Crime Fiction Dossier

Caveat emptor

Readers of blogs are consumers of information. There are blogs on virtually every subject known to man -- and plenty that you wouldn't want to know about. A few of them are interesting and/or useful, most of them are filled with nonsense. Included among that nonsense is a lot of bad advice, especially with regards to writing and publishing.

So here's a friendly reminder; a little something to keep in mind when wasting time on the blogosphere:

• If a person offers you advice on how to get published, find out if that person is published. If not, does he offer some other legitimate credentials? (E.g., he's an agent or editor.) If not, you might want to look at his advice with a skeptical eye.
• If a person offers you advice on how to have success in your writing career, try to find out how much success they've had in their writing career. How many books have they published? Who published them? Are they still in print? Have they made any of the bestseller lists? Have they gotten significant reviews? Have they won any awards? If you've never heard of the writer, never heard of their books, perhaps their strategies are not as effective as they reckon.
• If a person offers you advice on how to become a bestselling writer, first determine if that advice has worked for him. If he's not a bestselling writer, perhaps it's because his advice doesn't work.
• If a person offers you advice on how to become a better writer, read some of that person's writing. Is it any good? If not, reconsider how much credence you want to give that advice.
• If a person offers you advice on how to break into Hollywood, find out if that person has broken into Hollywood.
• If a person recommends publisher XYZ or literary agency ABC, do some research. Find out who those companies publish or represent. If you've never heard of any of their books or authors, ask yourself if these are the right people for you to be in business with.
• If a person recommends you pay them or anyone else for publishing, representation, editorial services, a review, reading your manuscript, or anything else, be very, very wary. Chances are better than good that you're being conned.
• Yes, that's right: even those very nice people who promise to make your every dream come true. Them too.

A person does not necessarily have to have done something in order to provide sound, useful information on the subject. However, before you go taking advice from some random person on the internet, it would behoove you to discover if that person has a legitimate basis from which to offer that advice. If they don't, you're probably better off clicking onward and finding something else to occupy your time.

(Note: I'm writing this with masculine pronouns because the first time through I tried using a lot of he/shes, etc. and it just looked clunky. So feel free to substitute feminine pronouns where appropriate.)

ThrillerFest Panel: Shaken Not Stirred: Plots with a Twist

These are the last of my notes from a ThrillerFest panel. The participants discussed spy fiction (in a very general sense) and then branched out from there to talk about writing and other things. Sitting on the panel were Joseph Finder, Barry Eisler, Gayle Lynds, Raymond Benson, Grand Blackwood and moderator Leslie Silbert.

(Note: I didn't take any notes on the discussion of spy fiction. What I wrote down was mostly writing craft stuff, which is what I'm including here.)

Barry Eisler (on the subject of violence): He writes about characters who excel at violence -- but people who excel at violence have troubled lives. They're not normal people and they're incapable of leading normal lives. So someone like John Rain, who is so adept in one area (i.e., violence), is basically inept when it comes to such basic things as sustaining a relationship with another person. Violence takes its toll on people like him and it's interesting to show that in fiction.

Gayle Lynds (on writing larger-than-life characters): Give the heroes flaws so that they don't become superheroes, and give the villains good qualities so that the reader can understand their motivations, if not actually empathize with them. The key is the make the characters three-dimensional. They can't just be cardboard cut-outs or the audience is going to lose interest. You should work just as hard at developing your villains as you do your heroes. Your protagonist must have a worthy antagonist in order to get the most out of your story.

Joseph Finder (on the kind of characters he likes to write): An everyman character who gets caught up in events that spiral out of control and take over his life. Finder likes to see how his character -- who's basically an ordinary guy -- reacts; how he behaves in that situation. Thriller readers want to read about experts; people who know what they're doing, who have extraordinary abilities -- but who are still ordinary people. So the trick is to make your hero(ine) exciting while not making them unbelievable.

Gayle Lynds: We often see stories that are "ripped from today's headlines." But what's most interesting is to take those stories and then put a fresh twist on them. If people are reading a story in the newspaper, chances are they're already familiar with it, if not tired of it. So why would they want to read it in a novel? So use that idea as a launching point to create something new and different of your own.

Barry Eisler: Your protagonist might do bad things, but by peeking into their heads -- knowing their goals and motivations -- the reader can understand their behavior. This makes the character realer and more accessible. The same can also be true of the antagonist. The reader needs to understand why the villain is doing what he's doing in order to make him an intriguing adversary.

Joseph Finder: The old saying is that "truth is stranger than fiction" -- but fiction had better be more exciting. Thrillers focus on the most exciting characters, in the most exciting circumstances, doing the most exciting things.

Grant Blackwood: The reader needs to understand the antagonist's motivation. By understanding the actions of the villains, by getting a peek behind the curtain, the reader's interest in the story will increase, as will the dramatic tension.

