true human nature.  

THE HARROWING – Alexandra Sokoloff

Review to appear at Reviewing The Evidence

Another book I couldn’t wait to get my hands on, especially after meeting Alex Sokoloff at ThrillerFest. What a woman, and what a book. THE HARROWING is Sokoloff’s debut, too, which has me jumping for joy in anticipation of her fiction career. The book reads fast, is dense and atmospheric and is so realistic that I felt like I was at Baird, in Mendelhall, with the ghost. THE HARROWING comes out in September from St. Martin’s, so put it on your TBR lists.

WHISPERS – Lisa Jackson

I must declare this book the perfect beach read. It goes fast, the characters are engaging, the men by turns handsome, bad and cruel, the women intelligent but capable of making mistakes. It’s romantic suspense, but not at all fluffy. Jackson’s deft touch weaves the stories of three privileged sisters in Oregon and it had me captivated all day.

THE LINCOLN LAWYER – Michael Connelly

This one needs no introduction. A great read, solid writing — Connelly always does it up right.

LEFT TO BE READ:

COME CLOSER — Sara Gran

Review to appear at Reviewing The Evidence

SHOTGUN OPERA — Victor Gischler

Review to appear at Reviewing The Evidence

What are your favorite beach reads? Is there a particular author that you hold out for?

Wine of the Week – Ah heck, forget the wine, we’re at the beach. Let’s have a couple of peach daiquiris, a frozen margarita and call it a day. (Though they sell decent wine in the grocery stores here and I did pick up a nice Chianti…)

Word Blind

The part I love most about writing is the first draft.  It all pours out in a blur of activity.  My office crackles with the sound of a clicking keyboard.  The greatest moment is when I type “The End” and hit print.   There’s no sound finer than the buzz of my HP spewing out the pages.  Somehow, the moment that story, that book, is birthed into the material world, it’s legitimate and I’m a proud father every time.  I have no shame or tact.  I shove the thing under my wife’s nose for her opinion, irrespective of what she’s doing, whether it be watching TV or digging a tunnel to freedom.  I don’t care because I know I’ve nailed it.  That first draft is perfect—okay, some passages need trimming, others fleshing out, but one good read through and it’s done—right?

How I wish that were true.

The first part is true.  I do love creating the first draft.  Getting down those ideas and thoughts is the best.  The heartbreak comes after my wife has given it the once over and the red pen comes out and I get back something resembling a used bandage instead of my tale.

The problem is that unlike most writers, I’m dyslexic.  I must be a masochist.  I have to be.  I’ve chosen the one career 99.9% of dyslexics would choose to avoid.

Even though I know and understand my problem, I’m literally blind to it.  I don’t see the mistakes—the incorrect words, the impossible sentences, bizarre language structure and the plain incomprehensible.  My early drafts are laced with missing words penned in for me, passages circled with a question mark and comments where I might have gone wrong.  At times, my wife must feel like she’s working with a Codetalker.

So first draft bliss dissolves into editing hell.  It’s a chore and I hate it.  I wish Microsoft had some gadget that would rewrite my work at the click of a button. 

I’m blessed, though.  My wife, Julie, has the right temperament to cut through my jumble.  She’s my seeing-eye dog (she’s going to love that analogy), to guide me through the literary minefield I’ve created.  Without her input, not one of my stories or novels would have been printed.  I will forever be in her debt.

Besides Julie, my spelling and grammar checker is my other guide.  I know a lot of writers turn them off, but I keep mine on.  I may not take its advice, but I know it’s telling me there’s some dyslexic goof lurking there somewhere.  It forces me to really focus.

Reading my work aloud has also been effective.  It helps me uncover where my dyslexia has masked what I really wanted to say or to discover that I’ve written something I didn’t want to say.  When Julie reads, the issue presents itself in gory detail and sounds like fingernails drawn down a blackboard.  When I read, Julie stops me after a sentence or two to point out that what I’ve read and what I’ve written are totally different.  Whatever misfire is floating around in my brain, we do overcome it.

Some might say it’s very nice to have a proofreader every step of the way and it is, but it’s equally as frustrating.  It’s tough relying on someone else to tell you where you’ve gone wrong.  It’s like being fluent in a foreign language, but only on a verbal level, and being ignorant of the written language.  I want to be able to correct the obvious.  So at times, I’m not considerate or patient.  It goes without saying that it creates a strain on both Julie and me.  But the writing credits I’ve built up over the last six years have been the reward.

We’ve come a long way from when I announced one Halloween night that I was going to give writing a shot.  Writing has helped my dyslexia by reducing the errors my befuddled brain produces.  Dyslexia has always been my shame and I’m glad I’ve put it in its place—right next to my expanding row of books.

Simon Wood

Categories, Schlegatories: Do Labels Matter?

