Mysterious Matters: Mystery Publishing Demystified

Top 5 List: The Mystery Editor's Challenges

Last week, or thereabouts, I blogged/opined on the mystery novelist's top 5 challenges. I have been giving some thought to what my top challenges are as an editor/publisher, so here goes:

1. How do I find the heart or core of this book?  Like many editors, I take particular pleasure in finding and developing new talent. This requires no small amount of patience, which is why I'm fortunate to be at an independent publisher. If I find a manuscript I really like, or in which I see a lot of potential, I can work with the writer on both a micro and macro basis.  At the micro level, there's of course the need for wordsmithing - getting the prose to sing. But many freshman efforts are weighted down. They're too long, or they have too much going on, or there are too many extraneous details. My mission when signing and editing a book is finding its heart, its center, and bringing that out, usually with careful pruning. 

2. How do I make sure reviewers like this book? I notice that there is sometimes debate over how "important" reviews are. I'm not sure that reviews on so-and-so's blog or the local paper are that important, but good reviews in PW, Library Journal, Booklist, and/or Kirkus are essential.  Actually, a review in Kirkus is often a mixed blessing, because that august publication seems to take pleasure in eviscerating books (I think many of those reviewers need to be in therapy). As for the others, they're important. I can't possibly keep up with everything they review, but I do take note of starred reviews and use them to figure out what's going over and what isn't. I should also say that these review publications do tremendous service to our industry, and I simply cannot thank them (and their volunteers) enough. This isn't to say I always agree with them; tastes are, after all, often subjective. But I do applaud their professionalism and I take their recommendations, and criticisms, very seriously.

3. How do I make money for the company?  Yes, there's that dirty word - "money."  I don't think I've ever been particularly subtle in Mysterious Matters about publishing as a for-profit industry. My job is to sign and publish books that people want to buy - books that they're willing to pay good money for. But there's more to it than dollars and sense. I want to work on books that people want to read. I'm not a literary snob; I want books that provide quality, well-written, clever, non-insulting escapism. A writer's success is my success, and I don't see my job as publishing "worthy" books. I see it as publishing books that have a chance of hitting the mainstream, of launching a career for the writer and an income flow for the publisher. That income flow helps me take chances on other unknowns, as I search for the new James Patterson or Mary Higgins Clark.

4. How do I get attention for my books? Ah, that is the $64,000 question. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do that; there are only so many hours in a day. This is where the publicists come in. I do love working with publicists, and I'm fortunate to work with a very good one, who I believe is the unsung hero of our company. A lot of people don't realize that publicists get rejected just as often (perhaps more often) than writers do. It's extremely difficult to get attention in the media if you're not already famous. I'd guesstimate that maybe half the people our publicist contacts don't even bother to return the phone call or email. I enjoy taking part in brainstorming sessions with the publicists because there's no one who wants these books to succeed more than I do.

5. How do I ensure that the book - the physical product, and the ebook - reflects the quality I want to see in a book?   This will sound very old-fashioned, but I am a stickler for typography and design. Nowaways, it seems that everyone with Quark or InDesign sees themselves as a qualified typesetter. Sorry! Type is an art, and so is book design, and so is cover design. With the spate of self-published garbage out there, I feel a particular compulsion to ensure that books by independent houses have the same gorgeous look to them as books published by, say, Knopf (I tend to love their interior and cover designs). I read page proof four and five times until my eyes are bleary to make sure there are no typos (and this is above and beyond the proofreader and author). Cover designers both love me (because I respect their work so much) and fear me (because I am such a pain in the ass). For me, a good book has always been, and will always be, a work of art, and I want them to be perceived as such. This extends to eBooks as well, though the best-laid-out .epub files sometimes do crazy things on the Kindle, Nook, iPad...  

Top 5 List: The Mystery Novelist's Challenges

Most of the time, I blog about the editing and publishing of mysteries/crime fiction, rather than the writing thereof. But over the last few months I've been having conversations with writers from my list, and the talk has sometimes steered toward writing process, revision, audience considerations, and so forth. So, based on those discussions, I thought I might list what I see as writers' (or at least MY writers') top challenges as they write.

1. How do I balance plot and character?  I find that many writers worry about finding this balance. Given length constraints, how do they tell a story while also giving characters room to grow and evolve? And I do think the balance is a tricky one to pull off. I often get manuscripts that are too character-centric, with only the sketchiest of plots; and I also get fast-paced books with paper-thin characters. If you're writing a series, having a strong protagonist (as well as a strong supporting cast) is essential. At the same time, you want to draw readers into your story. How do you accomplish all of this in 70-80,000 words?  It's not easy.

