The Reader Variable

The reading experience is about more than the book itself, because the experience of reading is contributed to by the reader as well. Everything we processes is filtered through our own experiences, beliefs and knowledge base.

No matter how technically precise a written with is, it may fail to spark the interest of the reader so that they pursue the reading journey. This may not have anything to do with a shortcoming of the author, but may be due to the specific interests or knowledge base of the reader.

It may also be that a reader becomes enthralled with a work, praising it and recommending it widely and referring to the inspiration or emotion drawn from the experience of reading that work.

That may not necessarily be because the work is a tour de force; it may be that there are elements within the work that speak to the reader personally because they relate to the situation, information or emotions in the story.

For me, one work that I have a strong personal connection to is Lake Wobegon Days. Garrison Keillor's novel might be special to people who live in Minnesota. It might be a favorite of Keillor's fans.

However, in my case, the connection has to do with the section of the book that covers religion.

Whenever a special Bible study meeting was scheduled for Sunday afternoon at 3:00, we couldn't drive home after morning meeting, have dinner, and get back to St. Cloud in time, so one Sunday our family traipsed over to a restaurant that a friend of Dad's had recommended. Phil's House of Good Food. The waitress pushed two tables together and we sat down and studied the menus.

The waitress came and stood by Dad. "Can I get you something from the bar?" she said. Dad blushed a deep red. The question seemed to imply that he looked like a drinker. "No," he whispered, as if she had offered to take off her clothes and dance on the table. Then another waitress brought a tray of glasses to a table of four couples next to us. "Martini," she said, setting the drinks down, "whiskey sour, whiskey sour, Manhattan, whiskey sour, gin and tonic, martini, whiskey sour."

"Ma'am? Something from the bar?" Mother looked at her in disbelief.

Suddenly the room changed for us. Our waitress looked hardened, rough, cheap--across the room, a woman laughed obscenely, "Haw, haw, haw"--the man with her lit a cigarette and blew a cloud of smoke--a swear word drifted out from the kitchen like a whiff of urine--even the soft lighting seemed suggestive, diabolical. To be seen in such a place on The Lord's Day--what had we done?

Now, a lot of people with a religious upbringing might relate to the idea of avoiding the evil sinners in the world.

The first time I saw a television set in a Brethren house, I was dumbfounded. None of the Wobegonian Brethren had one; we were told that watching television was the same as going to the movies--no, in other words. I wondered why the St. Cloud people were unaware of the danger. You start getting entangled in the things of the world, and one thing leads to another. First it's television, then it's worldly books, and the next thing you know, God's people are sitting around drinking whiskey sours in dim smoky bars with waitresses in skimpy black outfits and their bosoms displayed like grapefruit.

Yup, it's a slippery slope on the path to sin. And some of you might relate to that type of thinking too, but if you haven't been Brethren, or been extremely closely associated with someone who is closed Brethren, you simply will not have the same experience reading this section of the book that I did.

In a town where everyone was either Lutheran or Catholic, we were neither one. We were Sanctified Brethren, a sect so tiny that nobody but us and God knew about it, so when kids asked what I was, I just said Protestant. It was too much to explain, like having six toes. You would rather keep your shoes on.

We were "exclusive" Brethren, a branch that believed in keeping itself pure of false doctrine by avoiding association with the impure. We made sure that any who fellowshipped with us were straight on all the details of the Faith, as set forth by the first Brethren who left the Anglican Church in 1865 to worship on the basis of correct principles.

I remember when a friend, well known to many people in our meeting, joined us one Sunday. She had the nerve to smile. She'd done several missionary trips. One of the brothers gave her communion.

One of the elders in the church scowled and protested that she didn't even look like a Christian. I kid you not. She was properly clothed... Oh, wait.

My mother never wore slacks, though she did dress my sister in winter leggings, which troubled Grandpa. "It's not the leggings so much as what they represent and what they could lead to," he told her. He thought that baby boys should not wear sleepers unless they were the kind with snaps up the legs. Mother pointed out that the infant Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes. "That doesn't mean he wore a dress," Grandpa said. "They probably wrapped his legs separately."

She respectfully had her head covered in a scarf, but dammit, she smiled, and that was not acceptable... And she wore pants. And she was not confirmed Brethren. I suppose that's something they have in common with Catholics. They feel the need to determine who meets their criteria for communion. (When you travel to a different Brethren Assembly you have to take a letter signed by elders from your meeting to be presented and approved so that you can have communion there.)

Uncle Mel's wife, Rita, was a Lutheran. She only came occasionally and when she did she stood out like a brass band. She used lipstick and had plucked eyebrows and wore bright hats. Brethren women showed only a faint smudge of powder on their cheeks and their hats were small and either black or navy blue. Once Rita spoke up in the meeting--Al had stood up to read from the Lord's Word, and she said, "Pardon me, which chapter did you say?"--and we all shuddered as if she had dropped a plate on the floor: women did not speak in meeting. Another time, Sunday morning, she made as if to partake of the bread as it was passed, and Grandpa snatched it away from her. It had to be explained to Rita later that she could not join in the Lord's Supper with us because she was not in fellowship.

Lisa's venture with our Brethren Assembly (and Robert's actions in giving her communion) ultimately led to a split.

The split with the Johnsons was triggered by Mr. Johnson's belief that what was abominable to God in the Old Testament must be abominable still, which he put forward at the Grace & Truth Bible Conference in Rapid City in 1932. Mr. Cox stood up and walked out, followed by others. The Abomination Doctrine not only went against the New Covenant of Grace principle, it opened up rich new areas of controversy in the vast annals of Jewish law. Should Brethren then refrain from pork, meat that God had labeled "unclean"? Were we to be thrown into the maze of commandments laid out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, where we are told to smite our enemies with the sword and stone to death rebellious children?

The history of the Brethren splits could be its own full-length book. There's another line in Lake Wobegon Days about how once people got a taste of being right there were more and more splits. And that's really how it was. The whole account of life in a Brethren Assembly spoke straight to my personal experiences, and reading Lake Wobegon Days after leaving the Assembly meant the experience was incredibly powerful for me. I took the book along to the homes of others who had left in the split and watched them laugh until they cried when they realized that someone else out there understood. It was incredibly therapeutic, and we all felt a little less isolated because there was a sense we had shared an experience with the author.

And it doesn't matter what church you've left along the way; if it wasn't Brethren you won't have the same experience I did when I read that chapter, because you don't have same basis of understanding for the intricacies of their doctrine, their process and lifestyle. In the same way, I could never fully understand the intricacies of leaving the life of the Amish or traditional Mennonite behind. Religion and lifestyle might be tied up in it, but it's still different.

