Mysterious Matters: Mystery Publishing Demystified

The Last-Page Sound

My wife (God love her) recently pointed out to me that I make a noise each time I finish a book or a manuscript.  Sometimes I even say a word.  And it occurs to me that each word or sound is filled with meaning and connotation.  I bring up this topic today, because I asked around the office, and everyone (older and younger, male and female) admitted to similar habits.  It does make sense, because you've just been on a journey of a minimum of 200 pages and at least 10 hours (sometimes much more) with a particular writer and a specific set of characters, and you've been involved in the plot from beginning to end.  When it's all over, you're bound to have a reaction of some sort.  Herewith my most common reactions:

1. OK. 
When I finish the last sentence and I say, "OK," I am thinking.  "OK, that was all tied up just fine."  I can't say that it's a word or noise of great enthusiasm, but it is a noise that acknowledges competence and a job done well.  "OK" doesn't mean I've been blown away, but nor does it mean that I have been disappointed. 

2. WOW.
This word is the highest compliment.  When I've turned the last page and said "Wow," it means I've been really impressed with something.  It occurs to me as I write this that lots of books and manuscripts these days go out with a whimper rather than a bang, perhaps because whimpers are better at setting up a sequel.  Closing with a bang always impresses me, but a "Wow" happens only when it's been preceded by something excellent.  If I say "Wow" at the end of your manuscript, you will very soon have a contract.

3. NICE JOB.
This is a banal phrase I use that is actually more complimentary than it sounds.  It means I think the author has balanced a lot of things well--plot, character, pacing, etc.  It's a holistic compliment, a way of acknowledging that the writer knows his/her craft and has done a nice job of bringing it all together.  Now, "nice job" does not equate to that common phrase of "falling in love with the manuscript" (for me, that's the "Wow" in #2), but it does mean that I'll likely ask a colleague to read the manuscript, which does move that MS closer down the road to publication.

4. <SIGH>.
Sighing is usually good, but wistful and a little sad.  It means a book that I've really enjoyed has ended and that I may not see the characters again for a while.  I often sigh at the end of the Precious Ramotswe books, because I've found them so delightful and relaxing, and I'm a little sad that I'll have to wait another year to hear more from Mma Ramotswe and the outspoken Mma Makutsi.

5. AARGH.
This is the sound of frustration.  It means I'm disappointed in the execution of something--the ending, the writing, the resolution, etc.  The frustration is usually borne of having seen several good elements in the manuscript, but the book not coming together as a whole.  This noise usually means I don't think the author will be able to "fix" the manuscript to my satisfaction, so it usually leads to a rejection letter that does have some nice things to say despite the rejection.

6. WTF?
Some of my readers with teenage children may know that this stands for "What the f---?"  This is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong.  It's that horrible sound that means "Oh God, I have just wasted hours...for this?!?"

7. YES.  <NOD>
I have this reaction when justice is well served, when the villain gets his or her just desserts and/or poetic justice has been done.  The nodding is my way of agreeing with what the author has said and done, how s/he has brought things to a conclusion that I find eminently satisfactory.

8. <SHAKE OF THE HEAD, SIDE TO SIDE, with pursed lips>
This is the "bad movement."  A book that has annoyed me, or has failed to engage me, or has made some serious mistakes gets the shake, that dismissal that moves the MS from the "not right for me" category into the "this thing will never get published" category.

At least, these are the last-page noises and movements that I remember from recent reads.  Perhaps I'll add to the list in the future.  What are YOUR noises?

Small Presses: The Future of Publishing?

Over the last few weeks, the "blogosphere" and "listseriverse"  have been buzzing about small presses and how we are the "future of publishing."  Oh my, that sounds portentous and, if true, more than a little intimidating.