2. How do I make the language do what I want it to do?  All of my authors write in English. It's a nuanced and versatile language, but I hear a lot of writers say they feel they must wrestle it to the ground to make it do what they want it to do. It's not just a matter of word choice; language is essential in planting clues/hints/doubts. A lot of writers have been telling me they struggle as much with what they do not say as they do with what they do say. I think that's an important point: In mystery fiction, what you don't say is as important as what you do.

3. How do I find enjoyment as a writer while meeting my readers' expectations?  We can all give examples of writers who are on auto-pilot, who've written the same book a dozen times. There's a place for that; formula can be comforting and enjoyable for readers. But a lot of my authors try to expand their horizons, and they find themselves asking the question: How do I write a book that people will want to read, but one that will be a challenge for me to write? As a writer, how do I hone my craft while not straying too far from the commercial realm of a book that the mass market will want to buy and read?

4. How do I develop a readership among all the competition?  Interestingly, some authors worry about this question more than others. I have some authors who are masters of promotion, never missing a publicity opportunity. And I have others who just don't have it in them. That's not how they think or who they are. They're happy to do anything our publicist asks them to do (usually), but they're more introverted, less "out there." From where I sit, I'm not sure how much incessant self-promotion really impacts the bottom line. We have books with introverted authors that take off with a life of their own, and books by extroverted authors that sit in the warehouse. I wish I had the magic formula; my retirement fund would be a lot bigger.

5. How do I motivate myself to write, to stay in the game?  A majority of writers (I'd go so far as to say a large majority) can't pay the bills by writing fiction. So there's the constant question of how much time they can spend on their writing, when they often have a full-time job, and/or a family, and/or other demands on their time. This isn't an endeavor for the weak or faint of heart; it takes time, tenacity, a thick skin, and a lot of patience - often without significant financial reward. When my authors miss deadlines because they have to work overtime at their day job (the one that pays the rent or mortgage), how mad can I really get? I can't pay them large advances, can't really give them the financial incentive to take six months to do nothing but write, revise, polish, and submit. 

Next week: The Mystery Editor's Top 5 Challenges.

John Grisham and the "Book Per Year"

I recently read an interview with John Grisham in the London Guardian. I'm not sure I'd include Grisham in my list of "mystery writers" - I think most would agree that he falls into the category of "thriller" writer. For me, the blockbuster mystery writers are Laura Lippman, Harlan Coben, Janet Evanovich, Patricia Cornwell, P.D. James, Ruth Rendell ....

In the article, Grisham discusses one of his secrets of success, a tip shared with him early in his career. An editor said to him, "The big guys come out every year." By that, he meant that Stephen King, Michael Crichton, Tom Clancy, et al. published a book a year, thus keeping themselves in the public eye. And, looking at the mystery luminaries in the previous paragraph, I think we can see that many of them do at least one book a year, and sometimes more than that.

I'm not sure Grisham is giving himself enough credit, though. Clearly, he's hit on a formula that people like. I don't read much Grisham; I want as little to do with lawyers as possible. But I've read a couple, and they've been fast and entertaining, with good twists and turns.

And, on the other side of the coin, there are writers whose fans salivate for years waiting for the next book. The late great Sarah Caudwell was one of them; and I wish George Dawes Green would write more. In a completely separate genre, Jean Auel's fans followed her over the course of (I think) 7 books and 30 years.

A book per year is a lot to ask of a writer; but I can think of many writers who'd love nothing more than being able to do just that. And yet, in and of itself, a book a year isn't enough to get you to the top. I can think of two dozen writers off the top of my head who've published at least one book a year (the late Dell Shannon/Elizabeth Linington used to do three) who never get out of the 5-10K range in terms of sales per book. That's respectable and can pay some of the bills, though perhaps not both the mortgage AND the car payment.

The publicist/marketer in me understands the need to stay in the public eye. There's something annoyingly fickle about the American public. It's a machine that has to be fed. With so many people (read: musicians, novelists, journalists, actors) vying for attention and those precious few top slots, "if you snooze, you lose." Look at Lady Gaga. Say/think what you will about her (I'm mostly a fan, even if she occasionally becomes tiresome), she knows how to keep the public interested. That's no mean feat. If we think of books as commercial products - and I do - then it makes sense to stay in the public eye, to keep building your brand. Michael Crichton knew this; so does Stephen King. Both, I think, also had the vocations to be professional, full-time writers, which doesn't hurt.