NAOMI HIRAHARA

Apparently on the DorothyL discussion list, there’s a debate that occurs seasonally about book categories, specifically mystery vs. literary. I presume this is a regular ritual as mystery writer and January Magazine editor Linda Richards contributed the following entry: "Is it that time of year again already?"

As a person currently writing an upmarket women’s book, I wonder, do these labels really matter? (Don’t worry, I’ll attempt to at least give some examples of authors who write upmarket.) I love books in the Literature section. I love books in the Mystery section. I don’t understand why mystery authors say that they stay away from anything labeled "literary" and why I’ve encountered some readers who adamantly proclaim that they don’t read mysteries.

Adding to the confusion is the way my mysteries are handled at the Borders chain. My first, SUMMER OF THE BIG BACHI, is shelved in the Literature section, while the two others are in the Mystery section. Of course, I would prefer them altogether, but it does amuse me that somehow the books in the same mystery series would be categorized differently like this.

Reading various opinions about the literary vs. genre debate has prompted me to address and reevaluate some common myths. Some of these myths, by the way, were held by me as recently as last week.

MYTH #1 Literary books are not plot-driven.

The bestselling literary books seem to always involve a great yarn. Arthur Golden’s MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA, Alice Seibold’s THE LOVELY BONES, Audrey Niffenegger’s THE TIME TRAVELER’S WIFE, to name a few, have very strong storylines. Or take the recent book I just read over the summer–Sara Gruen’s WATER FOR ELEPHANTS–yes, unforgettable characters, beginning with Rosie the elephant, but also masterfully constructed. The novel opens with a murder and has intrigue, erotica, and secrets along the way. It ends with answers to the beginning murder scene.

It could be that more literary books experiment with language and structure, but the most popular ones are replete with plot devices.

MYTH #2 It’s easier to write a mystery than a literary book.

As I tackle this current non-mystery book, I was finding that the structure, the words and the general flow were coming a lot easier than when I attempted my mystery book. I chalk that up to the experience of writing three mysteries. But the key operative word is "was." I’ve hit a few rough patches, which just confirms that writing for me in any genre is a messy, organic process.

MYTH #3 Categories are just for the reader and publisher, and should not influence how the writer shapes his or her book.

I, up to a week ago, would publicly contend that the above statement is patently true and was going to post something to DorothyL stating as much. But when I waited and thought about it, I realized that my own actions contradicted this statement.

As I was developing my current book, I was trying to figure out what category it would fall in. It has a female teenager’s voice. So young adult? No. Chick lit? No. Literary? Well, kind of. And then I learned of this category used by agents–Upmarket Women’s Fiction. It’s not a new term, but I had not heard of it before. So I googled upmarket women’s fiction and came up with names like Mary Sharratt. I then read Mary Sharratt, and then nodded my head. Yup, this is what I was aiming for.

(I haven’t come across a good concise definition for "upmarket," but Miss Snark, the blogging literary agent, has come up with some snazzy descriptors. I’m also taking a look at Aurelie Sheehan’s work, namely HISTORY LESSON FOR GIRLS. Upmarket, of course, is not a bookstore section; these books would be under the Literature section.)

This investigation has helped me to understand the expectation of a genre. It doesn’t mean to necessarily have to go along with the formula or follow each convention. But be mindful of them.

In an earlier draft of BIG BACHI (when the label was literary and the title was BROKEN BRANCHES), my aging protagonist, Mas Arai, goes catatonic as he is faced with what happened to him and his friends during the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. It was then up to a young Japanese doctor from Hiroshima to save the day. But the book didn’t work. I couldn’t get representation. I couldn’t find a small press publisher.

So I kept chiseling at it. Someone in a writing group mentioned that she didn’t think much was at stake. "What?" I thought to myself. "She doesn’t know what she’s talking about." But her words stayed with me. Weeks later, I finally admitted to myself that she was right. Thus began the seeds of a murder. The elimination of one major character, the doctor. It became solely Mas Arai’s story. And it became a mystery.

For my mystery, I had a very reluctant, reluctant sleuth, but I couldn’t make him catatonic, according to the conventions of the genre (Chester Himes and Walter Mosley taught me well). He would have to get off his butt and do some sleuthing. From this process, something beautiful happened: I found the perfect container for my story–the mystery genre.

MYTH #4 It doesn’t matter where your books are shelved.

Although I did make light on how my books were categorized at the Borders chain, it does make a difference. But the most hotly debated issue revolves around the African American section. A Japanese American writer friend bemoaned that booksellers don’t fully embrace the growing number of books written by Asian Americans to warrant our own section. But I say–beware of what you wish for.