When you write, you do the best job you can to tell the most compelling story that will capture the audience's interest. However, there are things that are out of your control, and one of them is the reader variable. The experiences the reader does or does not bring to the experience will contribute to their level of appreciation for your work. If they are extremely enthusiastic it may not be because the work is exceptional, but because they personally connect to it in some way. And if they don't enjoy it, it may not be because the work falls short; it may simply be that they don't connect to the characters or story, or even that something in the book conflicts with their personal experiences in a way that deters them from enjoying it.

The writing experience is its own experience. The reading experience is a shared experience as the reader interacts with the writing. They bring in their own background, history, experiences and values, and those things will influence their reading of your work. It doesn't always mean they didn't "get" it, and it doesn't always mean you're as brilliant a writer as one reader thinks you are. It just means that their variable increased or reduced the perception of your work.

That's what's out of your hands as a writer. It presents an enormous challenge, because you want your book to appeal to as many people as possible, but it may reference things you have a deep knowledge of that not all readers understand, and you'll have to try to decide whether you'll write it for those who share that knowledge, or those who don't. Either way, you risk alienating one group of potential readers. That's why you need to focus on telling the story you want to tell, trusting your editor when you're told to add more or make adjustments, and let go of the response, because how a person interprets a book isn't all about your writing. A very big part of it is about them, and that's something you have no control over.

Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," and the Brethren believed that was enough. We met in Uncle Al's and Aunt Flo's bare living room with plain folding chairs arranged facing in toward the middle. No clergyman in a black smock. No organ or piano, for that would make one person too prominent. No upholstery, it would lead to complacency. No picture of Jesus, he was in our hearts.

My affections were not pure. They were tainted with a sneaking admiration of Catholics--Catholic Christmas, Easter, the Living Rosary, and the Blessing of the Animals, all magnificent. Everything we did was plain, but they were regal and gorgeous.

Don't Be That Person

by Holly West

This is my semi-regular plea to authors (and everybody else) about writing political or otherwise controversial posts on social media. Please think before you do it. Hell, sometimes even thinking about it isn't enough. Maybe you should just not do it at all.

Awhile back, someone I know to be an avid reader tweeted, "I liked my writer friends a lot better before twitter." I'm paraphrasing because I can't find the exact tweet, but it was a reference to authors who post about politics. I feel similarly about Facebook and a few of my relatives, so I understand the sentiment. Who doesn't?

But what really prompted me to broach this topic again was that over the last year or so, I began following an author whose books I like on social media. Said author has never been particularly shy about writing political posts, but with the primary season upon us, those posts have really ramped up. They're increasingly vitriolic, and while I suspect this author believes the commentary to be thoughtful and well-considered, it's only convinced me that he/she is somewhat of a tool, and not a tool in the useful sense. At the very least, my respect for the author has diminished considerably.

Yes, I realize this post is somewhat passive aggressive in that I wouldn't say any of this to the author directly. And yes, I know that I'm free to unfollow or unfriend. But this post isn't so much about me being annoyed as it is about how authors choose to use their social media accounts. We're told constantly we need to have a presence on social media, which requires effort. Taking the time, even if it's minimal, to cultivate a social media presence only to turn around an alienate your audience is counter productive. I've done it many times myself.

We're not out there trying to be jerks, we just don't realize the negative impact such posts can have. It's too easy to post one's opinion without really thinking about how it can be received.

I said earlier that I've enjoyed this author's work in the past, so I wouldn't say that my new impressions will prevent me from buying future books, though I might think twice. But what about the author who I might not have any experience with beyond annoying social media posts? Even if I wasn't an author myself, as someone who loves books, it's not inconceivable that I might cross paths with someone on social media whose work I'm not familiar with, who I'd first get to know through social media. Call me immature and small-minded, but I probably wouldn't buy their books if they're constantly posting about politics. I have too many other choices.

When you post about politics and other controversial subjects, you never know who you might offend. And sure, I get that you might not care about offending others. Sometimes I don't care either, especially if a particular topic is important enough to me. But the Internet world we all inhabit is an increasingly chaotic and negative space, and I try not to add to the noise.

Before you write such a post, I urge you to think about it. What's your purpose? Are you trying to convince others to see your POV? Chances are, that isn't going to happen. Do you have some anger or frustration to vent? Maybe go for a walk instead. Do you just need a little reassurance that there are others out there who feel like you do? Trust me, there are plenty of them. But there are also a lot of people who don't feel like you do and they aren't aren't interested in your diatribes. Or mine, either.

<Sigh.> Something tells me it's gonna be a long, hard road to November.

Everybody loves some novel, sometimes...*

By Russel D McLean

I have a nightmare.

Not the one involving snakes.

Not the one involving Jay Stringer and Dave White's disturbing burlesque routine.

But rather the one where I finally get found out. The one where people realise I was faking being a writer all along. Where they call me out on years of bullshit.

Its a fear common among us all. When someone doesn't like our work, we wince and get this feeling like someone kicked us in the heart. Even when that criticism is wrapped up with good stuff there's a feeling like, you know, we failed somehow with just this one person.

And you know, what I've realise over the years is you either get used to that feeling or you night as well pack up your keyboard and go home. Because part and parcel of being a writer is dealing with criticism. I watched recently as a would-be writer kicked back against someone who gave them a professional report on their work.I won't go into details but it got me thinking about how we react to criticism, particularly early on in our careers.

Now I get the emotional reaction to criticism, but here's the thing: if one reader thinks there are issues, you can guarantee others will.  And you can either feel strongly enough that other readers will understand your work, or you can listen to the critism and learn from it.

Early in my career I signed with an agent who worked with in house editors. The first editor - who persuaded the agent that I had something - loved my work and gave me a lot of constructive advice that finally made its way into what would become The Good Son. The second editor had a hand in booting me out of that agency because they didn't like what I was doing and wanted me to write a very different kind of novel. Now that novel would have probably got me a huge six figure deal but it wasn't the kind of novel I wanted to write. I stuck to my guns. And got booted off that agent's list. Quite unceremoniously.

But I didn't call for the editor's head. I didn't gnash and wail and grind my teeth (in public). I looked at the reasons I got booted and weighed them up. I wondered whether there were things I could learn. In the end I took a few of those things and made the novel stronger, but I learned that sometimes people just aren't going to react to your manuscript. And that different folks have different tastes.

I took my keyboard and walked away from that one.