The other side of the coin, of course, is the question: How good can a book be when a writer whips it out in three months? With some writers, it doesn't matter. For instance, I like or love almost everything Joyce Carol Oates writes, and they don't come more prolific than that. But others (who shall remain nameless)... oh Lord, have the recent books been total garbage. As an editor, I say: Get them out the door, bring in the revenue, pay the bills, reward the staff. As a reader, I think: If this manuscript came to me as a first submission by an unpublished writer, I'd get out my rubber REJECT stamp by page 10. It is another curious American phenomenon that word of mouth about a book can be so bad and yet people keep buying more books by the same writer. (Think, for example, of a book that 1,500 reviews on Amazon, of which 1,000 or more have 1-star ratings.) Reading those reviews, I think hope springs eternal; devoted fans are hoping for a return to form for a favorite writer (this rarely materializes). Also, to give these writers their due, they have succeeded in crafting a basis and a character that keeps readers wanting to know WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. That is no small feat.

I have an author on my list - one of my favorites of my career. S/he is always brimming with ideas. The manuscripts come to me pristine. I feel like less of an editor because s/he just "gets it" and needs so little input from me. I say, "Give me more books." S/he replies, "Agatho, give me more money so that I don't have to work for a living, and you'll get more books." Alas - the constant dilemma. Because author X might be able to give me two books a year under two different names, but that doesn't guarantee that we'll be able to sell scads of them.  But we try, oh how we try! 

 

Predictions for 2012

So, another year has come and gone. Hard to believe. And it's nice to see that, despite the constant threats/warnings/gleeful prognostications of the "death" of traditional publishing, a lot of us are still here. In fact, a recent news report indicated that, contrary to expectations and predictions, some people are willing to pay the same amount for an ebook as they would pay for a print book (the Steve Jobs biography was the example given).

Because 2011 was the year of prognostications (including several for the impending end of the world), I thought it might be fun to close the year on Mysterious Matters with my predictions for 2012. If I'm wrong, I'll be in good company!

1. You'll see more zombies.  Conventional wisdom says we're "over" the vampire craze. I don't quite think we are, but I do think we're on the cusp of a new craze: zombies. I think we're going to see quite a bit beyond Pride and Prejudice and Zombies in 2012. Apparently, zombie gatherings (in which people gather dressed as zombies, though not necessarily to eat brains) have been shattering records over the last few months. Maybe with an election year coming, people are becoming tired of the relatively well-behaved and sophisticated vampires of recent years and have decided they want the pure id, the unapologetic brain-eating, of zombies.  Not the kind of book I'd sign up - I'd have no idea how to edit it - but I bet some younger editors could take them to the top of the charts.

2. eReading will grow.  No surprise there; I don't think anyone denies it any longer. Like many in our industry, I believe we'll continue to see demand for print books, along with growing demand for eBooks. I see this trend as an opportunity for publishers and writers - a way to get a younger generation, obsessed with its technology, to read more. And, of course, it's a lot more profitable to sell an ebook than a printed book (not to mention the warehousing and shipping costs). The other side of this coin, of course, is the truly breathtaking amount of garbage being generated and "published" and "distributed" through the various self-publishing venues. Some get upset about this, and I see why; but the cream generally rises to the top.

3. DorothyL will remain maddening. At the office, we go through phases. Sometimes we love reading this "mystery literature e-conference," and sometimes we want to pull our hair out. Recent months have seen some really fascinating threads, including participants' stories about their suspicious neighbors (many a novel waiting to be written) and a great discussion of the reactions to Dexter (both the book and the TV show). But then there are those bloviating windbags who post every day, whether they have something to say or not; and the level of self-promotion has become epic. DorothyL reminds me of anold saying about advertising: "I know half my advertising dollars are wasted, but I don't know which half." Subscribers to DorothyL know that each day, the list will be 50% interesting and 50% garbage. If I were a young Internet entrepreneur, I'd develop an app that would strip all the following out of DL: self-promotion, people drumming up readers for their own blogs, posts by a certain few. I feel certain that 90% of the readership would download and use that app.