Speculation about the future is rampant, what with daily newspapers folding across the country and magazines shutting their doors.  Is the printed word going solely onto the Internet (God, I hope not)--and will books necessarily follow?  Are the fates of the "big publishers" (those so readily endorsed by MWA, because they give out-of-proportion advances that they rarely recover, etc.) hanging in the balance?  Are they sitting at the sidelines, chewing their fingernails because they see us independent publishers creeping up behind them like a thief in the night, stealing their market share and their best writers?

Honestly, I don't think so.  But I do think things have to change, and are changing slowly...but these are not necessarily changes that benefit any particular person or entity, whether novelist or publisher.  I think it's increasingly clear that the large houses are taking fewer chances than in the past, mostly as a result of having gone public in recent decades, which makes them answerable to stockholders, who want profit$$$ and not necessarily a stake in bringing a worthy writer into print.  And it's getting harder and harder for ANYONE to make any money.  Bookstores are losing money; publishers take big write-downs in terms of returns; writers get meagre royalty checks.  Of course, Janet Evanovich and James Patterson have nothing to worry about, but how many writers can say that?

And yet...people still want to write books.  They want to write very badly, and they want to be published, and they want people reading their work.  This is where we independent houses step in, accepting unagented submissions and taking chances, because our cost structure is lower and we have lower overhead.  We offer a way for these aspiring writers to make it into print, but always with the caveat that they really cannot expect (barring a minor miracle) to make MONEY from their work.  A little pin money, yes--enough to buy some new furniture once in a while.  But not mortgage-paying, car-payment-making money.

So, then, are we the future?  I think we are to a certain extent--but I also think that we are the distant, distant past.  Remember medieval and Renaissance days, when painters, artists, and poets were "sponsored" by the wealthy, who got their portraits painted and odes written about them in exchange for monetary support?  Well, I do think the current small-press ethos is based on a similar patronage model.  This is what I mean:

The house I work for is owned by a few independently wealthy (or, should I say, "well off") people who love books and who decided they wanted to be in publishing.  Their money does fund our operation, in that they are willing to ride out the highs and the lows over a number of years, where we seem to alternate between red ink and black ink.  These gentle folks (well, gentle is not the right word) are dedicated to publishing, but that doesn't mean they let me spend money foolishly.  Before any book is published, our editorial board - composed of the owners and the editors/publishers - agree to its publication.  Each book is being financed by these folks, so they have to like what they see.  I suspect/know that this model is true at a lot of other independent houses.

And what about me?  Well, I am fortunate enough to have made some nice bonuses in my younger years, and to have invested wisely, so that at this stage of my life I can afford to work for a salary that most young people could not live on.  This is a pretty nice life for me at a particular age, but I can see why younger people would want to pursue careers that pay a steadier, higher income.  In fact, I don't blame them in the least, though it does sort of break my heart to see younger folk not coming into the industry (trying "corporate communications" instead, because of the higher pay).

For all the above reasons, I get so frustrated when reviewers refuse to review our books because they might not have heard of us, or because we're not on some list sponsored by some group, or because we're not [fill in the blank with some criterion that discriminates against independent houses].  Anyway, a new week is about to begin, so I will close by saying: "Here's to good books, and to the people who write and publish them." 

Are You a Hoarder?

Normally Mysterious Matters focuses on...well, mysterious matters...but this week I'm going to expand on the topic a bit to pontificate about the larger topic of books and readers.

Listen, there's a lot of talk about books become obsolete or hopelessly outdated.  I don't believe it.  Books are here to stay.  Imagine if the Internet had come before books.  People would be saying, "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if, instead of hyperlinking all over the place and not getting anything done, we could have professionally edited and printed materials, written by talented experts, in a nice portable format and that doesn't cost too much?"  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is the definition of a book.

This isn't to say that there won't be additional choices--the Kindle comes to mind, and it's a good choice.  I know at least one apartment dweller who loves it because her studio apartment is so small that she literally doesn't have the place to keep books.  Kindle sales will grow; so will online subscriptions.  However, I seriously doubt that the printed book is going away any time soon.  And I don't want it to; which is ironic, because if we could publish and distribute everything electronically, the bulk of our costs (printing, shipping, returns) would go away and there'd be a lot more black ink to spread around.  But that's a different story....