In another case, I sent a manuscript off to someone whose opinions I trusted. They came back and told me the book wasn't worked. I was gutted. It was a good book. I was sure of it. But I couldn't be sure. So I went through the manuscript looking at the points they suggested. And sure enough there were issues there. And in this case the person was right to tell me I maybe needed to restructure and restart. Sure, I could have sold the novel, according to this person, but it would have been for a pittance and it wouldn't have gotten the kudos that was clearly deserving of the story. I needed to re-examine it. I needed to really really re-examine it.

This time, I followed the advice.

And the book that emerged was, I think, better.

What I'm saying is this: at every stage of your career you will get criticism. Some of it will be as meaningless as a ranty one star review on Amazon saying that you're "not like Rebus" but some of it might just be worth listening to. Some of it might be well intentioned or even good advice that just might not gel with your plans, but is still worth listening to without losing the plot. Some of it might even save your book.

But anyone who simply praises your work should not be listened to at all. I never send WIPs to friends or family. I did it once and actually got measured responses, but I need to know that the person reading my book has the impartiality of a distant reader or someone who won't take into account who I am or what they know about me. Sometimes that means I get things that do not tally with my expectations. But I learned long ago that kicking up a fuss doesn't help. Listening the criticisms and asking yourself whether you think they might help your novel does.

In short, you and your novel are not special flowers. You do not get a pass just because you wrote something. You have to expect criticism. You have to expect to be imperfect. And you have to expect that sometimes you will learn from that.

*with huge apologies to Dean Martin...

Ask me...

By: Joelle Charbonneau

As I said last week, one of the greatest things about my foray into the young adult world of publishing has been getting to connect with the readers of that genre.  WOW!  They are passionate and enthusiastic and send lots of e-mails with thoughtful, fun and often unexpected questions.  I do my best to answer every question that I get via e-mail because I love talking to readers. More important…that reader took the time to look up my e-mail address and send me that question.  It only stands to reason that I should take the time to answer them.

I also get questions via twitter and facebook and I do my best to answers those as well.  Because I’ve gotten so many in the last few months, I thought it might be fun to list the top five most frequently asked questions and the answers to those questions here.   And for any of you who has questions you like for me to answer, ask them in the comments section and I will do my best to satisfy your curiosity.  (And if I don’t have a real answer I’ll make one up.  After all – I make stuff up for a living…right?)

 1)  Where did the idea for The Testing trilogy come from?

Well, if you’ve been to any of my events you’ve already heard this, but the idea for The Testing sprung from my teaching high school voice students.  The stress of college admittance as well as all the auditions they have to go through to get into theater and music programs has gotten more and more intense over the years.  During one voice lesson, that tension boiled over a bit and the distraught student began to worry for her younger sibling because if the process was this stressful now think about how stressful it would be when he had to apply for college.  I, of course, said not to worry.  The system couldn’t get any more stressful. 

Ha!  Well, I couldn’t help wondering what would be a more stressful college admittance process.  It was at that moment that The Testing trilogy was born.

2)  Can I get a free book?

Authors get this question all the time and I get questions about free copies of books as well as requests for advanced reader copies all the time.  Sadly, as an author, I don’t get an unlimited supply of books.  I only get a small number of author copies, which means I can’t give free books to everyone.  I use most of those copies as contest giveaways on blogs like this one (and I try to keep at least one or two copies for me and for my son’s collection that he has no interest in now—which considering the subject matter is good).  The same is true of advanced reader copies only most of those go to bookstore owners who haven’t gotten a copy from the publisher or reviewers who put in their request forever ago.  (Oh – and I tend to have one advanced copy that gets a bit tattered and torn from being passed from family member to family member…so that one is spoken for!) 

3)  Can you get me an audition for The Testing movie?

This question shows up a lot.  And I haven’t a clue if the movie will really happen let alone how they will go about casting.  BUT – if the movie does move forward, I will post whatever open casting information I get to my Facebook page and to my website.  And I plan on being at that casting call right alongside everyone else.  Because – well – being in the movie would be fun!

4)  Do you still teach voice lessons?

Yes…although not as much as I used to.  I have a small group of students that I am very invested in and am thrilled that I get to continue to watch them grow as singers and performers.  But I am not actively looking for new students because I  don’t want them to feel as if I’m abandoning them when I am on tour or have to take a week off of teaching to meet a production deadline.

5)  Do you still perform?

Does singing Frozen music with my 6 year old count?  Currently, the only performances I do are at schools when I talk writing and books with students.  More often than not, the first question in the Q&A section is if I’ll sing for them…so I doJ  Now that my writing schedule isn’t as crazy as it was for the past two years, I’m hopeful that I might get a chance to squeeze in some stage performing again.  But first, I have to finish this manuscript and get the kid into first grade.  Once that happens…well, we’ll see!

Do you have any other questions that you’d like answered?  Now is your chance.  Ask away!

Exit Stage Left, Pursued by a Reader

By Russel D McLean

One of the things I love most in this business is meeting readers.

I've talked about this time and again but its true. I love getting out in the trenches and seeing people in action, figuring out who buys the books. Sometimes they're insane. Sometimes they're wonderful. Sometimes they're determined to prove they're smarter than the author. Sometimes all they want is to be entertained.

Whatever, I love meeting them.

I was thinking about this again after doing a book and beer evening with Stuart MacBride in Crail. Its the third me and Stuart have worked together. The first time we did an event together, things were a little awkward awkward. Neither of us knew the other's rhythms too well and we both floundered a little (although thankfully we pulled it back in the end and everyone had a good time) but now we seem to be getting a handle on each other, working out how to come across well on stage.

And that's something you're never prepared for as a writer:

The Event.

You know, where people come out to meet the flesh behind the pages. Where they want to see in action the mind that created a whole fictional narrative.

The people who come out want to be informed. They want to be entertained. They want to feel like they've seen something behind the books.

And that's odd.

Because writers are naturally insular people. One of the reasons I have loved working with MacBride (God only knows how he feels working with me) is that he is a born entertainer. I can play the straight man to his Polish Swearing routine or field a serious answer to which he can then create a punchline (and then still tack on a serious answer that outflanks my own). But he knows when to pull it in, when the audience aren't reacting or when they need him to be the writer, not just the beardy Sex God.

But its strange being on that stage. Knowing that these people have come to see you.

I've seen it go wrong so many times. From the writer who talked for five minutes then announced that not enough people were here and walked off to the author who read from their book in a dull monotone for an hour straight. I've seen writers paired together who clearly had no common ground. I've seen panels collapse due to a overbearing host.