4. A lot of deluded people will get ripped off. Among the neverending debates about self-publishing (or, as we used to call it in a less politically correct age, vanity publishing), we rarely hear about the number of aspiring writers who are getting ripped off. On the one hand, we hear from the "traditionally published" (or, as I would call them, "the published") about the drawbacks and benefits of having a professional editor and publicist to work with. On the other end of the spectrum, we hear the self-published proclaiming that their stuff is as good as anyone else's, and why shouldn't they have the glory and the millions of dollars that come with a successful book? What we don't hear about is the amount of money a writer has to put out of pocket to do everything a "traditional" publisher does for free. Of course, plenty of people have no qualms about spitting out a Word document and uploading it to Kindle, but those who want to do it right pay for a good copy editor. Then there's the cost of book design, cover design (they usually stink), typesetting, printing, the various machinations to get an ISBN. Then there are those who will convert your work to various ePub formats for sale on various eReaders (for a fee), and publicists who like you to believe that they can get media attention for a self-published author. I really have come to believe that this system is no better than the one that promises young people they can turn them into "professional models"  (after, of course, they pay for expensive photos, sign agreements paying agents to represent them, and so forth). Then, of course, there are those pay-for-review places that make the self-published pay for reviews, or listings on some sort of Website, in addition to the traditional book thieves (a woman with the initials S.R. comes to mind) who request review copies and then make a bundle selling them. On Mysterious Matters, I try not to engage too much with the self-publishing debate, but I do feel it's time to say the following: To be successful in any creative endeavor, someone other than yourself has to believe in your work. Comments regarding the three or four people who've made it "huge" via self-publishing (among hundreds of thousands) may now commence.

5. The economy will improve.  I'm seeing signs of this improvement everywhere - and, most importantly for me and the company I work for - better book sales, in both traditional and eBook format. Not quite at the level we were at before the recession began, but an improvement. And I do think we have both Apple and Amazon to thank for some of this. Both companies are unabashed and unashamed by their intense marketing-oriented approach to their businesses; and it's working. (Last thing I heard, Apple has more cash than the U.S. government.) This is an area where we traditional publishers fail; I think even the youngest of us feel somewhat crass when attempting to shove books down people's throats, but Amazon and Apple have no such qualms. Of course, the iPad and Amazon are about a lot more than books, but books are going along for the ride, and that's a good thing.

..and, finally:

6. Price will be a signal regarding quality. I have pontificated about this before: Price is a signal. You have no illusion that you're getting quality merchandise when you pay $1 for something. I think a lot of readers have come to realize that cheap books just aren't worth as much as books that are priced a little higher. A lot of misinformed people who are self-pricing their books at .99 and 2.99 aren't quite realizing what signal that sends in an era in which Americans (even those of lower socioeconomic classes) are more than happy to spend $100 a month for iPhone service. Though I no longer work for one of the "Big Boys," I sit on the sidelines and cheer as they refuse to have their products (books) reduced to the lowest common denominator in terms of price. They understand the value of their products, and they want to make sure the public understands that, too. Nobody's interests are served when the products of major publishing houses (and independent presses, too, of course) are perceived as the equivalent of Chinese mass-manufactured crap.

And on that note, a Happy New Year to all.

 

Viva Mystery Scene!

One of the nice things about blogging is the ability to share thoughts on great books, organizations, and talented folks within our industry. I generally am not open to writers using Mysterious Matters as a publicity device; there are plenty of other places to engage in self-promotion. When I recommend something here on MM, it's because I have personally read or experienced it, and I feel that I can testify to its quality.

This week I have to put in a plug for one of my favorite magazines, Mystery Scene. (This month's issue is pictured at left.) I've mentioned my enjoyment of the magazine before, but - in an era in which the magazine industry is experiencing many of the same challenges that book publishers are facing - I thought a really good magazine deserves mention.

One of the really lovely things about MS is the fact that it is written (mostly) by mystery lovers, readers, and writers for other devotees of the genre. So, while the magazine itself is quite fun and packed with many features, at its core it shows great respect for our genre and its practitioners. It's fun when it needs to be, and serious when appropriate. It's one of those magazines, like The New Yorker, that makes me feel that I am missing something good if I skim it too quickly.

Also, as an editor at an independent press, I feel grateful to the editors at MS for reviewing small-press books in each and every issue. We face prejudice from a lot of media; it's nice to feel as welcome in the pages of Mystery Scene as the big, corporate publishers.

Here's a sampling of what you'll find in the issue pictured above:

• "The Docket": a listing of upcoming mystery/crime fiction conferences, with dates and locales
• "Mystery Scene Miscellany": interesting tidbits
• "Our Readers Recommend": Books suggested by subscribers - one of my favorite features of the magazine
• Author profiles: in this issue, Stephen Hunter, Livia J. Washburn, Marcia Muller
• "The 2011 Mystery Scene Gift Guide" - selected books, goodies, DVDs, games, and book-related gifts for everyone on your holiday list
• "The Hook": Intriguing first lines from various novels 
• "Building Your Book Collection": Tips for those who are serious about collecting and preserving their books
• Reviews: A thorough, inclusive list of recently published books, from small-press books to paperback originals,to audiobooks and reference books, to, well, "regular books"

Another interesting point: The magazine, long black-and-white, is now published in glorious color.