What I really have been thinking been thinking about (the preceding was just a sort of preface) is the different approaches to books, and how one person's approach might make another shudder with horror.  Consider the spectrum:

HOARDERS vs. GULPERS.  "Hoarders" are those people who buy books and then actually "save" them.  They will pick up the new book by a favorite writer and save it for a time they will really enjoy it--perhaps vacation, or an airplane trip, or as a reward for getting something accomplished.  That book is always in the back of their mind: "Ah, I can't wait until October 15th, when I can read it."  They gaze it longingly each time they pass it, but they are firm in their ability to hoard and delay gratification.  "Gulpers" rush out to get the same book and have half of it read by the time they get home from the bookstore.  I'm a hoarder--I always save the Alexander McCall Smith/Precious Ramotswe books for air travel, when I most need the calming influence of Mma Ramotswe.  And when I'm all caught up with the series--and there are no more waiting to be read--I feel a little depressed.

HARDBACK vs. PAPERBACK.  I admit it - I love a hardback.  I love the feel, the size of the pages, the paper.  I'm one of those people who always look under the dustjacket to see what the actual book looks like.  But they're heavy and expensive, so many prefer a nice portable, inexpensive paperback.  Some readers will split the budget, buying hardcovers of particular favorites but waiting for the second tier to come into paper.  I personally also like trade paperbacks quite a bit, with the larger trim size and sturdier feeling than the mass-market paperbacks.  There's not really snobbery going on here, as there are many, many fine paperback originals--and I think there will be more as we move forward, because the price point is much more reasonable when trying to break a new author.

FOCUS vs. DIVERSITY.  There are some of God's chosen people who can be reading four or five books at a time.  There's one in the bedroom, one in the living room, one in the den, one in the bathroom.  They move among books and keep all the strands separate in their minds--they're the ultimate multi-taskers.  I personally am just the opposite--I can't even read a published work when I'm in the middle of reading a manuscript.  And I certainly can't read two or more manuscripts at once--I break into hives just thinking about it.  And yet one of my colleagues here does that regularly.  She says, "When I read a lot simultaneously, the really good stuff stands out."  Hmmm, interesting point.  But totally impossible for me!

STEADY STATE vs. IN TRANSIT.  I know of some people who read only on their commute--on a bus, a train, a subway.  While at home, they don't pick up the book.  In contrast, there are those who have a comfortable chair at home and read at the same time and in the same place everyday or night (I'm in this category).  What I find interesting is that books still do seem to be one of the top choices of travelers.  Of course kids have their video games and iPod, and business types like to bring along their laptops and watch movies; but books seem to be holding their own, which makes me happy.

FICTION vs. NONFICTION.  Most people, it seems, prefer one or the other.  One of my authors recently told me that when she proudly announced the publication of her first mystery to some colleagues, one of them looked at her and said, "Sorry, I read only nonfiction."  Ouch.  (For the record, try not to say such a**holish things to recently published novelists.) 

GENRE INTENSITY vs. GENRE DIVERSITY.  Some people are so committed to their chosen genre that they read more books, and know more about the business, than we editors do.  The genre doesn't necessarily have to be mystery; there are equal numbers of devotees of romance, paranormal, science fiction, and so forth.  A lot of these people would make wonderful editors!  In our own field, I think of some of the most mystery-genre-intense people to be L.J. Roberts, Harriet Klausner, Gloria and Theodore Feit, and P.J. Coldren.  They all happen to be excellent reviewers as well; and they are in the rare position of being able to judge really well because they have read so widely.  So, if any of them are reading this -- thank you, and please keep up the good work.

What's Missing Here Is....

I am experiencing that rarest of occurrences: the much-desired but infrequently-experienced LULL.  So a good time to post.