Joseph Finder: The "ticking bomb" makes for a great plot device -- a great MacGuffin as Hitchcock used to say. But in order for the reader to care about that scenario, the story must have compelling characters. The characters are what matter most of all. The fact that a bomb is going to explode in New York City isn't very exciting unless the hero(ine) knows it's going to happen. It's by seeing the scenario through their eyes that the reader becomes invested in the story.

Panel Question: What one thing does a thriller need?

Barry Eisler: Thrills.
Joseph Finder: A character you care about.
Gayle Lynds: Structure.
Barry Eisler: And sex.
Grant Blackwood: Larger than life characters.
Raymond Benson: Pace; forward momentum.

CraftFest Talk: The Six Biggest Mistakes Even Bestselling Writers Make

I'm attending CraftFest, part of the ThrillerFest conference put on by ITW this weekend in New York. This morning I sat in on a talk given by bestselling thriller writer Joseph Finder, the topic of which was "The Six Biggest Mistakes Even Bestselling Writers Make."

It's been a long time since I was in school, so my note-taking skills have atrophied...But here's what Finder discussed.

MISTAKE #1: The Passive Hero

• Too many thrillers have heroes who don't act; they remain passive while events take place around them.
• The hero must advance the plot; s/he must take action.
• The hero can't simply investigate what's going on -- he must do something about it.

MISTAKE #2: The Long Setup

• The story takes too long to get moving.
• Authors shouldn't just dump story on the reader; they should reveal it through action.
• Too many books start with a good opening, but then slow down to a crawl.
• One way to avoid this is to start the story as late as possible. If necessary, you can then go back and fill in details later on.

MISTAKE #3: The Weak Second Act

• Too many books bog down in the middle, degenerating into repetitive conflict and simply regurgitating the same plot points over and over. The characters aren't progressing and changing.
• The conflict of a plot must progress and escalate; the plot points must change and vary throughout the narrative.
• This escalation of conflict, as well as variance of conflict, will not only keep the reader's interest, but help to develop and reveal character as well.
• The introduction of subplots will also help keep the second act moving.
• Whenever things start to get dull, remember: REVERSE, REVEAL, SURPRISE.
• Every scene must advance the plot.

MISTAKE #4: Predictability

• Authors should never underestimate their readers, most of whom have read a lot of books and seen even more movies and TV shows.
• Readers know the tropes and cliches of the genre. If the story is predictable, they'll see where it's going a long way off and get bored.
• The key is to surprise them. Veer off from the expected course.
• If the obvious development is to take the plot in a certain direction, consider taking it in a different direction instead.
• One way to avoid this trap is not to over-outline. Be spontaneous in your writing. Allow the characters and the plot to surprise you.

MISTAKE #5: The Lousy Ending

• Too many books send the reader off on a sour note by finishing with a lousy ending.
• A great ending is second only to a great beginning in importance.
• The ending should not consist of explaining everything that happened before or tying up all the loose ends.
• You should explain as little as possible; let the reader figure out the smaller details on his/her own.
• Great endings off have symmetry to the beginning.
• Twists can be good, but they must be earned. They must be set up earlier in the book and prepared for.
• When you finish the book, get out of there ASAP. Don't draw things out.

MISTAKE #6: Showing Off

• Too many writers make the mistake of: "I've done the research; I'm going to cram it all in there."
• You should tell the reader the minimum they need in order to understand the plot; just the tip of the iceberg.
• Pare it down, leaving only the juiciest nuggets behind.
• Too much info will only slow down the story.

BONUS MISTAKE #1: Overly Explicit Dialogue

• People don't narrate a story when they speak; they don't dump details and information.
• People speak elliptically. Watch out for expository dialogue.

BONUS MISTAKE #2: All Plot, No People

• The story won't matter if we don't care about the characters.
• On its own, the plot is abstract; it requires the characters to make it real and make it matter to the reader.
• Also, the stakes of the plot must matter to the characters in order for us to care as readers.

BONUS MISTAKE #3: Action Is Boring

• Unlike in film where action scenes can be exciting, in books they too often are boring.
• What is interesting to the reader is how the characters react to the action and how they interact with each other.
• There should also be variety in your scenes; don't follow an action scene with another action scene and another action scene. Vary the pace, vary the types of scenes, slow down and speed up in order to give the reader a break and keep them interested.

BONUS MISTAKE #4: Backstory Dump

• Don't make the mistake of dumping the characters' backstory on the reader all at once. It will bring your plot to a halt and bore the reader.
• Reveal the backstory slowly, in pieces, as necessary.
• Drop references in here and there; include mentions in dialogue; intersperse little details throughout the plot.
• There is always a trade-off of CHARACTER vs. PACE.
• It's importance to find the balance of revealing enough about the characters in order to make them interesting and make the reader care about them, versus the need to keep the plot moving.

It was a very interesting talk. I hope you find this shorthand version useful.

Literary heroes

Screenwriter Paul Guyot has a new feature on his website that intrigued me. It's a photo gallery of his heroes, drawn from film, literature, music, sports, his personal life and everything else.