You can check out Mystery Scene on the Web at www.mysteryscenemag.com.  Subscription rates for the magazine are $32 per year, $60 for a 2-year subscription. Add the mag to your must-read list, and/or give a subscription to a mystery lover for the holidays. 

Mystery Titles You'll Never See

Every few years, an email of "children's book titles you will never see" makes the rounds. Among the titles of these unpublished classics are Mommy and Daddy Got Divorced Because You Were Bad and Take Candy from Strangers and Get in Their Cars.

I am feeling a bit punchy after editing a 700-page manuscript (a labor of love, but I'm going to bed at 8 p.m. tonight and don't plan on waking up until Monday morning) so I have decided to put forth my list of Top Mystery Titles You Will Never See Published.

Top Twenty Never-to-Be-Published Mysteries

by Agatho

1. Stephanie Plum Learns a Lesson, by Janet Evanovich

2. Puppy Dogs and Lollipops, by Ken Bruen

3. The Slender Ladies' Detective Agency, by Alexander McCall Smith

4. I Wrote This Book, by James Patterson

5. A Fucking Murder in Three Pines, by Louise Penny

6. The Detective's Guide to Humility, by Hercule Poirot

7. Herman Cain for President, by Ruth Rendell

8. Hero Arrives Too Late to Save Irish-American Heroine, by Mary Higgins Clark

9. My American Upbringing, by Elizabeth George

10. No Brand Names, by Stephen King

11. Eve Dallas Gets Divorced, by J.D. Robb

12. Peabody is the Chocolate Thief, by Nora Roberts

13. Happily Ever After, by Margaret Yorke

14. The Sixth Virtue, by Lawrence Sanders

15. The Man Who Outsmarted Jane Whitefield, by Thomas Perry

16. How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Patricia Cornwell

17. Adam Dalgliesh, NASCAR Hero, by P.D. James

18. My Last Book, by Joyce Carol Oates (a/k/a Lauren Kelly, Rosamond Smith)

19. Kitten Prey, by John Sanford

20. Down with Journalists, by Laura Lippman

 

 

 

Oh, the Disappointment!

Submissions have been light lately - I'm not sure why; maybe a lot of people are using the cooler weather to writer rather than submit - but I was fortunate enough to find a few good queries and request a few full manuscripts. None of them got contracts, from me at least.  So this week's blog post will explain why.

1. Oh, the underwhelming ending!  A good book goes out with a bang, not a fizzle. I know that I'm more traditional in this regard than a lot of other editors, but I want the last chapter to be memorable. Even if the villain has been brought to justice a bit earlier, I like to see a nice, unexpected twist at the end. Not necessarily pyrotechnics, but an ending that makes me feel that the author has kept me involved until the last sentence.

2. Oh, the endless backstory!  I understand the desire to tell me your protagonist's life story in Chapter 1, I really do. You've thought about it a lot and you want the reader to understand your character's motives. But mystery fiction is propelled along by action in the present, not a rehashing of the past. The point I try to make, often, is that too many writers think "mystery" refers only to plot or events. Characters, even protagonists, can and should have some mystery about them, too. Think about it this way: Once you know everything about a person, how interesting does that person remain? Not very, methinks. A little bit of mystery keeps the person intriguing.

3. Oh, the self-indulgence!  I can't speak for others, but I'm not overly interested (read: not interested at all) in "writerly" novels. Oh, the endless process, the pages of verbal inventiveness, the self-indulgent jags that add nothing to plot or character development! There lots of places for writers in love with his/her own words - creative writing programs, workshops, various listservs - but my list isn't one of them.

4. Oh, the bitterness!  Here's a good story: One of my colleagues left me a manuscript with a note saying she was feeling quite bullish about it, and would I take a look?  I gladly did so - and understood the bullishness. But, due to the volume of paper in our office, the cover letter was somehow misplaced. Fortunately, the writer had included phone number and email address on the title page. My colleague wrote an email of interest (in my experience, one of the greatest joys a writer can experience) to the writer, who wrote back with a long-winded diatribe against publishers, the publishing process, our greed, ad nauseam. We Googled the writer and found many an angry posting all over the Internet that strongly hinted that any relationship with Said Writer would end up in court. Said Writer, to whom we wish the best of luck, would have had a contract a couple of weeks ago; instead, Said Writer received manuscript back with a polite note.

5. Oh, the tortoise-like pacing!  I had requested a manuscript whose high concept was quite promising, and whose first chapters showed promise. I finished it and gave the writer high marks for characterization and even for storytelling, which showed some really first-rate plotting. But plotting turned into plodding about 100 pages in, with major story events taking place only ever 50 pages or so. Perhaps a book for FSG or another literary publisher; but not for us.