The manuscript pickings have been slim lately.  I think agents and aspiring novelists have been querying less; partly because there's just less money to go around in general, and partly because the economic climate has everyone being highly cautious, especially in terms of taking chances on new writers.  (Though I hasten to add that I've been hearing some quasi-optimistic things lately about consumer confidence and the like, so here's to more of that type of news).

About the last dozen or so manuscripts/queries that I've read have elicited one reaction from me: "blah."  Almost all were competent and decent.  But what I realized is that most of them could be characterized by the things they did NOT have or did NOT do.  And when that thought hit me, I realized that I've been feeling this way about a lot of published work, too.

So, what has been missing?  In no particular order:

1. A vivid sense of place.  I don't think all novels have to be city in big, glamorous cities.  Small towns and suburbs are fine, too.  But I am a person who is pretty acutely attuned to place, and in so many manuscripts the "setting" is underdrawn.  It's almost like I could take Manuscript A, which is set in, say Portland, Oregon, and switch the location to Miami, Florida, and have it not make one bit of difference to the book.  I always feel like the setting  / locale is a key "character" in a story, and I'm not seeing a lot of places come to life lately.  Alas.

2. Originality.  I have to give mystery writers the credit they deserve.  Many of the manuscripts and cover letters that have come to me show me how much work/research their authors have done.  I get manuscripts whose titles should be "Generic Mystery with Features and Characters That Publishers Want."  I'm not seeing a lot rise above formula, and I need that bit of spark.  Of course, I don't want anything TOO crazy -- I have to keep readers' wants and needs in mind -- but I don't think I've thought, "Wow, that was really interesting and different" for months.

3. Suspense.   There are differing opinions on this, but I think a good mystery also has to be a good novel of suspense.  Some of the manuscripts I've read have been competently plotted, but they move at too leisurely a pace.  A common phenomenon is a strong beginning, followed by a sort of muddled middle in which nothing much happens, followed by a hasty conclusion where the crime is solved out of thin air or due to coincidence or hunch.  Suspense can be created by plot, but it can also be created equally well by character, and I'm finding the characters just too straightforward right from the beginning, not enigmatic enough to make me really want to keep reading to find out what makes them tick. 

4. Real relationships.  A lot of manuscripts put a cast of characters together for the purpose of the story but fail to build anything deeper than a superficial relationship between and among them.  Of course, not all relationships in all books can be described in all their complexity; we'd end up with something Proustian or Joyceian, and we really don't want that.  But I'd like to see more of the complexity that goes with any relationship, whether parent/child, husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, friend/friend.  Friendships can be extremely complicated, with wide-ranging highs and lows, and yet so many characters in so many books seem to have so few friends.  Foils, yes--there are plenty of those.  Loners can be interesting, but I've seen rather too many of them lately and wouldn't mind a protag who is a wife, husband, friend, etc.

No Villain Need Be

(with thanks to Elizabeth Linington, whose title I have borrowed for this post; and to Lexi Revellian, for suggesting the topic)

The subject of the "bad guys" in mystery fiction has come up.  I think we all spend a lot of time thinking about what makes a good protagonist, as well as a good supporting cast.  But what makes for a good "villain"?

This is a bit of a tricky question in that I usually think of the "villain" of a mystery as the murderer.  And in a most mysteries, we don't know who the killer is until quite late in the book.  (When we know early, I put the book into the "suspense" or "thriller" category.)   The villains in the thrillers I've read lately have all been of a type or two: power-mad egomaniacs or garden-variety psychopaths. 

So maybe we are better off thinking about the villain in a mystery as being an antagonist to the protagonist.  Such characters need not be the murderer, but they do point to one of those frequently-unsaid truisms that good character development is based on conflict.  Conflict comes in all forms, from basic family issues (such as sibling rivalry) to highly abstract types of conflict based on competing belief systems or deeply held values.  In a good mystery, conflict drives not only the characters but also the plot.