Some of the choices are a little odd -- for example, he is obsessed with a horse. And, apparently, people who drive really fast while making left turns. But some of the choices are rather inspiring.

This got me thinking about my own heroes, especially those related to writing and literature. I'm too lazy to put together pictures or anything. But I did start making a list:

Ross Thomas...Roger Ebert...Larry Block...Pauline Kael...Anthony Boucher...Ernest Hemingway...George Pelecanos...John D. MacDonald...Dashiell Hammett...Laura Lippman...Robert Ferrigno...David Morrell...Rex Stout

(This is just off the top of my head -- I know I'm leaving off some great people.)

What about you? Who are your literary heroes?

Barry Eisler's advice for aspiring writers

We've been talking a lot recently about writing (and how to write better), so I dug through the archives to retrieve some material to share.

Back when I used to do a lot of author interviews, I'd always ask the interviewee if they had any advice for aspiring writers. The following is one of the best responses I received, from bestselling author Barry Eisler. This is from July 2005. -DJM

• Keep writing. Can't emphasize this one enough. Every day is ideal, but the goal is to just be as regular as you can. Same as learning a language, or a martial art, etc.
• Reread passages from books you love and ask yourself, what is the author doing here that's working so well? And if you see something that you think is bad, ask yourself, why is this bad? What could the author have done differently to make it work?
• Read books on writing. Stephen King's On Writing helped me a lot. David Morrell's Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing is also terrific. There are many others. But don't read the how-to books at the expense of your own writing. Whenever you have to choose, practice your writing instead.
• If you've got time and you're serious, a writer's workshop can be a huge help with motivation, feedback, and discipline. Google "Writer's workshops" and the name of your city and you'll probably be able to find a bunch.
• When you think your book is as good as you can possibly get it, it's time to try to find an agent. The way to do this is to go a library or bookstore and get a book like The Writer's Digest Guide to Literary Agents. Identify the ones that handle your kind of book and contact them in exactly the manner they request.
• One of your best friends as a writer is what I think of as the "what if" question. "What if someone cloned dinosaurs and planned to open a dinosaur theme park on a remote island?" (Jurassic Park) "What if a semi-yuppie drug dealer were about to do a seven year prison stretch?" (The 25th Hour) Etc. If the what-if question interests you enough, it'll lead you to other questions, all of the who, what, where, when, why, how variety. Follow those questions and you'll start to find your story.

A lot of people think that, in the writing business, it's not what you know, but who. This has not been my experience. Who you know might get an agent to take a look at something you've written, but after that you will stand or fall entirely on the quality of your writing and other business calculations.

In other words, the best a mutual acquaintance can do is possibly get your work moved closer to the top of the agent's pile. But this is a minimal benefit, because agents read everything that's submitted to them anyway. That's their business. It may take the agent a while, but eventually he or she will read what you've sent.

What makes a great book a great book?

In the post below ("Write a great book"), Doug Riddle asks the question:

So what makes a great book a great book?

Obviously there is a huge subjective component to this. On the other hand, you seldom hear people say that that Shakespeare guy really sucked, or that Raymond Chandler was a hack.

(Naturally, you can find someone who'll say it, but by consensus if nothing else, there are some objective standards of quality. Otherwise, my daughter's scribbling would be on the Times bestseller list.)

In simple terms, I think a great book has what Paul Guyot calls "the combo plate." (I love that term because it makes me think of Mexican food. And I love Mexican food.)

The combo plate means the book has a great story told through great prose. You'll find a lot of good books that have one or the other, but when you put the two together, that's when you approach greatness.

Some combination of the components that make a great book, if not all of them, will be present: interesting, multi-faceted characters; a dynamite protagonist; a worthy antagonist (if there is one); a plot that draws you in; an original story (or, at least, an original take on a familiar story) that holds your interest throughout the book; a compelling authorial voice; rich conflict; dialogue that sparkles; evocative descriptions; a setting that comes alive...

What do you think? You know a great book when you read it -- so what makes it great?

Write a great book

It's become something of a writers blog cliché to discuss marketing and promotion, and how to spread word of mouth, and how to get reviewed, and myriad other topics... And then we end with, "Oh, and write a great book." Yes, I'm guilty of it, too.

This has been coming up a lot in my post giving "Advice to unpublished writers" so I thought we should discuss it further.

Shouldn't this be the advice that we lead with? Shouldn't this be the one thing that is first and foremost in all our thoughts and all our advice?

You want to get an agent? Write a great book.
You want to get published? Write a great book.
You want to get reviewed? Write a great book.
You want to sell a lot of copies? Write a great book.

Okay, it's a little monotonous. But it's also true. The single most important thing a writer can do to give him/herself the best chance at success is write a great book. That trumps everything else.

So how does one write a great book? Dunno. (If there were an easy answer to that question, do you think I'd be writing this blog? No. I'd be on my private island sipping gin and tonics.)

There's no one piece of advice anyone can give that will teach you to write a great book. At the same time, I do think we can learn to improve our craft. Writers like Stephen King, David Morrell and Gayle Lynds help with their books and workshops. But it's hard work to learn -- and it's even harder to teach. (And, truth be told, it's not something I think most of us understand very well. I know I don't.)