Snotty Grammar Books

In my last post, I expressed impatience for editors who turn up their noses at genre fiction and best-selling writers. Such people, I said, are often snobs.

But I realize some snobbery is good. One of the good snobberies is grammar snobbery. And God knows there are plenty of grammar snobs out of there (I'm one of them). Just as books about books still hit the best-seller lists (I'm thinking The Thirteenth Tale, The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society), grammar books still do unexpectedly well (think Eats, Shoots, and Leaves). The success of these books gives me hope for the language when I see signs on the side of the road that proclaim FREE KITTEN'S!

Here are a few recent favorites:

I JUDGE YOU WHEN YOU USE POOR GRAMMAR

by Sharon Eliza Nichols

St. Martin's Griffin

This one is just a photo collection of cringe-inducing signs. It's more about typos than about grammar per se, but worth a look.

 

THE GREAT TYPO HUNT

Jeff Deck and Benjamin Herson

Broadway

The subtitle is "Two Friends Changing the World, One Correction at a Time." This travelogue tells the story of two friends who travel the country with a bottle of white-out and markers, fixing typos as they come upon them. These guys live the editor's dream of being Grammar Super Heroes who fix horrible errors as they come across them. A fun book.

 

 

GRAMMAR GIRL'S QUICK AND DIRTY TIPS FOR BETTER WRITING

Mignon Fogarty

Holt

This is one of a series of grammar/usage titles. It's not fair to classify these books as "snotty," however. They're much more conversational and instructive; Mignon Fogarty (Grammar Girl herself) has a lovely, supportive, un-condescending voice. This makes the books a great gift for those who really want to learn the finer points of grammar instead of mocking those who don't already know them.

 

THINGS THAT MAKE US [SIC]

Martha Brockenbrough

St. Martin's Press

One of the ultimate snotty grammar books, as evidenced by the subtitle: "The Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar [SPOGG] Takes on Hollywood, the White House, and the World." You don't get more ambitious than that! The snotty letters from SPOGG to various CEOs, Hollywood stars, and sports columnists are the grammar snob's dream. A most hilarious and enjoyable book.

 

 

A chapter I particularly like in Things That Make Us [Sic] is Chapter 10, "Rules That Never Were, Are No More, and Should be Broken." Many of us will agree with some, but not all, of these "false commandments," which are as follows:

1.Thou Shalt Not End a Sentence with a Preposition.

Agreed. But not in all cases. Sometimes a sentence is more elegant when it's rewritten to avoid a preposition at the end.

2. Thou Shalt Not Split Your Infinitives.

Agreed. "To boldly go where no man has gone before..."

3. Use "That" with Restrictive Clauses, "Which" with Nonrestrictive Clauses

Martha Brockenbrough is arguing that in many cases, that and which are interchangeable. I disagree. Commas are essential to making these constructions work.

4. It's Wrong to Start a Sentence with "And" or "But."

I agree it's fine to start the occasional sentence with And. But don't overdo it.

5. "None" Comes from "Not One" or "No One" and Is Therefore Always Singular.

Brockenbrough makes a convincing argument that none can take a singular or plural verb based on context. I agree with her.

6. "Since" Must Always Refer to Time.

Brockenbrough argues that since and because can often be used interchangeably as synonyms. I disagree on this one. I like since for time, because for causation.

7. Don't Use "Like" as a Conjunction.

Brockenbrough argues that using like as a conjunction is probably OK in informal writing, but not so desirable in formal writing. I agree with her.

8. You Must Say "It is I" If You Wish to Be Correct.

Brockenbrough suggests that it's OK to say "It is me," thereby breaking the rules we were all taught about predicate nominatives. Sorry, "It is I" may always sound English teachery and persnickety, but this is not a grammatical rule I'm willing to toss into the trashcan.

9. You Must Always Use "Whom" When It's the Object of a Sentence.

"Sometimes, 'whom' is just too stuffy," says Brockebrough. Stuffy, perhaps, but also correct when the objective case is called for.

10. Sentence Fragments are Evil.

I agree - they aren't. But best when used sparingly.

There's much more to Chapter 10 than this list of the False Commandments, so pick up a copy of the book and enjoy.

NaNoWriMo and Formulae for Success

In my last post, I made a reference to NaNoWriMo and my hope that the next "Janet Evanovich or Mary Higgins Clark" might cross my desk when submission time comes.

I was surprised to find two comments on the post asking me if I was poking fun at NaNoWriMo or at Evanovich/Clark. I read and consider all comments and emails I get, and these comments left me wondering: Have I given readers of Mysterious Matters the wrong idea?