That said, I do think that some types of antagonists are better than others.  I always find intra-family conflict to be quite realistic, because I don't think I know of any family that isn't rife with it.  Conflict on the job is good too, and raises all sorts of opportunities to explore relationships in the workplace (indeed, this has become a staple of many of the modern police procedurals).  Antagonism based on personality conflict is always great fun--put a modest wall-flower in the same room with a narcissistic drama queen, and the resulting fireworks can be great fun to read.  (Better yet, let's watch two narcissistic drama queens battle it out!)  A mega-corporation or the government as the antagonist seems to me to be more the stuff of thrillers, as it's tough to make the avatars of this antagonism anything beyond a two-dimensional stereotype (money-mad CEO, hard-as-nails G-man). 

In a way, we can think of the "villains" of the typical mystery as anyone who stands in the sleuth's way, or who erects obstacles for whatever reason.  It can be quite interesting when an antagonist blocks the protag for psychologically rich reasons, such as wanting to protect a child or a secret; it can be equally enjoyable to watch the psychologically acute sleuth jump over these barriers or find a way to circumvent them. 

If all is done well, when the identity of the murderer is revealed, we should have a good sense of what makes him or her tick. We should understand WHY the murder was committed, even if we don't condone it.  The motive really does have to make sense; I've read some books where I've thought, "Huh?  X had absolutely no reason to kill Y over that lost game of bridge [or shufleboard]."  This may be the hardest thing for the novelist to pull off--to make the murder believable or inevitable based on the conflicts that have been set up and explored, but not fully realized until the denouement.

When to Ignore Me

From the email received at Mysterious Matters, I have come to see that at least part of the blog's readership comes from unpublished but serious writers who hope to secure an agent and/or a publisher.  Some (much?) of what I write is tongue in cheek, and it occurs to me that I should set the record straight regarding some matters on which I blog in an opinionated way that should not be taken as gospel.  To wit:

I complain:  Mysteries with punning titles are stupid and annoy me.
The truth is:  These books sell.  Punning titles are very good hooks when querying agents and publishers.  When published, they signal a light, fun read--just the sort of escapism that many readers are looking for (and that publishers want to acquire, myself included).  So, when writing your queries or titling your book, don't avoid puns just because I occasionally talk about how they sometimes strike me as silly.

I complain:  Series characters get old and stale.
The truth is:  You stand a much better chance of getting an agent and a publisher if you propose not just one book, but a series and/or a series character.  A successful series is the world's best source of revenue, not only for the writer but also for the publisher--and developing writers who can keep a series (or multiple series) going is every editor's goal.  When I complain that Author X has written the same book 15 times, it may be true, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to have Author X on my list.  I do hope writers will do everything they can to not rest on their laurels, to keep their characters developing and their ideas fresh.  I am actively looking for series books, and I don't know any editor who isn't.

I complain:  I hate the present tense in narratives and would never sign a book that uses it.
The truth is:  The fact that I don't like present tense doesn't mean that other editors hate it as much as I do.  Flipping through random books in the Mystery section at B&N recently, I noticed a good number (more than I would have thought) written in present tense.  So, clearly, these books are being signed, published, and sold.  If your vision requires you to write in present tense, please do so and I wish you all the best!

I complain:  We publishers don't take enough chances.  We keep signing the same types of books over and over and flee from ideas that are truly fresh, exciting, or innovative.
The truth is:  I overstate the case.  At most houses, on most lists, there are intriguing, different books being published.  I can't say that I'm seeing them being overly successful in a lot of cases, but I do think that many of us editors do share the common goal of wanting to bring fresh new voices into print, while trying to balance the need to give readers (the all-powerful "market") what they want.  Many of the small presses are doing excellent work here, and we need your support more than ever. 

In a nutshell:  Take me, and Mysterious Matters, cum grano salis.  Do what feels right for you; listen to your agent and your editor.  As for your critique group--well, that's a different story, but let's not get into that right now....

What Makes a Good Mystery Novelist?

Here at Mysterious Matters I like to occasionally ruminate on the philosophical...  and I am feeling quite philosophical in the wake of Malice Domestic.