But the problem is that we're not trained how to speak in public. We're just expected to know how to do it naturally. We're also often expected just to show up with no advance contact and bounce off other writers we've never met... (I'm not going to mention the pay situation)

I've done a lot of events now. I'm starting to get a personality that I play up. Mostly its a befuddled one,  but then its just an extension of who I am naturally. I've learned how to project, how to vamp when I don't know what I'm talking about, but all the same I've had little in the way of formal training (in terms of talking about writing; I did some stage work in my younger days) and just had to make it up as I went along. I still envy writers like John Connolly who can talk so eloquently, or Christopher Brookmyre who can naturally make a room crack up with laughter. Or Megan Abbott who just seems to always know exactly what she's saying. Or James Ellroy who just puts on the greatest motherfucking show that any pervert with a brain will appreciate. Dig the demon dog, hep-cats, he's got the greatest show in history.

 The pressure of events on writers is fantastic. We're expected just to show up and be interesting, but unlike stand ups or actors, we got into our line of work so we wouldn't have to deal with people. Now, I've discovered I love doing events, and more importantly love meeting readers, but I know every time that I have to give them something whether its a few good punchlines or perhaps a few insights into something they didn't expect (I've started to talk more and more about the style and lives of writers who influenced me; my life revolves around books, so why shouldn't I talk about them?). It can't just be about plugging the new book or reading page after page (unless you're good at that). The audience are there to be entertained. Which means that any writer who agrees to do an event should be aware of what they are getting into. As I have seen (especially with the writer who talked for a few minutes before walking off due to low turnout) some are doing only because it is expected of them, not because they want to. A bad event can be worse than no event at all in a reader's eyes, especially if they are not entertained. Because we have to remember, its all about the readers. The audience. And its certainly not about feeding our own egos. I certainly hope that anyone who sees me comes away with some sense of value for money. Even if the event was free...

Cuckoo in the Nest

Updated 19/07/13 - It has  now been revealed that the tweeter was connected to a lawyer who was aware of the pseudonym. So even though it did look suspicious, the publishers are actually innocent in the unveiling. Which I do find rather heartening.


Unless you’ve been living with your head in a sound-proof box this week you’ll know that JK Rowling was revealed as the real author of a crime novel called The Cuckoo’s Calling. The book - depending on who you listen to - sold between 450 - 1500 copies. I’m inclined to believe the lower numbers given the distribution of the book in the UK. A number of well known authors including Mark Billingham and Val McDermid blurbed the novel* and it got a couple (but not that many) of good press reviews.

Then JK Rowling was revealed as the author. The publishers deny leaking this information, but I still have to wonder how anyone noticed the “similarity to Rowling” when the book sold so few copies. And yes, she did share a publisher and agent with her pseudonym, but again that isn’t an unusual situation for an agent to build up a good rapport with a publisher and sell more than a few of their clients to them. When this happened, of course, sales increased by a staggering amounts and bookstores that had ignored the book ordered in droves.

What does this tell us?

It tells us that debut authors have a tough time. It tells us that names and platforms shift books and while good writing may rise to the top, it takes time. A lot of time. Ian Rankin didn’t sell too well until the seventh or eighth book. James Lee Burke won critical acclaim and then got lost in the publishing deserts for years until he rose like a Pheonix from the ashes. Most debut authors don’t sell.

Because readers are often afraid to take the chance.

That’s the basic truth of it. Working in bookselling for years, I know how hard it is to move a debut author. James Oswald is one of the biggest exceptions I have ever seen, but even he had a great platform to lift off from (as well as having talent), and a marketing campaign that you would rarely see for a new author. Most of the time, you can tell everyone about a debut author until you’re blue in the face but readers are still wary. And its no surprise. With crime writers in particular, readers like to have long affairs with authors. They like to come to authors with big backlists that they can read from the beginning or authors that come with the seal of approval of multiple publications (must mean that they have staying power). They don’t like it when debut authors come along, steal their hearts and then vanish without a trace.

But all of this makes it tougher for debut authors. After all, all a debut author often has to go on is their words. The lucky few have a great platform, but most are just plying their trade. The book should speak for itself, but in the modern world. its the people who shout loudest get the most attention. There are several reasons I can think of that Galbraith didn’t get attention until he took off that Scooby Doo mask and revealed himself to be JK Rowling. the most important of which is that the book wasn’t really pushed that hard. Working in the trade, I was aware of its existence, but the buzz was quiet. Nothing pushed it above the crowd, least of all the frankly rather dull cover**. It was another police procedural in an already overcrowded market. And while Galbraith’s pseudonym may have had a background in this according to the blurb, that’s not unusual these days, Matt Hilton and Luke Delaney both spring to mind as former police officers, so its not that unusual a background for a crime writer to have, necessarily. Certainly its not guaranteed to get them instant attention. And as The Literary Critic herself (Lesley McDowell) pointed out, having an author who can’t do the publicity trail may also have an effect upon the book itself (was there even a fake Galbraith twitter feed or fb presence?)

The fact is that, even though it should be, good writing isn’t always the first thing people look for when buying a book. They want assurances about what they’re reading whether through testimonials they trust or an assurance of the author’s pedigree. To create a brand from a good writer takes time. Its no wonder that Galbraith’s sales were so apparently low (but as lots of people have said, not bad for an unknown debut in hb) even when the writing might have been brilliant. There wasn’t enough volume to convince reader’s to listen. And the same is true of so many debuts. The fact is that a debut shouldn’t be about selling millions in one go. It should be about entering the market and starting to build something. One book’s sales are not enough to judge an author’s worth. Even Rowling didn’t start shifting until book 3. And who can forget that Raymond Chandler didn’t really shift that well for three or four books (part of that being to do with the fact he was published in hardcover only for those books)?

I would love the publishers to have been able to leave Galbraith alone for a few books and see how he did, same as King did with his Bachman persona. It would have been an interesting experiment to see how difficult it really is for a debut author to make it, especially when everyone knows the sales potential of that author's talent already. But at the same time I’m happy for Rowling that people who have read the book have enjoyed it. And I hope she is still able to exploit this second persona. After all, there is little more fun in this world than writing gruesome violence and dark deeds, as we at Do Some Damage can attest.

In the meantime, can Mr Stephen King please step forward and announce that he’s really me? Oh, what do you mean that isn’t how this works?

*cynics claim they must have known the truth as all three share a publisher. Yeah, it looks odd, but frankly I can see why publishers would do interhouse blurbs/reviews and it doesn’t mean that a) McDermid/Billingham were just being nice or that b) they knew who they were blurbing. I’ve met both McDermid and Billingham on several occasions and my instincts tell me that they are essentially honest types, so let’s just leave that particular conspiracy to one side, shall we?