Certainly some readers read exclusively or predominantly African American novels and will seek out that section for good reads. That’s how my husband found an exquisite collection of short stories, I GOT SOMEBODY IN STAUNTON, by William Henry Lewis. But he might have discovered it in the Short Story section as well.

African American publishing is a big and thriving business, so I understand publishers and booksellers wanted it extremely targeted for the easy sale. But I also understand the frustration of some black writers who feel ghettoized, the impact of their writing word not being fully felt in other parts of the store.

If you are a person of color who writes mysteries set in ethnic communities, your books should be shelved under the Mystery section. This will be better for your career in the long run. Your faithful readers will find you, while exposing you to a new, larger readership.

Alphabetically speaking, I love being close to Tony Hillerman (and not that far from Denise Hamilton) because our books probably have more in common than my Mas Arai mysteries do with chick-lit books with Asian American heroines.

So are categories and labels are important? Most definitely, but books in different sections may have more in common than we think.

BIG BACHI’S ON FOURTH AND GASA-GASA’S ON THIRD: Yay for multiple printings! SUMMER OF THE BIG BACHI’s is now in its fourth printing and GASA-GASA GIRL is in its third. I do think Jason Pinter’s observation is correct–trade paperback originals do tend to have longer shelf lives.

WEDNESDAY’S WORD: monku (SUMMER OF THE BIG BACHI, page 87)

To complain or a complaint. Once upon a time in Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo, there was a shoe store that sold T-shirts that read, "Monku, Monku, Monku." In this record-breaking heat in Southern California, monku is plentiful. But considering the unstable situation our world is in, a little heat is easy to bear.

BABY, BABY: First it’s baby Justin, born to some local friends on Monday, and now we have word that David Montgomery’s daughter is on her way. Congrats, Papa and Mama Montgomery!

QUIBBLES & BITS

Deni Dietz

A couple of weeks ago Sarah Weinman talked about blogging. Her whole post was interesting (Sarah is always interesting), but then she said: "Think of it this way: if the entire population of my native Canada – roughly thirty-three million people – each had a blog, that’s still less than the total number actually out there…"

Sarah started me thinking. First I thought about the population of [my adopted country] Canada. Only 33 million? What’s the population of California? Anybody Know?

And then I thought about "when I was a kid."

When I was a kid I hated writing essays, so I didn’t. There would oft be essay contests with subjects like: "What Memorial Day Means To Me" (it meant riding in a parade, in my dad’s Impala convertible, along with my fellow Girl Scouts, my beauty-pageant-banner badges gleaming in the winter sun, and — the best part — being rewarded for being a "good scout" afterward with bubble gum and an ice cream soda, not necessary in that order). Or the essay would be called: "Why your Teacher [policeman, Lifeguard, Best Friend] is your Best Friend."

The winners would be published in the Bayside Times.

Friends, especially adults, would come unto me and say, "Deni, you write so good, why don’t you enter the essay contest?"

And I would respondeth, "Jeeze, I hate writing essays.’"

It has now suddenly occurred to me that I write an essay every week.

So…why am I doing this? Certainly not because I "write good." Hey, maybe there’s a dim hope in the back of what’s left of my mind that people will like my "voice." And maybe if they like my voice, they will check out the excerpts on my website, then call their libraries and request one of my books and try it on for size.

Maybe.

This week my Quibbles & Bits designation is: DO BLOGS SELL BOOKS?

That very question was asked on one of my email loops by, I presume, an author who was thinking of starting up a blog [well, duh!] and I’ve been thinking about it ever since.

Do they? Sell books, I mean?

Or do the people who read my weekly Quibbles & Bits already own my books? Or borrow them from libraries, which is great — as you may have noticed, I pitch libraries as often as I can.

Blogs are hard work — at least writing mine is. I try to be somewhat amusing week after week (which, in truth, keeps me from being politically hostile), so I keep setting the bar higher and higher. In the olden days, it would take me 24 hours to write and edit a letter to my mom, and unless I’m pissed off — whereupon I almost always open mouth, insert foot — I "draft" every email I write. Which is to say that I start writing my Tuesday Murderati blog on Wednesday. So…

Do blogs sell books?

Or do they have the opposite effect and over-hype an author?

I’ll be honest. I usually read blogs by authors whose books I already own [and adore]. Case in point: Paul Levine. If I ran into an author I adored in a public place (oh, say, the ladies room – well, I probably wouldn’t run into Paul there, so let’s add an elevator), I’d either be tongue-tied or gush. I shared an elevator with Walter Mosely, just the two of us, and I was tongue-tied; I ran into Susan Isaacs in a restroom and gushed (poor Susan).

But reading a blog by one of my favorite authors is different. I’m rarely tongue-tied because I write my comments rather than talk out loud, and gushing is limited to how many words I can fit into the "comments square" before my fingers tire or my brain fries.