The question I get asked repeatedly, in a number of different ways, is "How do I get published?" or "How do I get my book published?"  I understand what drives that question, as it's the ultimate goal of any writer. 

But the more important question, I think, should be "What makes a good mystery novelist?"  Or "How can I be a better mystery writer?"  To that end, I offer the following suggestions/possibilities.

1. A good mystery writer thinks first and foremost about the reader's experience.  Some writers will tell you that writing is fun; others will say it's hard work.  I do find that many writers do get wrapped up in themselves, their books, their publishing ambitions -- which causes them to lose sight of the reader.  This makes them ineffective editors of their own work, since they can't step back and read their manuscript as a book-buyer would. 

2. A good mystery writer balances character and plot.  This is really Mystery Writing 101, but you'd be amazed at how many manuscripts I get that lose sight of the balance.  Many, many manuscripts end up 80-20, either heavily weighted toward the story or heavily weighted toward character.  If you are looking for popular success, you can't lose sight of the importance of telling a really good story, and peopling it with at least some likable types and some really good villains.

3. A good mystery writer thinks about the future.  I know, it's tough to manage the demands of your writing schedule - and trying to do some publicity - and dealing with family needs.  But I think the best writers (the ones who are able to get agents and contracts) have a vision for the future, of how they can manage their lives and schedules to give us a book a year (more or less), and how they will arc their series character, etc.  More and more writers are starting to do multiple series, which I think is good for them as writers (keeps them fresh) and good for readers and publishers as well. 

4. A good mystery writer listens to and synthesizes the advice of agents, editors, and readers.   Many writers see their manuscripts as their "babies" -- as their personal creations over which they have ultimate control.  The agenting and publishing process can be a rude and very frustrating awakening when a bunch of other thumbs are added to that pie.  Those who wig out don't really have what it takes to do this long term.  Those who are willing to listen and learn from criticism, who develop the thickest skin, who ask "what can I learn from this?" -- and then implement what they've learned -- tend to be happiest and most successful.  (This is not to say that books should be written by committee, as they must also be informed by a strong authorial vision.  I guess my point is that a strong authorial vision is even stronger for being flexible.)

5. A good mystery writer takes him/herself seriously, but not too seriously.  This is a tricky balance.  To get published you really have to jump through the hoops and get put through your paces, which means taking your desired career as a novelist quite seriously.  Going overboard, however, leaves you ramming your books down the throats of uninterested readers, or insisting that there's a market where there isn't one, etc.  I think the ability to laugh at yourself (and even at your own books) is critical, as well as psychologically helpful (as you're going to need it when you get negative reviews, which are inevitable, as your book is always going to piss someone off for reasons you never in a million years would have considered).

6. A good mystery writer pushes and challenges him/herself.  I am a bit suspect of books that are written too quickly or easily.  Writing to formula can be effective and profitable; and yet I do think that the best writers are the ones who don't settle for formula, who don't take the easy way out, even though the easy route may be quite effective in its own way.   

7. A good mystery writer understands the competitive landscape.  I think this goes back to point #1.  Really savvy writers know that readers have many choices, and that they have to provide a reason for people to come back to (i.e., spend money on) their books.  They are able to talk about/ describe their books succinctly and in a way that drives interest in them.  They keep abreast of what's being read and who's doing what, while still doing their own thing.

Delights, Expected and Unexpected

In the last couple of weeks I've run across a few delightful surprises, or had them recommended to me.  I'd like to share some here.

 What you see here is the cover of a collection of short stories by Charlotte Armstrong, long a favorite of mine.  This collection came up in conversation when a colleague of mine declared with sheer conviction: "The Albatross contains the single most suspenseful story ever written."  Hyperbole always make me take notice, so I hunted around on the Net and found a copy of the hardcover.  (The book pictured at right includes only the novella titled "The Albatross," and not the other stories.)  My colleague refused to tell me which story she was referring to and said I would know it when I saw it.  At first I thought it might be "Laugh It Off," which is quite superb and way, way ahead of its time.  But that wasn't it.  It's the last story in the book, "Ride with the Executioner," in which a young woman finds herself locked in a car with a man who wants to kill her but is unaware of her identity.  Absolutely chilling and just about the most perfect example of a suspense story I have ever encountered.  If you can find the story anywhere, I suggest you drop everything to read it. 