**And yes, perhaps I’m one to talk - - this is not about targetting Galbraith/Rowling, however

All books are not created equal

By: Joelle Charbonneau

This week, I saw a facebook post that mentioned that there was a difference between writing a book and writing a book that is under contract.  As an unpublished author, I’d heard that writing a book under contract posed different challenges.  But unpublished me didn’t really understand how different those challenges would be.  I mean—the book still has a beginning, middle and end filled with plot and characters.  The mechanics are the same.  Right?

Yes.

And no.

Now that I have been under contract for a while, I can say that writing a book and writing a book under contract are more different than I ever imagined.  Here are three of the reasons why.

 

1)      The deadline—As an unpublished author, I approached writing as if it were my job, because that is what I hoped it would one day be.  It wasn’t just a hobby that I tinkered with when I was inspired.  While writing a novel, I wrote ever day until I hit The End.  Then I went back and polished and rewrote the book until it was the best writing I could produce at that time.  By the time I wrote Skating Around the Law, I knew that I could produce a manuscript in about 3-4 months.  Which is probably why it never occurred to me to be concerned with deadlines.  I mean, most established authors I knew publish an average of 1-2 books a year.  With the writing habits I’d established, I figured deadlines would never be an issue. 

HA!  First of all, no matter how quickly you write, a deadline is a source of pride and terror.  Pride that there is a contract proving that an editor wants the book you are writing.  You are getting paid for your writing!  This is now a job.  Terror because you are now getting paid for your writing and it is now a job with an expectation that the book will be done by a specific date.  No matter how disciplined you are at your writing, the first time you have a “must be completed by date” assigned to you stress will descend.  It doesn’t matter how many books you’ve completed or how quickly – THIS book feels different.  You worry that because it feels different to have a deadline, you may not be able to write as quickly as you have in the past.  The writing might suck and your rewrites might take longer.  The feeling that this book might not get done is always there as you sit at the keyboard.   

Deadlines are wonderful because they mark you as a professional writer, but the worry that you might not be professional enough has wrecked havoc with writers through all stages of their career. 

 

2)      The check—Getting money for a book before the book is written is another wonderful thing.  No matter how small or large the check, receiving the money is tangible proof that someone actually likes your writing.  It’s a huge confidence boost, but cashing the check is also tangible proof of your commitment to approaching your writing as a job.  The knowledge that you have been paid for something someone has never seen can be both wonderful and frightening.  What if they regret sending you that check?  What if they hate the book?  When a completed manuscript sells, the author is confident the editor likes the book.  They wouldn’t have purchased it otherwise.  But writing a book that was put under contract before completion brings with it a whole new host of doubts, which makes sitting at the keyboard and typing with complete abandon trickier than it was before. 

 

Perhaps I shouldn’t admit this, but the higher the check amount, the higher my anxiety about the contracted project goes up.  Writing a book valued at an advance of $5,000 feels a whole lot different than one valued higher.  The expectations I have of myself rise as the number of zeros increases.  (Note -I have never been paid 6 figures for 1 book, so I’m not talking J.K. Rowling money here, but still!!!!) 

 

3)      Readers—now that you are under contract, you are no longer writing for yourself.  While every writer hopes that the mythical creatures known as readers will some day purchase their book from a store or download it onto their E-reader, the audience the unpublished author is primarily writing for is an audience of 1 – themselves.  Writing a book under contract means that this book you are writing will be in bookstores and on e-shelves.  Readers will be able to read it.  Suddenly, each word that you type means more than it once did because it doesn’t just belong to you.  It belongs to them.  And that distinction can make all the difference in the world. 

Once I started down the writing path, being paid to write a book that was already under contract was a dream of mine.  To me, knowing that an editor and publisher believed in me enough to buy work sight unseen was a sign that I had earned the right to think of myself as an author.  (It took several manuscripts for me to even admit to friends that I was a writer, so calling myself an author took a bit more doing.)  This year, I have completed and turned in 3 under contract manuscripts.  The mechanics of writing get easier with practice, but the personal pressures that come with contracted books makes them each a very different challenge.  I’m thrilled I’ve been given the chance to learn what writing under deadline feels like and as I write on my current project, I hope that I meet the expectations that have been set for it by both me, my agent and my editor.  And if I’m lucky, once I turn in the last two projects that my editors have requested, I’ll be allowed to do it all over again.  Because no matter how hard writing the next contracted book might be, I wouldn’t give it up for anything. 

My Real Issue With DC's New 52

by
Scott D. Parker

I guess I feel the way I do because I’m a dad.

If the goal of the recent reboot of the entire universe over at DC Comics was to get people talking, reading, and responding to comics again, then the New 52 Campaign is an unqualified success. But I thought the stated goal was to gain new readers. In that, DC is a qualified success.

Most of the talk has centered around a couple of sex scenes, one with Catwoman and Batman, and another with a bikini-clad Starfire having casual sex with some of her team members. Commenters and authors all over have basically come down on a couple of sides. One, the sexy scenes hide the true pitfall of the books: that the story isn’t good. While I haven’t read all 52 titles yet, Batwoman, Batgirl, and the ladies of Birds of Prey manage to have some kick-ass action and storytelling while still remaining fully dressed. Two, sex has been a part of comics for a long time so what’s the big deal showing a bunch of cleavage, ab muscles, and having super-powered copulation?

The problem I see with those answers, especially #2, is that it drives away readers. Not exactly the goal of this entire thing, is it?

Perhaps the most famous reaction so far has come from a 7-year-old girl (linked everywhere, but here’s the original). The lass is a fan of comics, saves up allowance money to buy comics, and watches Teen Titans on TV. In the show, Starfire is depicted one way and, because it’s Cartoon Network and has to pass TV censors, you can pretty much guess that she’s not the vixen portrayed in the new comic. The entire article is a fascinating glimpse into how children see heroes. My favorite quote is this, where the girl states what she wants her heroine to do:

“I want her to be a hero, fighting things and be strong and helping people.”

“Why’s that?” [asks her mother]

“Because she’s what inspires me to be good.”

Readership

Despite how this first part of this post starts, this is not another essay on sexed up comics. It’s about readership. You think that little girl’s mother is going to let her daughter read another issue of Red Hood and the Outlaws? Better question: do you think the girl wants to read another issue? You can make a strong argument that DC has lost a reader who, at seven, could have been nurtured in the medium, become a regular reader, reading different comics as she grows up, and then introduces her kids to the joy of comics.