So, let’s do an informal poll. How many people have bought — or borrowed — books because they like an author’s blog?

And/or how many people have been tongue-tied [or gushed] if/when they’ve met a favorite author?

And what the hell IS the population of California?

Next Tuesday, just for fun, I think I’ll blog an essay about a real live actress — my sister Eileen — who played The Demon and many of the possession scenes [for Linda Blair] in The Exorcist. And I’ll include photos. And a movie poster for Eileen’s latest film.

Maybe the Bayside Times will print it.

Over and Out,
Deni

How to Pitch to a Reporter

by Pari Noskin Taichert

(Hi all. I bet you thought I’d be posting about the marvelous Con Misterio. Well, I will . . . eventually. I’ve got to go through the pictures, find the links for the authors’ mugs — I like to give them the additional plug — and see if I can decrease the red eyes so that they don’t all look like vampires. Since I’m typing this late on Sunday night after just getting off the plane . . . I’ll save my report until next Monday.)

I originally wrote this article for my Bad Girls Press website. It’s targeted to a general audience — but the lessons are important and I hope you all will benefit from them.

How to Pitch to a Reporter

When you’re cooking dinner, nudging the dog from the kitchen with one foot and chasing the cat out of the garbage can with the other, the last thing you want is a salesman with a long-winded patter, even if you’d normally be interested in his product.

Think of your phone call to the news media in the same way. Any reporter, news director, or assignments editor with whom you speak is busy, very busy.

Put your ego aside. Don your mental running shoes and entice that person with a juicy pitch — one she can’t resist. To be successful, you have to frame your information so that it focuses entirely on her wants and needs rather than your own.

Don’t get it? Here’s an example of common mistakes people make when approaching a reporter on the phone.

Wrong:
Reporter:  Thompson.

SS: Hello, Ms. Thompson. My name is Sally Swagger and I’m the executive director of the Save the Pennies Foundation. Our purpose is to ensure that pennies remain in circulation — both for historical and practical reasons. Did you see that report on XYZ news last week about the government phasing out pennies? Well, we were simply aghast! Frankly, we feel the poor penny has been so long neglected and ignored that —

Reporter: Excuse me, I’m working on deadline.

SS: Well, this will only take a minute. As I was saying — aren’t pennies just lovely? We think more items should be bought with these beautiful copper Lincolns rather than using other coins. People waste so much by hoarding their pennies and that’s why . . .

******Do you think the reporter is still listening to Sally? Don’t bet on it. Chances are, if a reporter isn’t responding or asking questions — and you’ve been able to take more than two breaths in your pitch — you’ve already lost her.

What’s the lesson here?
Rather than blather, cut to the chase. Be prepared to quickly point out the something special that makes your event (or book) worth covering. For radio, you need to be sure it’s got a good audio component. For television, you want to make sure the pitch contains a strong visual potential rather than BOPSA (bunches of people sitting around).

Let’s say Sally’s lengthy intro is leading up to a description of a special Paying with Pennies Day where all the Foundation members plan to use pennies to buy everything for 24 hours.

Let’s replay the conversation.

Right:
Reporter:  Thompson.

SS: Hi, I’m Sally Swagger with Save the Pennies Foundation. Do you know what $1000 worth of pennies weighs?

Reporter (caught off guard): What?

SS: About 150 pounds. Our first Paying with Pennies Day is this Saturday. One of our members will buy his new car with nothing but pennies.

Reporter:  You’re kidding, right?

SS: Nope. He’s been saving for twelve years. We know he’ll need several wheelbarrows — and a couple of pickup trucks — to haul them into Bill ‘s Buick over on 12th Street. And another one of our participants plans to go to the Ritz for a champagne brunch. I wonder how many pennies that’ll take?

Reporter:  Hold on. (The reporter is now opening a computer file, or writing notes, or motioning her assignments editor over to her desk. Her eyes are twinkling. She’s got visions of her story hitting television stations across the country.) What was your name again?

See the difference?
Sally got right to the point. But even more important, she was ready with an attention-grabbing angle. She didn’t bother to talk about her organization’s purpose in the phone call; that can be covered in a short information sheet when the reporter or cameraman arrives to film one of the events. Since Sally wanted television coverage, she spotlighted the visual aspect early. She also was smart to present choices — that’s like offering two kinds of dessert.

Coverage in a scary world:
Right now, most news outlets are focusing on the war in Iraq, avian flu and other crises. Garnering publicity for your product/event/book may seem even more difficult. And you might be right. There simply isn’t as much radio, television or print space dedicated to non-tragedy related news. But don’t let that stop you.

Of the many people trying to get media attention, you’ve got an edge. You know what to do:
Be smart — work your pitch to meet reporters’ needs.
Be brief — don’t waste his or her precious time or attention.
Be prepared.