No surprises here--every issue of Mystery Scene is a pleasure.  What I admire so much about this magazine is its willingness to define its community in a large and big-hearted way.  Of course, as an editor at an independent press, I always appreciate the attention Mystery Scene gives to books and writers not necessarily published by the "big boys."  But what makes the magazine special is the way it has something for everyone, whether writer or reader, devoted mystery lover or just occasional mystery reader.  I wish more doctors would order it for their offices--it would not only help increase the magazine's circulation (which it so obviously deserves), it would also make mystery more of a talking point in more places. 

Every so often you hear about a book through the grapevine and you think, "Oh, that sounds pretty good, I'll have to pick it up and see what it's all about."  That was my experience with C. Solimini's Across the River, a witty yet surprisingly emotional tale of a tabloid reporter sent back to her home town to report on a murder that is reminiscent of the Jon Benet Ramsey case.  I always appreciate a well-executed plot, but Across the River has a lot more than that.  It also has heart, as well as a memorable narrator, Andrealisa Rinaldi, who makes many of her kind (you know, the sassy but sensitive narrator with the heart of gold) pale in comparison.  Hell, even the cover is good.  I thoroughly enjoyed this one and look forward to more by Solimini.

Enjoying some of Charlotte Armstrong's short fiction put me in the mood for some other superb brief mystery fiction, which took me back to Christie's Witness for the Prosecution.  My admiration for Christie is boundless--the ingenuity of Ten Little Indians, the audacity of Roger Ackroyd,  the sheer trickery of Murder on the Orient Express.   But it's Witness for the Prosecution that truly awes me, not only with its twists but also with the psychological insight on which it is built.  I really do see it is as the progenitor for the modern psychological novel of suspense, and occasionally I like to go back to it just to bask in its glow. 

The Hallmarks of Pretension

I mentioned in an earlier post (way back when...) that I'm a down-to-earth kinda guy in terms of the manuscripts I like to read and publish.  I am a proud publisher of commercial fiction: For everyone's sake (including that jar of black ink that pays my salary, as well as authors' royalty checks), I want my books to sell.  I want people reading them, buying them, requesting them at the library. 

We all know of those rare instances when a "literary" book hits the best-seller list: I'm thinking of (for example) The Name of the Rose, by Umberto Eco; or, more recently, 2666, by Roberto Bolano. 

Despite certain aspects of American society that are the remainder of our English heritage, for the most part I think that the U.S. is a mostly egalitarian society that frowns upon pretension and "airs."  (We share that characteristic with the Australians, who are even more sensitive to, and intolerant of, those who attempt to place themselves above others.)  This leads us to the interesting question: How can a writer (whether of mysteries or otherwise) be ambitious without being pretentious?  It's an important question, because ambitious books are very much to be encouraged, while pretentious books are to be tossed out with the bathwater.

As a commercial editor, all I can do is list those qualities in a book (usually a published book) that for me are the hallmarks of pretension.  As I flip through a book and see these devices, all sorts of alarm bells go off, shrieking "PRETENSION! PRETENSION!"

1. Present-Tense Narratives.  I do loathe these self-conscious attempts to be "literary," which is exactly what they are, 99% of the time.  I've heard all the usual reasons given for choosing that tense: It makes the prose more "immediate," etc., etc.  Sorry, but no.  It sounds ridiculous.  Think of Pamela Andrews literally writing a letter as she flees the sexual advances of Mr. B in Samuel Richardson's classic (but less than technically believable) Pamela.  Things haven't changed since the 1740s, folks...what sounded ridiculous then sounds ridiculous now.  I know there are plenty of people who will disagree with me (quite actively, given the number of published present-tense narratives I see on the shelves), but I've never bought a book written in present tense and I never will.

