I try not to be too self-promotional in this space, mainly because I think these blog posts shouldn’t serve as hype machines but, you know, share some droplets of knowledge I’ve gained during my relatively new career. That said, I’ve had my books on my mind a lot - in the macro sense. As some of you know, my first novel Silent City is being reissued by Polis Books in March. The following month will see the release of my second novel, Down the Darkest Street. Both books are part of the same series starring washed-up journalist/reticent detective Pete Fernandez.
So, as part of the whole “publishing a book” thing, I have to write new acknowledgements for the Silent City. Doing that got me to thinking about this journey I’m on, and the books that not only got me hooked on reading noir/mystery/crime - but made me want to create it, too.
I was always a reader - whether it was comics, sci-fi, "literary" novels, Sherlock Holmes, what have you. But it wasn’t until my early-to-mid twenties that I got truly tapped into mysteries. I burned through a lot of the classics (though, there are many lost/forgotten classics I need to seek out), like Chandler, Hammett, MacDonald, Highsmith and so on. I was digesting these books as a member of the audience. That said, I very clearly remember a turning point where I went from being a passive reader, enjoying the experience to someone who wanted to do the same thing. To write a book. And while the classic pulps and noir novels certainly helped get me there, it was another batch of books, more contemporary and relatable, that spurred me to take a stab at it myself. I want to talk about a few of them.
I’ve talked about influences on the blog before, so I’ll spare you a grocery list of people I think have played a part in how I write. But I did want to take a minute and write about some of the books that stuck around and still take up real estate in my head, and make up a big chunk of Pete Fernandez’s literary DNA.
I’m not going to do a deep-dive plot description for these - but know that I think each of them is excellent and you should read them all.
A Replacements song in prose form. Shambling, bruised, daring and kinetic, this book crackles with energy and introduces one of my favorite fictional characters ever in Nick Stefanos. Pelecanos has written a ton of great books, but I’ll always have a soft spot for his first three Stefanos novels.
Hands down, one of the creepiest books I’ve ever read. Featuring two compelling protagonists in Pat and Angie and a Boston setting that feels all too real. I loved Lehane’s first PI novel, but this one just blows it out of the water - dangerous, disturbing and the kind of book that keeps you awake.
I love Tess Monaghan. It’s hard to put into words what a great character she is - charming, flawed, funny, brave and self-aware, unique and more. My favorite part about Tess is she refuses to remain static - and evolves from chapter to chapter. If you haven’t read this series, do yourself a favor and remedy that immediately.
The outlier of Ellroy’s magnificent “L.A. Quartet,” Jazz is pure style and is the kind of book only Ellroy can pull off. While you should read the first three, you don’t have to, and I find myself going back to this weird little closing chapter more often than the earlier installments, though they’re great, too.
The first Harry Bosch novel also seems to be the most noir of the series, which is probably why I like it so much. A little more raw and jagged than future installments, we meet Bosch and learn a bit about his past as it comes back to haunt him during a particularly trying time. Connelly hit it out of the park in his first at bat - supremely impressive.
Miami is a shadowy, sweaty place full of double-crosses, weird characters and a heaping dose of menace. Miami Purity captures it perfectly. The Miami novel I measure all others against. A classic.
I could list books I like/loved/was influenced by for days. But this seems like a good place to stop. Feel free to share your essential, influential reads in the comments below.
The post prompted over a hundred comments - and for someone who generally gets two or three, that's pretty impressive - and running commentary on Twitter and other social media sites, with various authors taking exception to his comments.
Someone on SMFS did the math, and it turns out that only 2/5 of the Best Novel nominations went to female authors. Shocking. Absolutely shocking. Please insert my extremely-shocked-face emoticon here. Only 1/5 of the Best First Novel nominations went to female authors, and in the paperback category, it's also 1/5.
Yawn.
Here's the thing. None of this is news. Ironically, Jay had a great post just the other day about sexism, which had nothing to do with the Edgar Awards, but the first thing that sprang to my mind was the controversy a few years ago over different awards, with charges of sexism being cast against the organizations and the judges.