You’ll have a much better chance of attaining your publicity goals.

******* If any of you can give an example of a quick pitch you made to a reporter/reviewer etc. I’d love to read it in the comments. This would be an opportunity for us to help each other crack an increasingly tough nut.

cheers,

Pari

So. Are You Still An Architect?

Jeffrey Cohen

A couple of weeks ago, I passed my 21st anniversary as a freelance writer, or as I like to think of it, I began my 22nd year of unemployment. It’s a strange life we freelancers lead, as we’re not quite self-employed (many companies must hire us for us to make a living), we’re not quite employed in the traditional sense (we don’t list an employer on our tax records, and we don’t report to an office every day) and then again, we are still working. Whenever possible.

The anniversary made me think about the writer’s life, which is a curious one. We do something that isn’t really like anything else: it’s not the kind of art that people can see, really. Oh, they read the words on the page, but if we’re doing our job right, they seem to be natural and inevitable, which means they don’t draw attention to the person putting them there. Freelance reporters are even more anonymous: nobody reads the byline; they just assume our work is generated by some monolithic entity. “Did you see what the Gazette said today?”

Writers would be missed if we all vanished, but then, so would dog groomers, since it would be a truly bizarre occurance if an entire class of people vanished based solely on profession. But I digress.

Writers, particularly those who traffic in fiction, have a remarkably strange place in society. Those who connect with the largest numbers of people are well-known, extremely well-compensated, and their names (if not their faces) are recognized the word over. Stephen King has practically become a genre. John Grisham is a brand name. J.K. Rowling actually owns Venezuela.

The rest of us are more anonymous, and that’s fine. When someone asks me if I want my novels to make me rich and famous, I usually remark that “famous” is entirely optional. I have no desire to be a household name, although my name is so common it appears in more households than I care to think about. I’m perfectly happy if people buy my books, read them and enjoy them, and remember my name only well enough to buy the next book when it comes out. That’s plenty for me; I don’t need the best table at Wolfgang Puck’s latest restaurant. Although the occasional free dessert would not be refused.

What constantly strikes me, though, is that people I know, people I’ve met (and I’m talking almost exclusively about people outside the publishing and mystery worlds), when confronted with the fact that I make my living rearranging words, seem to find this astonishing, as if I invented freelancing–and writing, for that matter–all by myself.

It happens in social situations, when friends and acquaintances gather at someone’s home or a restaurant and chat. I arrive, disguised as a normal person, doing my best to maintain the illusion that there’s nothing especially noteworthy about me. I have myself convinced, anyway, but there’s obviously something wrong with my disguise, because someone invariably sees through it and approaches. Quite often–more often than I care to think about, frankly–I am asked a question for which I have never been able to devise an adequate answer. You’d think that after countless repetitions I’d have come up with a stock line that would defuse the question, or put it to rest, but there’s something about it that really puzzles me. It startles me every time I hear it:

“So. You still writing?”

Is there any other profession on this earth that elicits that question? Are bank tellers constantly having to reassure casual acquaintances that they haven’t decided, against all odds, to become skydiving instructors? Is there an unreported rash of freelance writers suddenly giving up the ink-stained life to go into upholstery? Or is this a subtle dig at me in particular, perhaps? A way that the questioner is asking whether I’ve finally come to my senses and decided to get a real job?

I’ve been married for 19 years to an attorney who works for the state of New Jersey. I’ve seen her in any number of different social situations, ranging from small dinner parties to enormous gatherings of people in both professional and personal contexts. I have never, not once, heard anyone ask my wife if she’s still a lawyer. They don’t assume that just because they haven’t seen her in six months or so they need to check if she’s decided: “you know, the heck with the education, the law degree, the bar exam and the decades of experience. I’m going to clown college.”

So, why me?

I think it’s because people think writing is a hobby. They think it’s something one does to kill some time after coming home from work, to unwind. It’s a cute little avocation, not something intended to create income. It’s certainly not an identity, like being a college professor, an accountant or a steampipe fitter. It’s something done in those magical “extra” hours that I’ve never been able to identify. It’s something one does to boost one’s ego (hah!), to dispense with the odd creative impulse that might have otherwise interrupted a perfectly good day of work.

Defensive? Moi? Well, maybe. My father owned and operated a store that sold paint and wallpaper for 40 years. Well, to be totally accurate, my father was the one who sold the paint and wallpaper. The store did remarkably little beyond housing the paint and wallpaper. I’ll have to ask my mother, but I’m reasonably sure nobody every walked up to him at a bar mitzvah and asked him, “so, you still selling paint? Didn’t decide to become an airline pilot in the past week, did you?”