That kind of kid was me. I had what amounted to the perfect way to simultaneously grow up and continue reading comics. In the mid 1970s when I started reading comics, super heroes were still fun, often cheesy—remember those one-page ads for, say, Hostess Twinkies where Superman would save the dessert from the corny villain?—and didn’t have a lot of adult content. It also didn’t have any ratings listed on the covers. That all changed when I was in high school with the publication of both Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen. That sophisticated, adult-themed content helped change comics into what it is today: a segregated industry who basically only caters to folks like me who like comics. A crucial point here is this: at 16, I was ready for those kinds of stories. I wasn’t at age ten.

Seeing the success of these types of comics, DC did an interesting thing: instead of shifting all the mainstream titles to this newer type of storytelling, they created the Vertigo line of comics. This separate universe almost always had the "Suggested for mature readers" tag on the cover. If you’re at a store in the early 1990s and you see the complete DC offering, you pretty much know what you’re going to get based on the cover. You see The Flash, he’s cool for your elementary kid. You see Sandman, give that to your teenaged kid. If you picked up a superhero title, you didn’t really have any fear that a member of the Green Lantern Corps was going to be sliced in half or that Starfire was going to sleep with any other member of the Teen Titans.

Ratings

The best thing about this arrangement was the DC could accommodate to both the teen/adult audience as well as the younger folk. It was great. They could hook a reader with the Teen Titans, Batman, or Superman as kids, and then have those readers migrate to Vertigo titles while in high school. It was win-win, and you didn’t really need a ratings system.

Earlier this year, DC pulled out of the Comic Code Authority, basically the censors that had de facto control over comics from thee mid-1950s. In its place, DC initiated a ratings system:

• E EVERYONE Appropriate for readers of all ages. May contain cartoon violence and/or some comic mischief.
• T TEEN Appropriate for readers age 12 and older. May contain mild violence, language and/or suggestive themes.
• T+ TEEN PLUS Appropriate for readers age 16 and older. May contain moderate violence, mild profanity, graphic imagery and/or suggestive themes.
• M MATURE Appropriate for readers age 18 and older. May contain intense violence, extensive profanity, nudity, sexual themes and other content suitable only for older readers.
  

So, with the big hoopla over the New 52 and the drive to have more readers, guess how many titles are rated E? None. Zero. (None for M, either.) So, tell me: since when does the drive for new readers all but ignore the younger audience? How, exactly, does DC hope to gain new readers—readers who may be hooked for life—when they don’t even try to aim for the youth market?

Availability

Fellow DSDer, Jay Stringer, has also been writing about comics. In the comments section of his Thursday column, he said this:

I don’t think the problem is that comic books aren't suitable for kids. The problem with the industry—for all ages—has been availability. These things used to be available on street corners and news agents. Now they're in specialist shops. The only way under-12's are getting into the shops is if their parents are into comics, or if the shop has some other lure, like toys or trading card games.

The comic book industry has totally failed for two generations now at getting comics into the hands of people who don't read comics. That's changing this month. DC comics have had TV ads, cinema ads, press coverage, their titles are available online on the day of release. So far very little of what I’ve seen has really been unsuitable for children, and those that have been are either horror books, westerns, or war comics. The 'mainstream' books that are probably not suitable for kids have failed in execution rather than content.

While I respectively disagree with Jay’s statement about the content of some of the titles I’ve read—examples here and here—I completely agree with his take on the main problem of distribution (and pricing; comics are out of the range of most kids). It is why I am super excited about day-and-date digital comics. Like the budding short story boom on e-readers, I’m really hoping to see a new flood of new readers who own iPads and love super heroes to start buying comics.

I just wish I could give some of those titles to my ten-year-old.

Book of the Week: Fellow DSDer, Joelle Charbonneau is out with her second Rebecca Robbins book, Skating Over the Line. Her first one, Skating Around the Law, completely upended my reading life, and I’m ready to dig in to the latest offering.

Tweet of the Week 1: Keith Rawson

The one thing I've noticed from interviews with my favorite writers - Woodrell, Sallis, Lansdale, @swierczy [DuaneSwierczynski] - is that they all say the same thing: If you're not having fun with writing, you're doing it wrong. And they're words to live by. If you're taking this writing shit too seriously, you need to find something else to fucking do.

Not the way I’d express it, but the dude hits the nail on the head.

Tweet of the Week 2: Peter King

How long since a truly relevant Thanksgiving Day game in Detroit? And I don't remember it EVER being the game of the week.

Love that the perpetual underdogs—Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland, and, yes, Houston—are doing so well early this season. And if you are a NFL fan and not reading King's Monday Morning Quarterback column, Monday is only two days away. Seriously, it is simply my favorite part of the NFL season after watching the Houston Texans.

Craft of the Week: Action Figure Terrariums

Saw this in the Houston Chronicle this week. Man! How fun are those.

"Start the Fans Please!"*

By Russel D McLean

So yeah I’m a little late this week. And yes I missed the last two weeks. Mostly because I was away. Away on tour of Scotland and then St Louis. Normal service will resume when jetlag sorts itself.

But meanwhile…

Ahhh, St Louis.

This year’s Bouchercon was one of the slickest yet; brilliantly planned and executed by the Clan Jordan once again, with Jon Jordan taking the head this time after Ruth did Baltimore. But more than anything this year I realised how much Bouchercon is a group effort. The chair is vital and important in the feel and atmosphere of the con, but it’s the teams of volunteers who really get things swinging. I only helped out a little this year, but I could see precisely why these guys deserve far more credit than they get. From swinging several thousand bookbags to dealing with jerky moderators (like me) on the panels, they do a lot of work for a little reward. And we should thank them for it.

So part of this post goes out to Jon Jordan, without whom there would have been no Bouchercon 2011 at all. Part of it goes to David Thompson, who was supposed to be co-chairing this year before he tragically passed away a little under a year ago now. Part of it goes to Ruth Jordan and Judy Bobalik who do so much work and make everything seem so effortless.
But most of it goes to the volunteers. The fans. The people whose passion and dedication mean that authors like me can, for at least a few days, feel like what we’re doing means something to people. The people who we really write for. The people who challenge us as much as they validate us. The people without whom there would be no panels, no audiences, no sales figures, no nothing.

I was delighted this year to meet far less “wannabe” writers than usual, to meet people who really just wanted to read, love and enjoy the works produced by the writers present. After all, if we're all writers, then who are we writing for?

I’m going to talk about the experience of Bouchercon over on my own blog
(www.theseayemeanstreets.blogspot.com) very shortly, but in the meantime, I just wanted to say how much all authors appreciate the fans who do so much for them and ask so little in return except for us to do what we set out to do in the first place; entertain them.

So to the readers, the volunteers, the fans, I say, thank you. Without you, there would be no point and no reason to attend Bouchercon or any other event.