In fact, my husband Brian can't post a 'best of' list without someone telling him he's anti-woman.
The reason these things become the catalyst for arguments that last hundreds of comments, with points being made for days on end, is because some people are just looking for an excuse to take offense.
I mean, really, we're going to be upset because Adrian thinks that one of the problems in the crime fiction genre is the popularity of series books? The thing is, most of what Adrian said sounds rather familiar, going back to interviews several years ago. What does Dennis Lehane think about series characters and books?
*Dave: Now that you're two books out from the Kenzie and Gennaro series, do you think you'll ever go back?*
Lehane: If they knock on the door, I will welcome them in with open arms because they bought my first house. That's true, and I'm very touched by how they went out into the world and became, in a bizarre sense, something beyond me. They spread in a way I never could have. So I'd love to bring them back, but I also said that I would never write about them unless they told me to. I won't plug them into a plot. And I do like the idea of leaving the stage on a high note. I think any series is going to run down, and you don't know where the tipping point is. But any series is going to wear out its welcome.
They haven't knocked. I see them, and whenever I picture them they're in some hotel room in the Caribbean, for some reason, and the phone rings. One of them says, "Don't pick it up. It's him." Because I beat the hell out of them. I beat the living shit out of those characters—psychologically, physically, emotionally. I think if they want to stay away, they deserve to stay away. If they knock on the door really hard some day, I will go right to the typewriter because I'd love to go back for one more, but I won't plug them in and have them take a cruise where the chef gets killed and only Patrick and Angie can solve it. That sort of Hart to Hart shit, I don't want to go near it.
*Dave: It's true about the impact a long-running series can have, not just in literature—the most obvious example would be a television series. People get attached to it. They live with the characters over a significant period of time. But whereas your readers will wait for each new book, then devour it in a few days, you're working with these characters for years, every day. *
Lehane: Also, I think TV series are a great example. I have a five-year rule on dramatic TV series: I will put it to anyone to name one dramatic TV show that didn't drop right off the cliff after the fifth year. Hill Street Blues went to shit. Homicide: Life on the Street, which was just about the greatest TV show ever, went to hell. You run out of storylines. Then what you do is you start putting the characters into personal situations. ER —the doctors are stuck in El Salvador. A very special episode of...
I think of The X-Files. I was an X-Files fanatic. Somebody said, "What did you think of the last episode?" I said, "Well, I stopped watching it for two years, and the last episode showed me exactly why I did." She's gonna get pregnant? You run out of things to say.
I wrote five books, and in the fifth book I noticed one of my characters— probably the most popular character I've ever created, Bubba Rogowski— in the fifth book, he started getting cute. Just a little bit. And I felt myself doing it. I knew that people loved him and they wanted to know a little more about him. I look back at him and I just go, He's exactly what I said I'd never make him. It's just hinted at in the fifth book; it's not all the way, but it's there.
That has a lot to do with it. Step off the stage. Nobody wanted to see Michael Jordan play with the Wizards. Nobody wanted to see Joe Montana go out with Kansas City. I don't really want to see Emmitt Smith play for whoever the hell he's going to play for next year. I felt that way about these characters. If they want to come back for one more hurrah, and it's the right book, I'm all in favor. But if they just want to stay away, I'm all for it.
Were you satisfied with the finale to X-Files, or do you think it was a let down?*
Sucked beyond suckdom. They should have ended the show when it was great, probably two years before they did. I could say that, however, about most great TV shows--Homicide, Hill Street Blues, ER, even Seinfeld--they should have ended *at least* 2 years before they did. And the same goes for book series. And again, that's why I'm so determined not to write a Patrick and Angie book unless it comes 100% from the heart, because the law of diminishing returns is very much at work in cases like these.
*Drood: What does this tendency to take on danger say about Patrick?s longevity?*
DL: I?ve probably used the warrior model a bit too much when it comes to Patrick, so his longevity prospects aren?t real good if he keeps getting ass-whupped at his current pace. And so, again, that speaks to the problems of keeping a series fresh, because sooner or later you run into questions of believability that are even louder than the ones you start out with when you decide to write a book in which your private eye character engages in actions which few real life private investigators have ever had to deal with. I mean, poor Patrick, his worst enemy isn?t himself or some deranged murderer, it's me.