I know that I'm not above the occasional snotty or sarcastic comment about trends I don't care for and books I think are stupid or poorly written.

But what kind of editor/publisher would NOT want the new Evanovich or M.H. Clark on his list? An incompetent one, or a snob.

I want to find and publish great books, and I want them to sell. And sell, and sell, and sell. I don't turn my nose up at commercial or mass-market fiction; I embrace it. I have acquired (bought) books that weren't necessarily my cup of tea because I thought that readers would love them. I can't speak for all editors, but I can speak for many: I don't sit in an ivory tower pontificating about literature and "quality." I edit and publish genre fiction whose chief goal is to entertain. Sometimes it also enlightens and touches; those are added bonuses. But the key - as an editor and businessperson - is to publish books that sell, books that people want.

People clearly want Evanovich and Clark; by extension, I want them too, although we could liquidate every asset we have at my company and still not have enough to pay those ladies 1% of what they can demand as an advance. I think Michael Korda at Simon & Schuster acquired Clark, and Susanne Kirk at Scribner's acquired Evanovich. The success of these writers is probably far beyond what either editor dreamed. I'm not sure who was responsible for signing up Patterson at Little, Brown; given Patterson's position at J. Walter Thompson, I think it equally likely that Patterson acquired an editor rather than the other way around.

So, to make up for what may have been perceived as a dismissal of them, I thought I might opine about what has made these writers and their books so successful.

First, Mary Higgins Clark. I remember buying WHERE ARE THE CHILDREN? when it came out. I finished it in a sitting or two. The suspense was exquisite, and the follow-up, A STRANGER IS WATCHING, was strong, too. Over the years, Mary has developed a winning formula: Professional woman, usually of Irish descent, becomes enmeshed in a plot that leads to attempts on her life. Clark basically took the old Gothic tropes and modernized them. Her books don't have profanity or sex or overt violence. They're the kind of books that mothers can share with their daughters or their own mothers. The heroines are independent and intelligent, but not cynical, jaded, or anti-relationship. They often have men in their lives, and they're trying to balance their own needs with the demands of a relationship. Most of us would be quite happy if our daughters turned out like a Clark heroine, who usually emerges victorious through her own resourcefulness, though occasionally, like the Gothic heroines of old, a knight in shining armor shows up to save her life. The stories are engaging; the settings are interesting; the suspense is good; there's just the right amount of romance.

It doesn't hurt that Mary herself is an incredibly gracious, lovely, and down-to-earth person. I have been in her company three times over the last thirty years. About 8 years elapsed between our first meeting and our second. And she remembered my name. She'll sign books for as long as people are willing to wait; the smile on her face is omnipresent and genuine. She is simply a Great Lady, and her fans recognize that. Being able to write a book a year, more or less, has not hurt, either- she stays in the public eye.

Second, Janet Evanovich. Stephanie Plum is (or long was) a likable character: plucky, determined, and constantly in over her head. I think she appeals to readers because the average reader can feel slightly superior to Stephanie. We read about her exploits, and we ask ourselves why she keeps doing the same dumb things over and over again. She's not really a person; she's more of a Falstaff character whose job is not so much to get the job done as it is to provoke laughter. And people in a stressed-out world like to laugh. Need to laugh.

Janet was very savvy about readers' desire to follow a series - the whole One for the Money, Two for the Dough... up through the latest installment (I think it's #17) isn't the least bit subtle about the order of the books. But Evanovich doesn't take her readership for granted; a new reader can pick up any book in the series and not feel lost, because Evanovich fills in the backstory. To me, this speaks to a commitment to keep picking up new readers with each book, not resting on the same readership for years at a time.

Where Janet really hit paydirt, though, was with her savvy introduction of very strong secondary characters. People who've long since tired of Stephanie's antics still buy the books for Grandma, for the never-ending love triangle with Ranger and Morelli. Stephanie hit the streets with a half-Italian, half-Hungarian character just when the diversity movement in the U.S. was picking up steam; I also think that, for some reason, the United States likes to laugh at New Jersey, and Evanovich used that to portray New Jersey in the stereotypical way that people wanted and expected. I don't think these stereotypes have changed much over the last 25 years. (When in doubt, make a Jersey joke. TV writers do it all the time.)

Third, James Patterson. He's the writer for the person with limited time. Those two-page chapters allow you to pick up the book and speed through it in one sitting if you'd like; or you can pick it up when you have five minutes here and there and feel as though you've accomplished something. There is no better writer for an airplane, I think. When you need to keep your mind off the insanity of air travel or the snoring, drooling slob in the seat next to you, Patterson's books do the job. The suspense was superb in the early books like ALONG CAME A SPIDER and the Alex Cross books following it; and Patterson also threw in a hell of a twist at the end.  