Above, a picture of me and two spectacular readers I met at this year's con – Dan and Kate Malmon. And yes, I think they were having to prop me up after a long session at the bar…

*Anyone from the UK of a certain generation will be tempted to yell that title in an imitation of Richard O Brien on The Crystal Maze. Anyway from the US will probably just be confused.

Read and Let Read

by
Scott D. Parker

I'm almost to the end of my first season of American Idol. After nine years of not bothering to watch nor even caring that I didn't, my wife and I jumped in to the Idol bandwagon with both feet. I've watched all the episodes, read the recaps at Entertainment Weekly and MSNBC, joined the Facebook page, and dang near downloaded a couple of tunes (Casey Abrams's Nature Boy, James Durbin's Will You Still Love Me, and Haley Reinhart's House of the Rising Sun being my favorite performances of the season). Ironically, I never voted. Didn't feel like exposing all of my Facebook friends to the Idol coffers.

We viewers have been blessed with a number of contestants that perform widely varying styles. Jazz, soul, rock and roll, country, gospel, and good old fashioned pop. As fun as it is for me to hear these different types of music--as they naturally follow my own eclectic tastes--I've marveled at how far some of singers reached. Who would have thought the self-professed "jazz head" Casey would reach the final six? How about soulful Hailey who just bowed out this week?

As I read through the comments on the multiple pages, one thing I noticed is, unfortunately, not all that surprising. There's a serious amount of vitriol among the Idol faithful. Followers of rocker James don't like country crooners Scotty McCreery or Lauren Alaina. The country fans hated the growly Haley and Casey. The multitude that enjoyed Pia Toscano's brand of singing discounted the gospel singing of Jacob Lusk. I'm not talking mere "I don't prefer this type of singing" type talk. There's some serious middle-school, only-children-can-be-this-hateful stuff going on here. I can't really understand it. Well, I do. We're human, and we like to make silos and shoot missiles at other things.

The folks in the mystery community are different, at least that's my impression. We have a big tent in here, room enough for everyone. We've got readers who loved hard-boiled action tales and would never, ever read a cozy. We've got traditional mysteryists who think the modern noir stuff is just too violent. We've got everyone. But I don't really hear hurtful bombs lobbed at the other parties. Many of us read different sub-genres of the mystery and crime fiction family, but not all. And it's my impression that even the most devoted follower of one sub-genre doesn't usually take pot shots at another.

Live and let live, or, rather, read and let read.

Why, do you suppose, we're like this? Are we different than the American Idol fandom? What makes us mysteryists accept other genres within our field without resorting to name-calling?

Movie of the Week: Tangled. Watched this for the first time last night with the family. Just about the funniest movie I've seen in a long time. It pretty much had it all. Loved the singing as it's been a few years since Disney did the full-on "Animated Broadway" thing. The horse, Maximus, just about stole the show. Where's the animated short featuring him?

Priorities

By Jay Stringer

Most people reading this probably aren't closely following English premier league football. But bear with me here. Wayne Rooney is an English player, currently plying his trade for Manchester United, who is a bit of a media obsession.

Every movement he makes -on or off the pitch- is documented, analysed and photographed. If he steps foot outside his house then there will be photographs. If he goes to the fridge in the middle of the night, there will probably be night vision pictures.

A few weeks back, in a game against Wigan Athletic, he committed an act of assault. With the referee looking elsewhere, Rooney ran up to a player and elbowed him in the face. If it had been done anywhere else -on the street, in the stands, on the side of the pitch- it would have been seen as a crime. He would likely have been arrested, charges would likely have been made. Expensive lawyers would have made expensive speeches written by expensive PR people.

The governing body of English football decided that they could take no further action. The newspapers laughed. Discussion was all based around whether he would get away with it, very little about the actual act itself or the potential damage done.

This week the same player scored a hat trick (when one player scores three goals in a game), bringing his team back from 0-2 down to eventually win 4-2. After his third goal, completing a remarkable turn around, he ran to the stands to celebrate and soon found a TV camera in his face. He swore a couple of times, then went and got on with the game.

He's just been handed a two-game ban. Letters of complaint are being written. The game has been brought into disrepute, and the newspapers are full of stories of a player out of control, and a celebrity who can't handle his own ego.

So you can commit assault and get away with it. That's fine. But if you swear on camera, thenyour ego is out of control and you cause a scandal.

Does it remind you of any genre close to all our hearts?

I remember talking to the brilliant Helen Fitzgerald once about one of her books. In a book that contained women being abducted, raped, beaten and set alight, the incident people were most shocked about was the killing of a cat. Be as violent as you want to a human, but don't hurt the bloody cat.

And recently reading reviews on Amazon for one of my favourite British crime writers, I was suprised to see reviews that complained about the swearing. This is an author who has had his characters chop up dead bodies, set fire to each other, crucify each other and commit multiple acts of brilliant deviance. But swearing? That's beyond the pale.

So how did it come to this?

Why are we entertained to see people, both real and fictional, tear lumps out of each other, kill, maim, elbow or screw, but we lose our stomachs and minds at something like swearing? How can we read about evils being carried out on innocent humans, but baulk at violence to a cat?

The Myth is Wrong; People Read More Now

People are reading more now than they did years ago.

Now authors, publishers, and booksellers will probably tell you that isn't true. No one reads anymore, they say. But, wait, hear me out, it's true. These days people read articles, manuals, texts, message boards, emails, blogs, hilarious Twitter posts, lists, Facebook statuses (stati?), signs and books. People can understand what they're saying in each. Internet language is different than short hand, is different than text speak, is different than a sentence in books.

Think about that. It's almost as if people who read now can read several different languages and process most of it. But people don't read anymore.

I have friends who never read when they were kids reading a ton now. When you go to the beach, on a bus, or on a vacation, there are people reading everywhere.

But people don't read anymore.

No, the problem isn't people reading. The problem is people read slower, and therefore don't buy as many books.

When I was in college, I didn't have cable TV. I didn't have video games for the first two years I was in college either. I had studying, I had parties, I had work, and I had crime fiction novels. I used to read two to three books a week.

Now, I'm lucky if I read a book every two weeks.

Consider this, it used to be authors had to compete with TV. Now they have to compete with the internet, TV, video games, and cell phones. People have less time to read. And they want to read what they enjoy.

That's a very small window.

So, what can we--as authors--do? Write better books, of course. You have to connect with your audience. Stephanie Myer, Stieg Larsson, JK Rowling, and Nicholas Sparks all were able to tap a nerve in a large audience. They connected. They were able to get their audience to forget about all the other stuff, and just read their books. Even for a little while.