*Drood: Will you continue the Kenzie/Gennaro series?*
DL: I think Spade and Marlowe remain icons because they didn?t wear out their welcome. Would Chandler be Chandler if he?d written 18 Marlowe books? I don?t know, but I wonder. Maybe Chandler could have sustained the level of quality, but the issue is more whether I can. And I have my doubts about that. The only artsy, metaphysical aspect of my approach to writing is that I can only write about characters when they come knocking on the door and tell me to. Patrick and Angie stopped knocking after Prayers for Rain. If they come knocking again, I?ll open the door and welcome them in with open arms because, well, they paid for my house and I?m exceedingly grateful. But if they don?t, then I?ll be content to let them live happily ever after without my dropping another case-from-hell in their laps. They deserve that.
And I know from your interview with Karen that that was a conscious thing, because two years ago you were saying that maybe it was time to do something else.*
Yes. I was beginning to write Mystic River when I had the interview with Karen. But yeah: I think there's a finite number in any series. You never hear people say: Oh, the 15th is the best. You never hear that. There's a point where a series has to end. I don't think I've reached that point, but I reached a point where it needed a break. And I do think that the number is rapidly approaching: whatever that magic number is, where it's going to be time.
*Do you have plans for a sixth Kenzie book?*
Yeah, they're loose plans. I'm not sure what will be my next book. I haven't decided yet.... I'm at a point now where it might be judicious to take a bit of a break. I've done five books, [and my characters] have been beat up a lot; they've had a lot of big cases. You want to ground these books in as much realism as you can. Because what's inherent in the whole genre is that it's unrealistic: Private eyes don't do that sort of stuff.
Those are quotes pulled from various interviews with Lehane, who clearly has reservations about series characters, and maintaining a series beyond its shelf life.
Fine.
The thing is, people read for different reasons. Some read for the writing. Some read for the story. Some read for the author.
And some read for the characters, and those readers want their series books. Sometimes, the most daunting thing about reading a book is that I have to learn a new landscape. I have to learn the setting, the characters, the writing style, and I could spend a fair bit of time trying to get into a novel and not like it. I love returning to a strong series, because I know what I'm getting. I am reading it because it's familiar, and comfortable, and because I'm spending time with a character I do care about. So sue me. I like some series books.
That said, I've stopped reading a lot of series. I recently picked up again with a series I'd read before, and read the latest, and felt it was fundamentally flawed. There was a critical action by one of the protagonists that I did not believe was consistent with their character. That's the risk with a series. As someone who's written three books with the same characters, I feel I know a little about the unique challenges of writing more than one book with the same characters, and in addition to the plotting and storytelling and character development, you have to say anchored in what came before, enough for there to be believability and consistency.
No, it's not easy. It's a different challenge than writing a standalone, but a challenge nonetheless.
I don't wholly agree with Adrian, or wholly disagree with him. Well, I disagree about an ideal world being where only first novels are published. I shudder with horror at the thought of that, actually. But that's okay, because I still like Adrian and I'll still read his books, even if he's wrong about this. ;) (WINK WINK, before someone yells at me because they took that too seriously.)
Personally, I think there are so many bad books because the publishing industry produces a lot of crap, both inside and outside the crime fiction genre. Editors don't have the time and budgets to do thorough edits, writers are pushing ahead of themselves to be published without taking the time for revisions and learning to write is less and less of a priority. I'd like to have a nickel for every person who told me they wanted to be a bestselling author, and then refused to do edits on their work while demonstrating they don't know how to use punctuation, never mind spell.
As for sexism and all that crap, what's quality is subjective. I've been a judge for a major award, and it was a waste of my time, truly. In a panel of three judges, not one of my top 10 titles picked in the category made the short list, while many of the titles that did were on the bottom of my picks from the books I was sent.
I don't want to see men, or women, nominated just because of their gender. I want judges to be able to read with blinders to all of that crap, and not think about the publisher/editor/agent/author/gender/subgenre and just find the best books.