Anyone who reads this blog or dozens other, who follows publishing (and mystery publishing in particular) knows that this is no business for wimps. It’s not for people who are going to change their minds and go into some other line of work when the first hint of adversity shows itself. And it’s certainly not something one does on a whim.

So when someone asks me if I’m still a writer, I’ve had a number of canned responses I’ve tried. I used to say, “that’s what I do,” but that seemed a little bland. I toyed with, “no, haven’t you heard? I’m prime minister of Lichstenstein now!” But that just got me odd looks, and I get enough of those already. These days, I’m going with “yes I am. Would you like to buy one of my books?”

What the hell. A sale’s a sale.

Anatomy of a Murder

Please welcome Guest Blogger Dylan Schaffer to Murderati!

The only serious disagreement I’ve had with my publisher in
the past five years related to whether the bio on the back of my first book
ought to refer to one of my particularly infamous cases (along with writing
books, I’m a criminal appellate lawyer). Although Peterson and Jackson and
others have since occupied the center stage, for more than a year my client,
Marjorie Knoller, was the nation’s leading villain. Knoller was the resident of
a fancy San Francisco apartment building. One day she left her apartment with
two enormous dogs; the animals got loose, and one killed a neighbor.

Knoller was charged with murder. Other lawyers represented
Knoller at trial and she was convicted. I (and my colleagues) took over the
case and convinced the judge who’d presided over the trial to toss out the
murder charge. Knoller was left with a manslaughter conviction and a four-year
sentence, which she served. (To see what a lawyer and his client look like
moments after a judge throws out a murder conviction, go here.)

Publisher was perfectly happy to publicize my books by
referring to other high-profile cases I’ve worked on involving rather unsavory
types–the Gambino family, a very sweet elderly lady who buried nine bodies in
the small backyard of her seedy Sacramento boarding house. But publisher felt
strongly that while the Knoller case might draw attention, it would also make
people hate me. Because it was my first book, and I knew next to nothing about
the business, I conceded the point. But if I had it to do over again, I’d
insist.

In an attempt to avoid precisely the fate my publisher
feared, let me be clear: the victim in the case died in a horrible, appalling
manner, and it’s not at all hard to see why the public was enraged at my
client: if you know anything about the case, you know that she acted
unbelievably irresponsibly in taking the dogs walking by herself, when she
quite clearly could not control them. Also, the dogs were owned by neo-Nazi state
prisoners, with whom Knoller (a Jew) and her husband had inexplicably close
relations, and the animals seemed to be raised for the purpose of protecting
narcotics operations or other nefarious activity. Perhaps most importantly,
after a dog in her possession attacked and killed a young woman, Knoller and
her husband displayed a stunning lack of contrition. It was hardly surprising
when the trial court judge later told the Knollers that they were “the most
hated people in San Francisco.”

Nevertheless, I am enormously proud of the work I did on the
Knoller case. That is so because (a) my client was factually innocent of the
charged crime and (b) the case and the result serves as a very effective
teaching tool. The lesson is simple: there may be a body, and there may be a
person who, from a lay perspective, seems responsible for the body; but there may
not
be a murder.

(If you’re a real student of the case, then you know that
the result in the trial court was reversed by the Court of Appeal, and is now
under review by the California Supreme Court. I am confident the high court
will reinstate the trial court’s ruling, which is discussed below. Then again,
I could be wrong. In any case, the discussion that follows assumes my
colleagues and I are right on the law.)

Our books tend to be about bodies and the people responsible
for them. But there is widespread misunderstanding of the law of murder. This
is true in some very good books, I’m afraid. And I hope it won’t come as too
great a shock to learn that Law & Order has massacred the law of
homicide beyond recognition.

So, because dear Elaine has fled for the moment, and, in a
moment of profoundly dubious judgment, left me to fill her unfillable shoes,
and because the name of this here blog is Murderati, I thought I’d do a
quick primer. After you read the following, you’ll be better equipped to
discuss and/or write about the subject of murder than most criminal lawyers and
many writers of legal thrillers.

A corpse is tangible–you can touch it, smell it,
dissect it. It’s a real thing. A homicide exists at a considerably
higher level of abstraction, although even the writers on Law & Order would
correctly say that when a human being causes the death of another human being,
a homicide has occurred. But you can see where questions might pop up–for
example, what does cause mean? Knoller didn’t pull a trigger, so did she
really commit a homicide? In the end, though, the existence of what is clearly
a homicide–say, a gun to head killing–has no legal significance at all. You
can’t be convicted of homicide. The crime is murder.

But murder does not exist. The dictionary says murder
is the “unlawful killing of a human by another,” but that’s wrong, wrong,
wrong. In fact, as I’ll describe below, it’s wrong in precisely the way the
prosecutor and jurors got it wrong in the Knoller case. If a character in a
book you’re reading (or writing) says, “she murdered her husband”, I hope, now,
alarm bells will go off. The statement means nothing.