I can't say that I love Patterson's business model of turning himself into a factory in which he generates the ideas and others write the book; and some of the recent books have been truly awful. But if I were his editor I'd be delighted at the instant best-sellers he delivered to me 2 or 3 times a year.

 

 

Time Capsule: The First Deadly Sin, by Lawrence Sanders

For me, the cooler weather corresponds to the time when I'm more likely to pick up a nice, big, heavy book and hunker down with it. The first book of fall for me was Lawrence Sanders' breakthrough, THE FIRST DEADLY SIN, copyright 1973.

A little background: I had generally liked Sanders but found his work uneven. Some of the stand-alones were interesting and creepy, but I could not stand the foppish McNally, on whom Sanders focused later in his career and prior to his death.

I am, however, a big fan of Captain Edward X. Delaney of Manhattan's 251st Precinct. I rarely read every book by any given author, but my wife and I stopped at a diner a month or so ago, and we were served two massive and sloppy sandwiches that were delicious but not easy to eat. This put Delaney back into my mind, with his penchant for eating sloppy sandwiches over the sink. I looked over the shelves for a book in the Delaney series I hadn't read, then found a nice first edition hardcover for 5 bucks.

Reading the book 38 years after its publication, I found myself asking a lot of questions. 

1. Would this book be published today? That's the $64,000 question. At 566 pages, it is much, much too long. Nothing happens for the first hundred pages, the plot doesn't kick into gear until page 200, and the pace doesn't pick up until page 400. If this manuscript crossed my desk today, I would send it back to agent or editor with a note saying, "Trim 250-300 pages and send it back to me." True, Sanders does spend the first couple of hundred pages leisurely exploring/building character, but I don't think readers have the time, or the patience, for that any longer. For this reason, and a few others I'll get into below, I don't think the book has aged well.

2. Am I a prude?  I don't think I am. I like hardboiled and can handle some rough stuff. But this book contains two scenes that are so objectionable and perverted that I almost had to put the book down. I exclaimed on both occasions to my wife, "What the hell is Sanders doing?" The scenes are not only upsetting, they are also completely gratuitous and add nothing to the plot. I could have suggested one simple change to the author what would have made the inclusion on the borderline of acceptability.  I look back and think, "Well, this was the early 1970s, and the sexual revolution was in full swing," so maybe I'm being hypersensitive? But I don't think I am, and I think that if the manuscript had come across my desk in 1972, I think I would have gotten to the aforementioned scenes, then perhaps called the police.

3. What makes a book timeless vs. time-specific?  This isn't a question I pondered in detail; it's really more a way of pointing out that reading The First Deadly Sin is like going back to New York City, frozen in time in the early 1970s. Those who visit the city (or live there) today may not remember the incredible cesspool of filth and danger it was at that time, when 5 homicides were committed per day within city limits. Sanders really captures the Manhattan of that time, when people were home by dark and rarely walked down a street, even in the best neighborhoods, without looking over their shoulders. It was also a time when a police chief could afford to own a four- or five-story brownstone on the east side on an officer's salary. I thought Sanders also captured the Bohemian aspects of the City well; those are as much in evidence today as they were then. But the New York of The First Deadly Sin is an ugly place. Today, New York City has gay marriage; in this book, cops rattle off the list of undesirables who come out at night: "rapists, murders, flashers, voyeurs, pedophiles, homosexuals." Needless to say, there are almost no women on the force, except those who work undercover to catch prostitutes or serve as proxies when women decoys are needed.

To my surprise and disappointment, Captain Delaney doesn't eat sandwiches over the sink in this earliest installment, though he does enjoy a good sandwich fairly regularly - as well as good amounts of booze, even on the job. 

It's also a dark book, not really shocking given the book's title. But this one is much darker than the others I remember reading. Also, interestingly, I found myself having to consult various lists of the deadly sins. One list had "Lust" as the first one - and that fits quite a bit with the book, especially the first two thirds. But it turns out that the sin in question is actually "Pride," in the sense of arrogance. In that way, Sanders has Delaney match wits with a criminal who is, perhaps, the dark side of Delaney himself, and I found that interesting, if a bit heavy-handed.

Next on my list, I'm going back even further, to Erle Stanley Gardner. I've decided I need to get back to the greats, because too much of what I've been reading lately has been so disappointing. Perhaps, though, with NaNoWriMo looming, I can look forward to the next Janet Evanovich or Mary Higgins Clark crossing my desk in the new year.