One piece of advice that I will pass along was stated in the comments to the thread below by author Phil Hawley:

I've always felt that you should write a novel only if you carry inside a story that is aching to get out.

That is so right. It has to be something burning inside you, some story you have to tell; the kind of thing that keeps you awake at night because you can't stop thinking about it. A lot of books, I think, are written simply because the author wanted to (or had to) write a book. There wasn't any passion there. Now, some writers may be able to get away with that, but if the rest of us try it, I think we're in trouble.

Once you've got that killer story, you have to work your ass off to make it as good as you can; honing the prose, refining the characters, tightening the plot. And you can't stop until it's the absolute best that you can make it. Just "good enough" isn't...well, good enough.

There's no secret, no trick, no shortcut. Just hard work. I am convinced, however, that in the end it will all pay off.

Advice for unpublished writers

Much of what I write on this blog is directed at published writers; thoughts on reviews, promotion, publishing, etc. Today I want to pass along some advice for unpublished writers that I think is very important. I'll warn you up-front that this is not advice that a lot of people want to hear. But I'm going to share it anyway.

Everyone who contemplates writing a novel dreams of publication. That's why we do it in the first place. Nobody wants to write something just to stick it in a drawer. So when the first glimmer of success comes along, we jump at the bait like the hungriest fish in the pond.

An agent wants to rep me? Great! Let's do business. A publisher wants my book? Wonderful! Where do I sign?

We don't stop to ask the hard questions. Is this the right agent for me? Is this an agent that can get things done? Is this an agent who shares the same vision for my book and my career that I do? We're just so happy that an agent -- any agent -- is willing to take us on, that we leap before we look.

Same thing with publishers. We don't question if this is the right deal to launch our careers, if this is a publisher who believes in the book and will give it the support it deserves. We don't ask about print runs or marketing support. We're so desperate to get published that we'll take the deal, any deal, just to see our book in print.

And that's a mistake. Because you only get one chance to be a first-time novelist -- and that, quite possibly, is the best, most important chance you'll ever have as a writer.

In a recent interview at Murderati, Neil Nyren, Publisher and Editor in Chief of Putnam, made the following statement:

First novelists have no black marks against them, no large returns or tiny sales, so anything is theoretically possible. But if an author has published four books to static or declining results, there’s no way to hide it, and it’s very hard to convince an account not to order accordingly.

What does that mean? It means you're in a stronger position as a brand-new author than as one who's had a couple of novels poorly published. (And let's be honest -- far too many novels these days are poorly published. I'd even go so far as to say that this happens to more books than not.)

In a discussion I had recently with one of the top literary agents in the business, I was told:

The first deal for a new author is vital. Can be career defining. It’s the only time a publisher signs a deal without any sales figures to go on.

Or as another A-list agent put it:

You need to go out with something unstoppable as your first published novel. You need to be published well, not just published.

Go to any writers conference and wander around the halls and you'll see authors whose books you remember from a few years back and you'll think, "Huh, there's so-and-so...I haven't seen a book from him in a long time. I wonder what happened." Chances are that so-and-so is still writing -- he just can't get a contract because his first two-book deal didn't earn out and no publisher is willing to touch him. Did this person suddenly forget how to write? No. But the industry is no longer interested because they can't sell his books.

As unpublished writers, we need to think long and hard about our prospective careers and decide what exactly we want out of them. If the goal is simply to be published, then the decision is much easier. Find a reputable agent who's at least reasonably enthusiastic about the project and hope she can sell it. Anywhere. Then sit back and enjoy the pleasure of seeing your book in print. You might not ever sell another, might not make a dime off it, but you'll always be a published author, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

On the other hand, if you're in this for the long haul; if you're looking for the type of long-term success that builds book after book, that keeps you in print, that ensures you can earn enough money from writing to actually live on...Well, then the decisions are much harder, and can sometimes be much more painful to make.

Not only do you have to write a book that a publisher will buy, you have to write a book that a publisher will sell. A 3000 copy print run from a second-tier publisher probably won't accomplish your goals. Even a top-tier publisher who is willing, but not enthusiastic, is unlikely to do what needs to be done.

You need a smart agent with lots of connections; a savvy editor with clout; a publisher that's committed to distributing, marketing and selling your book. And most of all, you need a great book that can generate the enthusiasm necessary to make the whole thing happen.

Sometimes we just have to face the hard, hard truth that this isn't the right book at the right time. This isn't the right representation or the right publisher; not the right deal. We have to face the painful reality that it's time to stick the manuscript in the drawer and go back to square one. It's time to start all over again.

Because there is something worse than being an aspiring writer with a novel that was never published. It's being an aspiring writer with a novel that was published -- and it ended your career before it even began.