At the same time, authors, you need to write what you want to write. Don't try to hit the market, because you don't what the market is going to be. Vampires and Zombies are hot now. In a year, who knows, maybe ketchup and mustard romances will be all the rage. Write what you know, and write what you enjoy.

And what can we--as readers--do? Read a book you enjoy? Tell someone about it. Suggest it. Lend it to another person to read, especially if the author has a backlist. Buy books, and give books as gifts. People will read, and they usually trust a friend's suggestion.

And what can publishers do? This is tricky. Clearly everyone wants to publish the next Larsson, the next Rowling. You could shoot for that, true. But you could also go the cable TV route, and consider that more and more entertainment is becoming a niche world. There's so much out there that there isn't going to be a HUGE audience for much of anything. Publish the books you like, and promote them to the right audience. Advertise in those niche magazines. Got a horror series? Advertise during THE WALKING DEAD comics. Don't be afraid to publish small books. If they're good, they'll find an audience. And who knows? Maybe one of those books you think will be small will turn out to be huge. Word of mouth goes a long way.

I really believe the world is smarter now than it was fifty years ago. I also think people are afraid of change. Do people read less now? No, they read more.

They just divide their reading up into many different mediums.

Publishing needs to be the medium that grabs their attention. Book is still our most traditional form of entertainment.

Open

By Russel D McLean

You know, I didn’t like author X’s last book.”

“Was it a bad book?” I asked, surprised, because I loved author X and had adored their last book.

“Nah,” my friend said. “Not that. Just… it wasn’t a book I thought they were going to write.”

“They surprised you?”

“Yes.”

“And you didn’t like that?”

“No.”

Stuart MacBride has returned to the world of blogging over here. Its been a long leave of absence, and he’s been sorely missed (at least by me, and I’m sure by many thousands more readers with taste and a beautifully black sense of humour). But he’s talking about risks upon his return.

Like the risk he’s taking writing a standalone.

The risk he already took writing – cue deep intake of shocked breath – a science fiction novel!

A risk?

Really?

I don’t know if I’m an odd breed as a reader, but I hate being able to second guess a writer. The best authors in my mind are the ones who continue to surprise me. The ones who have always gained my respect are the ones who take risks. Not the ones who do it right every time – I think its terribly unfair to expect authors to hit it out the park every time, when we expect actors, directors and even musicians to have a couple duds and wrong moves over the course of a career* - but the ones who try and stretch themselves and by extension their audience.

See, I don’t want to get bored.

I read to be surprised. Provoked. Excited. Intrigued.

How can that happen if an author does the same schtick book in and book out?

Two of my favourite writers of the moment are George Pelecanos and Don Winslow. Both authors keep shifting gears if not every book then every two or three. You can’t predict entirely what they’ll do next and even when you think you have a handle on what they’re doing, they pull something out of the box to surprise you.

Don Winslow is a very special case in point. Shifting gears near every novel, giving you books as diverse as Power of the Dog and Death and Life of Bobby Z**, books which take you on unexpected journeys, to themes and ideas you hadn’t considered before.

Hell, it doesn’t have to be so mind altering. MacBride’s change of genre was a wonderful move, something that rocked his audience a little because – just like the first time they read him – they didn’t know what to expect. I don’t understand why that unnerves some readers. To me, it’s a way of keeping the relationship between author and reader alive. Sure, we like to think we know what we’re getting, but really we love it when we’re surprised.

As a reader, I want to be taken places I’d never have considered. I don’t want to re-visit old ground. I want to be surprised, amazed and uncertain.

I want my books to be unpredictable. I want my authors unafraid to experiment and stretch and have fun.

And I’m sure they want to be able to do the same.

*Go on, make yer cheap jokes here
**A prime example of a book that didn’t work for this reader, but which I appreciated because he was trying to stretch himself as a writer.

Read Out Loud

By Russel D McLean

Recently, I’ve been working some (sssssh, top secret, but keep yer eye on me website blog for more details soon!) events for… well, sometime. In communication with one venue, I got an interesting email that said, in part, “we tend to discourage “readings””

I found that an interesting comment and one I wholeheartedly agree with. While I have done some small excerpts at events, I tend to keep these as short as I can because I feel the audience only has so much of an attention span and I know that I tend to zone out when hearing long excerpts. I also know that when I go to an author event, I’m not there to hear the author because – let’s face it – most authors cannot read from their books. Noteable exceptions of course include Allan Guthrie’s “Jesus” voice from Hardman (I still read the book and hear him) and the mighty mighty James “Devil Dog” Ellroy reading anything because, holy shit, the way he reads is the way you hear that damn book in your head. He’s whaaaacked, brother, and so far goooooone you gotta see him to believe him.

But on the whole, I like writers to give me something… something else. Because in general there’s a reason they’re writers and not actors (of course, Stuart MacBride has read his own book on audio, but he’s had theaterly training and Martyn Waites’ reading of Ray Banks is brilliant, because Waites was a professional actor for many years) Hands up, one of the worst events I saw was a writer whom I like on a personal level who did nothing but read from the book. It was a painful experience, even more so when they started answering questions and suddenly the event came to life. I mean, honestly, out of context excerpts are yawnsville except in small, staccato bursts. When I do read, I limit myself to maybe five pages and two excerpts. And then because mostly I have believed it to be expected of me.

But the more I think about the more I love the events where the author can talk about their life, their work, their reading habits. Iain (M) Banks is brilliant at this – so much that last time I saw he just went straight to the Q&A, and held it for the full hour. I think when we go to see an author, we are not expecting the book to be read to us. Why would we as an audience want that when the book part of he conversation between author and reader is very much a private one and we are going to see them in public? I think as a public spectacle, we want writers to show us something of the mind behind the book. And, yes, some authors are dull, but many are more interesting than they might believe and if they present us with themselves, naturally as they can, many readers will be immensely pleased, as I am, to have seen another side to the process, to understanding the creation of the writing I love.

I’m not saying events have to be intellectual or intensely illuminating, but I am saying that they should always be about more than simply making us aware of a book’s presence. They are, in essence, a form of entertainment, and I have found there to be little entertaining about someone just reading from a book you will later be paying to read yourself.

Of course, I realise I’m setting myself up here… am I as good as my own standards? Goodness only knows, but I try my best to give the audience something that’s fun; a few facts they might not know, some stories I think they might find amusing (ask me about rejection letters; I got a few doozies) and maybe some sense of what they might expect to find in my work if they haven’t read it, and if they have maybe some idea about the thought processes that went into the novels.

And if that fails I just swear in a Fife accent. That seems to amuse people no end…