Truth is, murder is whatever we, or, more accurately, our
elected representatives say it is. (To make things simple, I’ll focus on
California; but while other states and the feds sometimes use different
terminology, the rules are usually very similar.) Murder is a statutory
wrapping around a concomitance of two things: certain kinds of conduct (say actus
reas
and the judge will be impressed) and certain sorts of intent (or mens
rea
). It’s just our way of saying that if you do X act, and you possess Y
intent, you will be punished according to rules set for in the California Penal
Code. If tomorrow the legislature decided to change the meaning of X and Y, or
if the California Supreme Court issued an opinion interpreting X or Y in a new
way, the meaning of murder would (and often does) change.

As of this writing, here’s how it works. Murder is defined
as the “killing of a human (or a fetus) with malice aforethought.” Immediately
we have reference to both X (conduct) and Y (intent)–X, you have to kill
someone; and Y, you have to do so with a particular sort of intent we call malice.

X is easy. You picked up the gun, you aimed, you fired, the
shot hit your target and the target died of trauma caused by the gunshot wound.

Y is not so easy. Malice is no more tangible than murder.
And there are hundreds of opinions discussing it, many of which disagree. But
there are some things we know. First, there are two kinds of malice: express
and implied. Express malice is easy to describe: if you intend to
kill someone, you have express malice.

(In California, there are two degrees of murder.
First-degree murder is simply X + Y
(where Y is express malice) + one additional element: the killing has to have
been the product of premeditation and deliberation. So, how are those defined?
Actually, that’s kind of a complicated question, and I think I’ll wait until
Elaine asks me back–yeah, right–to get into that. Suffice to say that if you
plan to kill someone, and you kill them, then you’re guilty of first degree
murder. And if you plan to kill, and you kill, and you kill under one of a
number of special circumstances detailed in the Penal Code–for example, two or
more victims, or in combination with some other horrid crime like rape or
robbery–then you’re eligible for the death penalty.)

The form of intent known as implied malice is the one
that made such a mess in the Knoller case. Here’s a clear example of an implied
malice killing: say I go out on New Years eve with a loaded gun and shoot
through the front window of a house crowded with revelers, and say I kill someone.
But let’s also say, as a matter of fact, that I didn’t intend to kill anyone; I
just thought it would be fun to empty my .9mm into a crowded residence.

In this case it’s not possible to say I intended to
kill anyone, so I don’t have express malice. But the legislature would like to
avoid morons like me firing at crowded houses, so they say that even if you
don’t intend to kill someone, if you do something you know has a high
probability of leading to the death of a human being, and your conduct in fact does
result in a death, then we don’t care about your lack of intent. We’re going to
punish you just as severely as someone who intends to kill.

In accordance with the statutory scheme, juries in implied
malice cases are told that to be guilty, the defendant must have “(a) intentionally committed an act; (b) the
natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life; (c) the defendant
must have known the act was dangerous to human life; and (d) deliberately acted
with conscious disregard for human life.

So, what happened in Knoller? The prosecution in that case
conceded from the outset that my client never intended to kill anyone. So in
order to convict her of murder it had to rely on an implied malice theory. And
now you know that means it had to prove not only that her conduct resulted in a
death, but also that she knew her conduct had a high probability of
leading to such a death and didn’t adjust her behavior. The DA had to convince
the jurors that leaving her apartment with the dogs was the same as shooting
into a house filled with people.

The prosecution offered plenty of evidence that Knoller knew
the dogs were dangerous: in the weeks Knoller and her husband had the dogs the
animals snapped and growled at various people, they lunged repeatedly, and they
had once killed two animals on a farm. One of the dogs bit Knoller’s husband on
the hand when he tried to break up a dogfight.

Given this evidence, the DA could easily make the argument
that Knoller was on notice that the dogs would snap, growl, lunge or bite. But
the state produced no evidence at all that Knoller knew the dogs would kill
a human being. And as you now know, because you’re an expert on the law
of murder, Knoller could not have been guilty unless she knew her conduct was
dangerous to human life and acted in deliberate disregard for that
danger. Amazingly, the prosecution’s own expert testified that instances of
dogs killing people are so extraordinarily rare, that as statistical matter,
dogs don’t kill people. Therefore, Knoller could not have predicted her dog
would kill because (a) her dog had never killed and (b) dogs, unlike guns fired
into houses, don’t kill.