Favorite (or least favorite) PI novel clichés

I had a conversation with reviewer Cameron Hughes recently where the topic of private eye clichés came up. Cameron was complaining about the use of jazz in PI novels (I'll let him explain his position further, if he wants) and I responded with the alcoholic PI.

To amuse myself, I started making a list of other overused clichés and gimmicks from PI novels. Here's what I came up with. (Note: some of these would also apply to other types of crime novels.)

• The psycho sidekick who does the dirty work so that the hero can keep his hands clean.
• The detective who's a gourmet cook.
• The detective who drives a flashy car. (Would you really try to tail someone in a Ferrari or Shelby Cobra?)
• The detective as social worker -- not only does he solve your case, he heals your soul.
• The detective who's a gimmick instead of a character: he loves Bugs Bunny, he's got OCD, he's a leper, he's a left-handed transsexual, he thinks he's from Mars, etc.
• (I'm using "he" to make it easier, but all of these would apply to female PI's as well.)

Naturally, any of that stuff can still work in the right hands. I like Ken Bruen's books a lot and Jack Taylor is the prototypical boozer. But it's definitely something that I would caution any aspiring PI novel writer to be aware of. (The first rule to using a cliché is knowing that it's a cliché.)

Does these bother you when you come across them in a novel? And what are some of your favorites?

The obligatory "screenwriters on strike are turning to writing novels" article

The L.A. Times has the piece. I'm surprised it took them this long to run it.

The best quote is from Mary Evans, Robert Ferrigno's agent:

"Oftentimes, you shudder when a screenwriter sends you a novel, because they tend to be strong with dialogue but crappy with context, and novels are all about creating the proper context for the story," said Evans, whose clients include [Mark Haskell] Smith and Michael Chabon. "Screenwriters are attracted to novel writing because they can let their freak flag fly and just write what they want, but the truly talented novelist-slash-screenwriter is very rare."

Have any of you read Mark Haskell Smith? From the brief description the article gives, he sounds like someone I might like.

Plots with Guns returns

I'm always out of the loop, so I just heard about this. (Thanks Guyot.) Anthony Neil Smith has announced that Plots with Guns, one of the best publications for short crime fiction, is returning.

I'll be doing quarterly issues.  The pay will be...well, it'll be me buying you your drink of choice the next time I happen to see you.  The standards will be higher than ever, and I'll be pickier than ever. Looking for hard-boiled, noir and transgressive crime fiction.  Every story has to have a gun in it somehow, some way (doesn't have to play a big role.  Just needs to be there).  No pastiche.  It's got to feel right to find a home in PWG.

In 2008, we're starting over with Issue #1.  Send me your best (email only).  You know how to get in touch.  And I promise you this won't be a Ross Perot thing (he's running, he's not, he's running again, he's not).  This time, I'm sticking around for the long haul.

Very welcome news indeed.

Ask the Critic: Writing query letters

Anonymous asks:

I am preparing a query letter in the hopes of getting an agent for a novel I've just completed. I have all sorts of contradictory advice from various Internet sites to sort out. Do you have any advice?

I have thoughts on writing query letters and soliciting agents, but I'm hardly an expert on the subject. So I turned to someone who is: Jeff Kleinman, one of the founders of Folio Literary Management and a top-notch agent. Below, Jeff responds to Anonymous' specific questions.

Q. Should the query letter try to start out with something clever, or just be straightforward and business-like?

A. Either works. There isn't a right or wrong answer with queries. The question really is: what letter opening will most grab the agent's attention? Obviously that may depend on the agent. But starting off too cleverly may be off-putting. I think a simple "here's how I heard about you," and then having some targeted info about the agent (books she's represented, etc.) is often best.

Q. Should the query include the page count?

A. The query should include word count, not page count. And word count should be rounded up or down: so not "92,193 words" - saying "about 92,000 words" is fine.

Q. Should the writer compare themselves to other writers? (For example, "my work is like Tess Gerritsen's" or whatever.)

A. REALLY depends on the other writer. If it's a bestselling, brand-name author (Stephen King, Dean Koontz, etc.), probably not. If it's a breakout first novelist, maybe, depending on if the comparison's really accurate. An easier way of doing it is to write "My book will appeal to readers who like Tess Gerritsen's."

Q. Should the writer let the agent know they have sought him out exclusively, or should they send the letter out to many agents?

A. DEFINITELY let the agent know it's exclusive - agents assume it's nonexclusive unless they're told otherwise, or unless they ask to see the materials exclusively.

If you've got a question for Ask the Critic, please send it in.

Thoughts on self-publishing from M.J. Rose

Linda L. Richard recently interviewed author M.J. Rose for January Magazine. It's a fascinating interview, and I wanted to highlight one segment of it. (For those who aren't familiar with M.J. Rose, she's one of the smartest people in this business, an expert on marketing and the publishing industry in general. She's also a fine thriller writer.)
 

Q. Your first book, Lip Service, was self-published. It was an amazing job. It was beautiful, well-edited, really professional from cover to cover. A lot of people are interested in self-publishing. Is the path you took one that you’d recommend?