And I have to accept that what they consider to be the best may not match my list for the year.
I'd rather authors and writers spend more time dealing with other issues of sexism in their writing. The Guardian had a recent article, crowning the five most pathetic female characters in film. I'm not a bra-burner, and my problem sometimes with the push for equality is that some people take it too far and want more than what the other side has, but when I stop and think about how women are portrayed so often in film and on TV, I have to admit, we have a long way to go.
When people go off on a tirade about sexism in awards, they always talk about how few female authors are nominated.
They never talk about how badly women have been portrayed in the books that made the list.
And it's all those horrible, truly sexist, stereotypical portrayals that make the great female characters stand out that much more.
I do believe Adrian knows I think he's an amazing writer, hugely underrated, and to be honest if I were to take offense at nomination lists my list of issues would have to include questioning why he hasn't received more critical acclaim. So I don't completely agree with him. So what. I don't completely disagree, either. He has a point, and even as I type this blog post I find myself feeling frustrated with a sense of having had parts of this conversation before, with the awareness that the argument over the awards is almost an annual tradition.
I really thought we should consider going Oscar and having Best Male Novel and Best Female Novel so that people would shut the fuck up about it already.
Except then they'd be offended by the inference that women can't compete with men.
Would you like something to really be offended by?
At the end of the day, if people don't want to read Adrian's work because he's not the biggest fan of series books, it's really their loss, because he's pretty fucking brilliant.
What I have to say to all the people taking offense out there, over people who don't like series books and people who don't like the nomination lists for awards, is this: Get over it.
Coming up with a list of exceptions about series doesn't make some of Adrian's points less valid. Coming up with examples of great books be female writers who didn't get nominated this year doesn't make the judges sexist.
For every series that's stayed strong, there are more that have faltered along the way. And for every great novel written by a woman this past year, there are works by men who also didn't see their name on the short list.
For me, I'm going to go back to the manuscript, and whether it's a series book or a standalone I'm going to push myself to make it be the strongest work it can be, to show growth over prior works, and at the end of the day, I want to produce a book I'm proud of. Believe me, not even my agent is as hard to please as I am when it comes to my manuscripts. Real validation comes from the response of readers, and at the end of the day, given a choice between having readers or having award nominations, it's the readers I'll pick every single time.
Yes, authors have been in an uproar lately. Over self publishing.
It doesn't feel like that should come as a surprise, but Chuck Wendig's rant gave birth to a phrase:
(Don't put) the publishing cart before the storytelling horse.
I agree. And I'm going to take a slight detour here, and admit I've been feeling a bit nostalgic lately, a bit disconnected. I remember the good ol' days, when a lot of friends had blogs, and it was easy to keep in touch, and have a sense of connectedness. Now, most of the blogs I frequented once upon a time are gone - my solo blog included - and active discussion on the existing author blogs isn't what it used to be, either.
But there's something else I remember from back then, when I first started blogging. There were a lot of blogs that dispensed writing advice. And writers were almost always clearly on one side of the publishing line. They were either traditional, or they were self published.
Technology changed, and that line between the two camps started to blur. And, as more writers got on board with self publishing for Kindle, the stigma of self publishing eroded. Authors who once railed against the folly of self publishing uploaded their backlists, short story collections and even original manuscripts.
The rise of viable self publishing and borderline legitimacy coincided with a decline in blogging, and writers who were blogging started talking more and more about e-publishing, and how to succeed.
Although it may not have occurred in the way the naysayers who linked self publishing with the demise of quality writing predicted, the rise of self publishing does seem to have coincided with a significant decline in discussion about the craft of writing.
Now, back when I first started blogging, there were a lot of blogs where people dispensed writing advice. In some respects, it was a bad thing, because sometimes it was a case of the blind leading the blind. People with no publishing credits to their name would set up shop and dispense advice and build a flock of followers ready to drink the Kool Aid. Heaven help anyone who came along and questioned the adviser, or their advice.
I have mixed feelings about the shift in focus, because I am glad that I see fewer of those blogs. Then again, perhaps I'm just not looking hard enough.