2. Nameless Narrators.  Something is really wrong when I get to the end of the book and I realize that the writer has never deigned to give his/her protagonist a name.  Fiction does bend the rules of reality, and it does allow for a nice amount of suspension of disbelief, but one thing it shares with reality is that people have names.  Why would you want to distance me from your narrator or protagonist so massively that you would choose not to give or reveal his or her name?

3. Chapters without Numbers.  You know what these books look like.  Chapters start on a new page with some sort of flourish--a large, ornate capital letter, or some sort of horizontal rule, or just a lot of white space before the first paragraph.  These are clearly chapter breaks, but the book has no chapter numbers.  Why?   Again, it's because the writer (or editor) is trying to appear "literary" in that sort of Proustian way.  Next!

4. The Barest of Plots with Endless Description.  There are those who believe that good fiction is basically character-centered, and that a story is not really necessary--that a book can be carried purely by the internal monologue of a somewhat f***ed-up, highly egocentric/neurotic main character.  Wrong!  Fiction is the intersection of character and plot.  Without a story, you have a pretentious mess; without action you have pages of self-impressed prose and a very bored reader. 

Why You Got Rejected

This has been a pretty busy season for manuscript submissions, despite (or perhaps because of) the economy.  Since Mysterious Matters seems to get the most hits when I write about "things not to do," I thought I'd offer the most common reasons for rejection in the last couple of months.    We may not say these things directly in our rejection letters, but we turned down your book because...

1.  Your story didn't start in the first 25 pages of your manuscript.  You'd be amazed at how many manuscripts have absolutely no action, or no initiating mysterious incident, in the first couple of chapters.  Boring your readers in the first two chapters is no way to get a book published.

2. You burdened your early chapters with backstory.  You gave me your protagonist's entire life story almost immediately, before I really developed an interest in learning about the protag.  Your manuscript was so mired in the past that I couldn't get excited about the present.

3. Your protagonist was too old.   Ouch--hard to say this (though it is one of the benefits of blogging anonymously), but the market for geriatric sleuths is limited.  So many manuscripts with retired amateur sleuths, living in Florida or some other retirement mecca, and not enough people who want to read about the elderly.

4. You don't write very well.  Either your prose is clunky or too ornate; too simple or too complicated; too heavy to sustain your topic or too light to have any gravitas.  The ironic thing is that your story may have had potential, but your writing skills just aren't polished enough.

5. Your fiction read like nonfiction.  You know a lot about a topic, such as chemistry, or art, or geology, so you filled your manuscript with your knowledge.  The problem is that your mystery manuscript turned into a textbook--and not many would argue that textbooks are fun to read, with a good amount of suspense.

6. You or your agent didn't follow our submission guidelines.  You sent what you felt like sending instead of what we specifically require.  Or (and this is somewhat unbelievable, given the well-known and much-blogged-about proper submission standards) you did not include a SASE for a reply.

7. You sent me a diary, not a well-plotted novel.  I got to page 20 and felt as if I was reading about the minutiae of your (the protagonist's) life and asked myself, "Where is the mystery?  What is amiss here?"  And I couldn't find answers to those questions.

8. Your manuscript didn't make me think up spontaneous tag lines.  In a crowded marketplace, I need to be able to think about and describe your book in a sentence or two that makes people think, "Wow, that sounds REALLY interesting."  I couldn't think up a sentence or two about your book that would elicit that reaction.

9. Your manuscript didn't pass muster with our publicist.  I may have liked your book, but when I showed it to the publicist, she shrugged her shoulders indifferently.  (See point #8.)

10. You made my eyes roll back in my head.  That could have happened for any number of reasons.  Your punning title was too ridiculous, or your characters tried too hard to be "funny."  Or you blatantly ripped off an already successful series, or you had characters speaking in ways that no human being speaks.  Or you took yourself way too seriously....