A. No. Not for fiction, no.

It was a different time in 1998. There weren’t many self published books at the time, and now there are over 100,000 a year. Plus I didn’t do it as a career move. I never intended to stay self-published. It was an experiment.

I did it because my agent had real interest in the novel but everyone kept telling her there was no way to market my kind of fiction. Since my background is in advertising, I told her I was going to self-publish a few copies, and market them online and then she could show the publishers how to market my kind of fiction. I had no doubt I could figure out how to market the book.

That’s a very different reason to do what I did than so many people now who do it now.

Q. In what way?

 A. So many self published authors tell me they’ve self published after being rejected by one or two agents and/or one or two publishers who have criticized the quality of their work. Said it wasn’t well written, or original or needed more work. Those are the last writers who should be self publishing. When I ask them how they know their books are ready to be published, they say because their friends love their work, or their family.

I think no one who can’t get a quality agent should publish on their own. Agents are always looking for new authors and I believe if the book can’t interest an agent, the author would be better served working on his or her craft for a while longer. I had written three horrible novels before I got an agent with a fourth novel. And then Lip Service was my fifth.

My advice hasn’t changed for the last eight years. Self-publishing fiction is a last step. It’s only an option when you’ve tried the traditional route and rewritten the book a dozen times.

I say this because even wonderful writers published with top houses can’t break out. So much is published now and book marketing is so difficult. How much hope is there really for an average or less than quality book that's got no support behind it? Stores don’t want to give the self published books a chance, most reviewers don't want to to either. It’s not an uphill climb anymore: it’s a Mt. Everest climb times 100,000.

You won't get any better advice than that. Rose has been there and she understands the realities of the publishing industry today better than almost anyone else. For more of her thoughts, read her excellent blog.

Guyot on TV writing, Pt. 2

The second installment of Paul Guyot's series on TV writing, this one focused on the Network Pitch, is now up at Murderati.

As always when I read stuff like this, I'm amazed that anyone wants to be a writer.

Paul Guyot on How Television Shows Are Created

I've been meaning to link to this for a while, but kept forgetting. Paul Guyot, reluctant blogger and reformed television writer, has written the first part in a series on How Television Shows Are Created over at Murderati.

Guyot's blog essays are always worth reading and this one is particularly good. If you're interested in screenwriting, you'll definitely want to check this out. But even if you're not, it's still fascinating to read about the absurd world that is Hollywood.

10 Things An Author Shouldn't Do

Over on M.J. Rose's blog, I offer up my list of 10 Things An Author Shouldn't Do.

(As it turns out, there are only 8 of them... Must be part of the New Austerity.)

POV

Paul Guyot started a very interesting discussion on point-of-view over on Murderati. It's even got Laura Lippman and Lee Child, among other notables, chiming in.

I'm glad Paul wrote that up, because I was planning to post something about POV, but couldn't quite nail what I wanted to say. I think the discussion that's going on over there is insightful, and others have expressed many of the points I wanted to make.

My main thoughts on POV are that authors should keep it simple and be consistent. Figure out what POV you're writing from, and make sure you're doing it for a good reason. Don't change POV without a reason, and be clear when you're doing it.

Remember, your goal is to tell a good story in the clearest way possible. The more writers mess around with the POV, the more likely it is for the writing (the nuts and bolts) to show. When that happens, the story gets lost.

Writing how-to books

Following up on my previous post...The dialogue that Guyot started got me thinking.

I had a conversation about how-to writing books with Warren Murphy once. Despite the fact that he'd written hundreds of books, sold millions, and won (I think) 3 Edgar Awards, he still read writing books.

Warren said you could always find at least one thing in a how-to book that would teach you something -- and even if it were just one thing, that could be a valuable tool to add to your arsenal.

I think that's true. Writers are always learning. (The good ones, anyway. Lousy writers already know everything they need.) We learn from what we read (both fiction and non-fiction), we learn from what we observe, we learn from experimenting, from attending workshops and conferences, and from talking to other writers.

Writing is such a complicated, frustrating endeavor that no matter how good you are, there is always something more you can learn. An example: David Morrell, who knows as much about writing and literature as anyone, is constantly trying new things, experimenting with the form. (His 2005 novel, Creepers, unfolds over an eight-hour period, with virtually every minute accounted for.)

Morrell has written 25 or so novels, but he's still learning -- and he's still teaching, which is why I recommend people pick up his book Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing. It's very informative and engaging.

Other how-to books that I've enjoyed include Stephen King's On Writing (an essential read, I think), as well as Larry Block's writing books: Telling Lies for Fun & Profit, Spider, Spin Me a Web and Writing the Novel from Plot to Print (probably just read one of them).

(The two how-to books that I have heard crime writers speak well of the most often are Morrell's and King's.)

Something I would caution, however, is that it's easy to get caught up in reading writing books and never actually do any writing. So pick a few of the best, give 'em a look, and then get back to writing. As Guyot says, it's important to get a tune-up every now and again -- but it's crucial that you spend as much time as possible writing.