When the judge threw out the murder conviction based on
precisely this reasoning, the prosecutor fumed that the court had ignored the
will of the jury, which had convicted Knoller of murder. The problem with this
argument, as the DA well knew, is that the jury had been lied to about the true
nature of implied malice (an error you would never permit given your newfound knowledge
of murder law). Basically, during the trial, the DA convinced the court to tell
the jurors that if Knoller knew that the dogs were capable of causing serious
bodily injury
, then she had implied malice. But eventually the court saw
that it had been wrong. Injury is not enough; to be a murderer, Knoller had to
have known that the dogs would kill. She couldn’t have, and didn’t.

Once again, so I don’t spend the rest of the summer getting
flamed and fighting off horrified e-mails, I’m not saying Knoller was a
conscientious dog owner, or a nice person, or that the victim did not die an
entirely undeserved, savage death. My point is just this: there was a corpse.
There was a homicide–Knoller didn’t pull the trigger, but she took dogs out
into public she knew might snap, lunge or bite, and so it’s clear she caused
the victim’s death. And there was (as the foregoing dictionary definition
suggests) the unlawful killing of a human being. But there was no murder.

Dylan Schaffer writes the Misdemeanor Man series. His new
book, Life, Death & Bialys: A Father/Son Baking Story, is about life,
death, bialys, fathers, sons, and baking. It arrives in September. Dylan also blogs and globs, stop by and say hello.

That Magic Moment…

To start with, today one of you will be our 25,000th
visitor
. So let me say a big THANK YOU! to all of our readers. And
indulge me for a moment while I thank my fellow Murderati – Pari, Deni, Naomi, Simon, Elaine and Jeff,
who bring so much to this blog, day after day, constantly writing ingenious,
inventive and informative posts. Bravo, blogmates!

The success of Murderati became a launching pad of sorts for
me. As I developed confidence in my essay abilities (I still feel they are
woefully lacking, just look at Pari‘s  and Naomi’s posts this week to see why) I starting venturing into areas where I wasn’t as
comfortable. I don’t have the expertise that my blog mates bring to the table.
Let’s face it, I won’t even be in print until late next year. As a result, I’m
finding that my blog entries are becoming more of a journal for what’s
happening that week in my writing process.

When I started with Murderati back on April 7th, I had no idea what
was coming down the train tracks. I was struggling, trying to figure out the system, doing
this blog, gleaning as much information as I could from my fellow writers,
working on short stories, getting my name out, doing all the things I told all
of you to do in my first column.

Then the world exploded. My agent took my manuscript out, I
signed with MIRA, got involved with KillerYear, and went to ThrillerFest, all
in a brief two-month period.

Things are getting back to normal now. I’m beginning to
catch my breath. I actually go for long stretches at a time not thinking about
the fact that I’m finally realizing my dreams of being published. The summer
stretches before me. I haven’t received my edits on ALL THE PRETTY GIRLS, so
I’m moving forward on my next book.

There are moments when I’m working on a book, mile markers,
if you will, that let me know how well I’m doing. My first major hurdle is the
20,000 word count. Until a new manuscript hits that point, it doesn’t feel like
it’s ever going to be a real book. I broke 20K yesterday, so now I’m 80 pages
into my 350 page journey and feeling like maybe, just maybe, I can salvage a
book from this mess. My next big goal is the 100 page mark. Then I’ll feel like
something substantial has been accomplished.

By setting and achieving small goals, I find that writing a
book is that much easier. I try for 1,000 words a day. Sometimes I get on a
roll and write 3000. Some days I struggle getting 500 down. But I continue to
slog away, day after day, trying to just get the story down and not worrying as
much about the perfect turn of phrase, or whether I’ve tied up that loose end.
It’s the best advice I can give. Just get the story down. A draft is called
that for a reason.

I love the moment that first draft is finished. It’s a time
for celebration, to treat myself with something, a new book, an afternoon off.
Because rewriting and editing are a lot easier than getting the story down in
the first place.

Let me suggest something for anyone who struggles with
getting that manuscript finished. There’s a contest in November called
NaNoWriMo – National Novel Writing Month. Go to the
site. Think about the goal – 50,000 words in 30 days. Think that’s impossible?
It’s only 2600 words a day. The goal is to write. Write, write, write, like your
hair is on fire. No looking back, no worrying about style, voice or point of
view. That’s all for your rewrite. It’s a great exercise in getting something
major done on your manuscript.

Start now. Think about what you’re going to write, how the
story will go, who your characters are, and when November 1st rolls
around, go for it. You have absolutely nothing to lose!

A Late PS: Jason Pinter has an excellent Do/Don’t list at his blog today — Check it out…

Wine of the Week: I discovered a new varietal this week that
I really enjoyed and plan to add to the meager collection. It’s a Greek based
Italian red grape called Aglianico, (ahn-LAHN-ico) from the Basilicata region. Try the Ars Poetica Vulcano, or the Re
Manfredi Aglianico del Vulture
.