I also appreciate that there's a time and place for advice on the business side of publishing and writing, and I have benefited from some posts about e-publishing.
I am also concerned by the fact that there seems to be a lot less interest in the craft of quality writing.
Having said that, I'm still left to wonder how we regulate quality. Just considering my own work, the same book that has six five star reviews and six four star reviews also has two one star reviews on Amazon. Your mileage may vary. There have been books others have loved that I've loathed.
What can I conclude? I don't have enough information to make any definite conclusions, but I am wondering about a lot of things. I wonder if readers feel more confident with my other titles because they were traditionally published first. I wonder how much the number of reviews on Amazon translate into sales. I wonder if it matters that you write a great book, because the only real force for sales is word of mouth. I mean, The DaVinci Code outsold every single work by Dennis Lehane, so quality writing doesn't always translate into popularity or sales. As I recall, The Bridges of Madison County was a NY Times Bestseller. Making the list only means you're popular; it doesn't mean you're a good writer.
And that's the rub. We've all known that. A book may sell phenomenally well, but that doesn't mean the writing is great. It doesn't even mean the writing is good.
There are some things about being a great writer, and a great storyteller, that you can't really teach. A writer either has the instincts and the aptitude that enables them to develop as a writer, or they don't. So many people want the shortcut to success, and so many writers are blind to their own mistakes and weaknesses. I think that's the real fear I'm left with. I'm not afraid of someone self publishing. I'm concerned that people don't take the time to let their work breathe and go back with fresh eyes, and really take advice and feedback to heart so that they can grow.
It's our fast food microwave culture. We don't want to wait, we don't want to put in effort. We want what we want and we want it now.
Part of me thinks that the reason so many people have shifted focus to sales and marketing and succeeding in e-publishing, is because selling successfully is concrete, while much of the art of writing is subjective, and you either have talent or you don't.
The question is, where do we go from here? How do we raise the level of discourse and foster useful discussions about writing? Is it even appropriate? I always feel that if I'm just writing about writing, I'm excluding the readers from my posts.
And that leaves me as lost as ever when I sit down to think about what I want to share here. What do you guys think? What should we be talking about?
Scott Parker often talks about his experience reading Shutter Island. He says when he sat down with it, he expected Mystic River Part 2. He wanted Lehane to give him another version of the same book. (And now, he says, he can't wait to read SI again. I think he's gonna love it, knowing what he's been reading recently.)
I've been thinking a lot about his statement though. Being disappointed in a book because you expected the same type of book as the one that came before it. I used to be the same way. I could read several Ross MacDonald or Robert B. Parker books in a row and not get tired of them.
Now, I look for something different.
I love that Lehane went out and stretched his writing muscles to give us a private eye series, then a small town Greek Tragedy, then a gothic horror novel, then a huge historical melodrama. I could sit here and argue that all his novel fall into crime fiction somehow, they are all tied to the genre, but they're like balloons tethered to the same banister--each string leads to the same place, but at the end of each you'll find a different color.
Anytime I email Duane Swierczynski that I'm about to start one of his books, he writes back something along the lines of "Just so you know, it's NOTHING like the last one." (By the way, his forthcoming novel EXPIRATION DATE is fantastic. I just received and ARC.)
That's one of my favorite things about Duane's books, much like Lehane. I never know what I'm gonna get. I could get a spy novel that makes Pepperidge farm cookies frightening. Or a book about a sexy blonde who poisons a drink. But each goes off in a different direction.
You want something new from an author. You don't want to read the same book over and over again. If you like that, then you also want to be able to recognize who the killer is by page 50.
But I like most of my writers to stretch their writing muscles. I want to do that too. Even in a series, I often don't want to see the characters going through the same thing over and over again (certain characters aside).
The book I'm working on now is different. There are things in it that I've never done before. It's surprised me at times as well. It has been hell on my writing muscles. What I have planned after this book is even more different.
(Also, if you want to see something really different, you can read about Band Bashes at my own blog. See? I can stretch my muscles.)
Just like the authors I love.
And each time I start, I'm excited to see something new happen.