Another thing to be wary of: writers who give advice saying "This is how you write a blockbuster novel" -- but they've never written a blockbuster novel.

It doesn't mean they can't be good teachers, and it doesn't mean they don't know something. But you have to take what they say with a grain of salt. You have to scrutinize the advice that anyone gives you -- but you should especially scrutinize that given by someone without the credentials to back it up.

At least if Stephen King tells you something about writing (e.g., "the adverb is not your friend"), he has a pretty good shot at knowing what he's talking about.

On Writing

I was going to try to write something today, but instead I want to refer everyone over to Murderati to read Paul Guyot's excellent post about writers "visiting the mechanic."

He has some excellent advice.

What is a thriller?

Over on Sarah Weinman's blog, thriller reviewer Larry Gandle asked this excellent question, prompting much discussion. I've been meaning to tackle this subject for a while, so here goes.

I rarely have any trouble determining whether or not a book is a mystery or a thriller. The differences between the two are usually evident, although they can be difficult to explain in the abstract.

The reason I think that we tend to get confused is because people so often use the terms interchangeably. Many times, we are told that a book is a thriller, when really it's not.

That's the way it usually works, too, rather than the other way around. Many books are marketed as thrillers that really aren't, because thrillers sell better.

First off: what is a mystery?

In order to be a mystery novel, the story must have a mystery in it. And what's the purpose of having a mystery in a story? For someone to solve it, of course.

Since we're talking about crime novels, the mystery will involve a crime of some sort, which the investigator will attempt to solve. If those two elements are not present in the story, it's not a mystery. (Someone will probably come up with an exception, but I haven't been able to think of any.)

In terms of its format, a mystery novel will work like this: a crime will be introduced near the beginning of the book -- usually a murder, sometimes a theft or similar -- and the rest of the book will be about someone trying to solve that crime.

That "someone" -- the investigator -- can be either a professional or an amateur. S/he can be a detective, cop, private eye, reporter, antiques dealer, bed and breakfast proprietor or anything else.

Can a book be a mystery and also a thriller? Yes, sometimes it happens. A thriller can have a mystery at its core. A thriller can have a romance at its core. Which genre you classify the story as depends on the nature of the story being told, and how the author goes about telling it.

So...what is a thriller?

Thrillers are much looser in form, so it's harder to give as precise a description. You can draw the line at many places, but I think one of the main distinctions lies in motion and emotion.

The plots in thrillers move differently from the plots in mysteries. Mysteries are mono-paced, moving at a steady speed from start to finish. After all, the crime has already happened. The Vicar is lying dead in the chapel; he can't get any more dead.

Thrillers, on the other hand, have greater urgency, as the crime still lies off in the future. Thus, thrillers move more quickly than mysteries, and their pace generally accelerates as the story progresses. A good thriller moves like a roller coaster, with periods of relative calm interspersed with stretches of heightened suspense.

The emotions generated by thrillers are different as well. Mysteries tend to be more intellectual. They excite the mind with their tales of puzzles, investigation, procedure, deduction, analysis and problem solving.

Thrillers are more visceral. They attempt to manipulate our emotions. (Think of Hitchcock and his famous quote about playing the audience like a piano.) Thrillers generate excitement, anticipation, fear, apprehension -- in short, they thrill.

Thrillers come in many forms -- legal, medical, military, action, political, espionage, etc. -- but they all share the common elements of motion and emotion.

One final thing to keep in mind: there are ineffective thrillers. You can read a book and think, "There wasn't one damn thrill in that book -- how can it be a thriller?" In that case, I think it's the book's intentions that determine its classification, even if those intentions failed.

And the winner is...

Me!

Just over one year ago, Paul Guyot issued a foolhardy proposition, challenging me to a bet to see which one of us would finish his novel first.

On his now-defunct blog, Guyot wrote:

I'm officially calling out David J. Montgomery.

Over on his blog the Crime Fiction Dossier he has dared to insinuate that I created this blog to avoid writing. Ha! I say.

I am calling his review writing, goatee wearing, self-righteous butt out!

See, DJM has a little piece of unfinished work sitting in his desk drawer. And if this blog is merely procrastination in disguise, then what the heck are all his sites???

So...I offer an official challenge to Mr. Montgomery:

Starting right this second, whichever one of us is the first to complete a full first draft of our manuscript wins dinner (including wine) AT THE RESTAURANT OF WINNER'S CHOICE at whatever conference or convention is first up after the ms is finished.

The good news is, at long last, I have finished my novel! I actually finished the first draft a month or so back and I have be doing revisions since then.

As for Guyot... Well, let's just say, he hasn't been heard from since. He even shuttered his blog in an attempt to hide. But I'm on his butt like white on rice.

You owe me dinner, Mr. Hollywood!

What makes a good read?

SuperFan Rae Helmsworth posed an interesting question recently on Lee Child's message board:

What are the most important components to you of a good book? Characters? Pace? Plot? Setting? Believability? None of the above? All of the above?

An excellent question and one that I consider often when I'm assessing what I've read. Obviously there are many factors that go into making a book a good read, but I think we can focus on a few of them as being the most important.

The book has to have at least an adequate level of writing -- but you can usually assume that, if the book was published by a reputable publisher. (Occasionally you'll come across something that's abysmally written, but most books are at least competent.)

So beyond that, character is the thing for me. The book has to have a compelling protagonist, someone who makes you care about them and their life, for good or ill. Everything hangs on the characters because if you don't care about the people in the story, you won't want to read it. (It doesn't matter whether you love them or hate them -- you just have to care.)

Plot is probably the second thing -- and that depends a lot on character, too. You take a character, place them in a certain set of circumstances, and see what they do. That's how plot develops, especially when there is conflict involved (and there had better be conflict involved). Character and plot together form the basis for story, so if you can nail those two elements, I'm pretty much sold.

Setting obviously plays a part, but I think it's of lesser importance. When you read a book that uses its setting especially well, it's interesting and adds to the story. But when the setting isn't done quite as well, it generally won't ruin it. There's a lot more leeway here than with character. If plot and character are the meat of the book, setting is the seasoning. You have to really mess up the seasoning in order to make the food inedible.

The same thing goes for elements like pacing, dialogue, etc. They all contribute to the overall quality of the book, but they're secondary. If a book has dialogue that's a little off, or parts that drag, it can still be a good read as long as the story itself is compelling. On the other hand, nobody wants to read even superb dialogue coming out of the mouths of poorly-drawn, one-dimensional characters.

Great writing is nice -- it's always a joy to come across a nicely turned phrase or a particularly evocative description -- but it's not as important as you might think. I'd much rather read a well-told story than a well-written one. (And obviously I'd much rather read one that's both.) It doesn't matter how beautiful the prose is; if it's in service of a lousy story, it won't hold the reader's interest.

(On the other hand, it should be noted, the overall quality of the prose is one of the factors that can elevate a good read to a great one. It would be difficult to have a great book that has only okay writing -- although I can think of some writers who are such good storytellers that they've come close.)

Bottom line, when you're talking about genre fiction, the book has to be entertaining. These are stories we read to be entertained. Genre fiction can educate, illuminate, enlighten, and all the rest, but above all it must entertain. Otherwise, it fails.

Mayhem, guts and gore -- oh my!

David Hiltbrand, columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer and mystery novelist, wrote a thought-provoking article recently about the trend in pop culture towards more gratuitous expressions of violence and brutality. Sarah Weinman linked to the piece and touched off an interesting discussion about it, focusing on the literary world.

When it comes to television and film, relaxed standards have clearly, I think, allowed filmmakers to depict content on-screen that previously would not have been allowed. (Note that this is true regarding violence, but not sex.) Furthermore, advances in technical sophistication have made it possible to show things in a hyper-realistic manner that wouldn't have been possible even twenty years ago.

With regards to the themes involved, whether torture, mayhem, serial murder, etc., I don't think much has changed. And I believe this is true for books as well. If anything, there are some themes, especially those involving violence towards women and children, that might even be a little harder to deal with these days than before. (Mickey Spillane, for example, got away with some real nastiness towards women that probably wouldn't fly today with a mass audience.)

However, if the themes have remained largely the same, I do think that the descriptions of and attitudes towards those themes have changed. The language and imagery used in mainstream books is stronger than it once was. Previously, you might have found such material in an obscure pulp novel, but now we're seeing it in highly-promoted and publicized books that land on the bestseller lists.

Now, I'm the farthest thing from a prude. I don't think I've ever read anything in a book that shocked or grossed me out. So for my purposes, I don't particularly mind it. But I do get peeved when I see an author who appears just to be throwing that stuff in there for shock value. It might make for a nice marketing ploy -- "Look at the nice woman writing the awful things!" -- but it doesn't necessarily make for good storytelling.

Another thing I have a problem with is when novels take too much pleasure from dwelling on their blood and gore. When you start to feel the author lingering over such a scene with almost reverential (or sexual) glee, it definitely becomes a turn-off. (This is how many people felt about Thomas Harris' Hannibal.) I don't mind it because I'm offended. I mind it because it's bad writing. Such passages are not storytelling; they're voyeurism, cheap and lurid. And I'm no more interested in reading that than I am in peeping in someone's window.

As always, talented writers use their themes, images and language in service to the story. They don't do things simply in an effort to shock the reader. Even if the purpose of the story is to shock, a skilled writer will still ensure that what happens in the story is an organic and necessary part of the story. The content might be shocking, but the author will have earned that reaction, and the story will be stronger as a result, not diminished.

It's easy enough to write passages filled with murder, mayhem and mutilation, all dripping with blood, guts and ichor. But if it's not a logical outgrowth of the story, fitting in with the book's overall tone, style and theme, then what's the point? It's not going to shock; it's simply going to bore. Such a writer isn't worthy of outrage. Just throw the book away and move on to an author who cares about the story they're telling.