Mysterious Matters: Mystery Publishing Demystified

Love and the Mystery

A recent issue of Mystery Scene magazine (Number 109, 2009) featured an article titled "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang: Romantic Crime Films, Part 1," by Art Taylor.

Reading that article got me thinking about romance in the crime novel/mystery; and more than that it got me thinking about love and how it is handled in modern mysteries.  Now, I admit that I personally do not need any romance or love interest in a book; in fact, some of the best mysteries feature those now-paradigmatic loner types who actively avoid romance and love.  But many readers do like a romantic element, and certainly love triangles of the Stephanie Plum-Ranger-Morelli type keep readers coming back for more. 

And this is where I go back to my list (which I discuss with friends sometimes) of the "Top Ten Useful Things I Learned in University."  A lot of the stuff I memorized for exams is long gone, but there are things that have stayed with me, from a variety of different classes.  I first heard the term "conspicuous consumption" (Thorstein Veblen) in a sociology course, and just having that phrase has opened my eyes to a lot.  From psychology, I have really internalized Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which I think explains a lot about human behavior and motivation.  Freud may not have gotten all of it right, but I think he was dead-on with a lot of his defense mechanisms, which I see every day (projection, denial, rationalization, and reaction formation seem to be particularly prevalent).  

From a philosophy class I remember the six types of love set forth by Rollo May.   For those of you who haven't read May, I do recommend his work because it breaks down the various components of love, and I think an understanding of these can be quite helpful to the mystery novelist.  They are as follows:

1. Eros.  This is passionate love -- the love based on chemistry and intense physical attraction.  In mysteries, we often find eros taking place between our likable heroine and some guy whom she really does not like as a person, but whom she finds herself sexually drawn to.  Certainly that's not an uncommon phenomenon in "real life" (and applies similarly to men sexually drawn to women they do not like), but other than that, I don't think we find a lot of real passion in mysteries.  Can you think of mystery characters who fit into this category?  I'm thinking Eve Dallas and Roarke from the J.D. Robb series.  Robb has managed to keep their relationship tastefully and realistic erotic for the series, I think.

2. Ludus.  This is love played as a game.  Those who love the thrill of the chase, the game of cat-and-mouse, the challenge of getting someone into bed are ludic lovers.  Needless to say, this type of love leads to a fair amount of promiscuity!  Our heroes and heroines don't tend to be ludic lovers; but our genre has more than its share of ludic villains, those heartless but sensual people who use people for their own sexual purposes or titillation.  I think Stephanie Plum may qualify as a ludic lover, for she certainly has been mind-f***ing both Ranger and Morelli for 15 books now (or is it 16)?  I think readers may really take to ludic protagonists as a sort of vicarious thrill and think our genre could benefit from more of them.

3. Storge.  This is love based on friendship.  These people may not have an abiding physical passion, but they have deep bonds of friendship and partnership.  For me, the archetypal storgic lovers are Henry and Emmy Tibbett in the Patricia Moyes series; Henry and Emmy may never kiss or hold hands (certainly they never have sex), but they have a good, happy marriage and serve as helpmeets to each other.  Ngaio Marsh's Roderick and Troy Alleyn seem deeply storgic to me.

4. Mania.  This is, for lack of a better term, crazy love.  And let's face it, love has made us all crazy at one time or another, and I bet we could all provide a long list of friends who are in relationships that we view as wacko.  This is the type of love characterized by obsession, compulsion, insane jealousy, neurosis...all those great psychological problems that are so much fun to read about.  At the subtle end of this spectrum, I find the relationship between Elizabeth George's Thomas Lynley and his wife to be a bit manic, as they do seem to have a great deal of contempt for each other underneath their supposedly romantic exterior.  At the blatant end, we can think of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter.  If you ever want to see manic love in action, read Djuna Barnes' Nightwood, which is not an easy read (and isn't even a mystery) but really does show how love can make a person crazy.  No longer are our serial killers crazed loners; rather, they now have a love interest who gets sucked into their vortex.  Whether this is realistic, I do not know; but it makes for good fiction.

5. Pragma.  This is pragmatic love; pragmatic lovers come together on the basis of a rational decision that they are right for each other: He will be a good provider, she will be a good mother and keep a clean house (or some such criteria).  I can't think of a lot of pragmatic lovers in today's protagonists; maybe because, from a fictional perspective, it seems so boring.  A relationship based on pragma doesn't have a lot of ups and downs or a lot of drama; it just sort of bubbles along like a babbling brook, not really disturbing anyone.  For this reason, it's probably not much fun to read about.

6. Agape.  This is charitable love--love of humanity.  To borrow from another discipline above, probably only those who have achieved a level of self-actualization in Maslow's hierarchy can get to a point of agape.  Like pragma, agape wouldn't be much fun to read about in suspense fiction.  I can't even think of any fictional scenarios that would use it to good effect.  Certainly villains have no agape in their hearts; and protagonists ruled by agape might seem so uber-human that we wouldn't be able to relate to them.  Though, come to think of it, perhaps those protagonists who decide to investigate out of a need for justice, or to bring succor to a loved one, act out of agape.

There is a seventh type of love (if I am remembering this correctly) called philia, which is "brotherly love"--our love for friends and family.  Philia does play an important role in mysteries, I think, because the supporting cast is usually tied via philial bonds to the protagonist.  And a good supporting cast is essential to a good reading experience!

Overload!

At lunch earlier this week, an old (by which I mean "long-time") colleague and I were talking about why it has become so difficult to achieve success in any artistic endeavor--whether writing, singing, painting, dancing, and so forth.

Of course, it was NEVER easy.  It's just that it seems a lot more difficult in 2009.  Of course, there are many ways to define success, but for the sake of this post let's define it as "the ability to pay your living expenses, and live a moderately decent lifestyle, through revenue generated by your art."  So, as an example, a "successful novelist" is one who makes enough money from royalties to pay his/her mortgage, make the car payments, put food on the table and utilities in the house, take care of the children, and save for the future.  A "successful actor" can afford all the same things.  To this definition of "successful" I should add that this must be over a longish period.  It's easy enough to make a livable wage when you are "hot," but we all know how fickle American taste is; and today's chart-toppers are tomorrow's has-beens.

The joint conclusion we came to is this:  We have hit a period of sensory overload in the arts.  Society simply cannot absorb all the artistic products of all the artists who want their work out there.  As a result, a few big names continue to garner massive salaries/earnings, while the vast majority struggle for notice.

Let's compare today with, say, 1975.  Back then, there were a few movie studios turning out a finite number of films each year.  There was also a decent but finite number of publishers, who signed up writers based on the quality of their work and their ability to develop a following.  On TV, there were a few major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) that controlled what people watched.  In music, there were a few powerful record labels who signed talent and promoted their careers.  In short, there were many fewer actors being seen, TV shows being watched, and books available for purchase.  This is why "hits" in those days were so massive and ubiquitous.  When you had a hit TV show, half of America tuned in to watch.  When a song played on one of the two or three metro-area stations, it could become a massive hit and stimulate the sales of a million albums.

Now, in 2009, thanks to technology, the sheer number of people willing to produce entertainment for the masses has exploded exponentially.  Cable TV offers 500 channels.  Record companies have imploded; people don't buy albums/CDs any more; they buy one song at a time from iTunes, when they're not pirating the song from some free shareware site.  Filmmakers, tired of studio restrictions, have struck out on their own, and more independent films than ever are being made.  The big publishers still have a lot of market power (which is why MWA loves them so much), but hundreds (thousands?) of small presses have started up, offering alternatives to the now-incredibly-difficult "get an agent, get a big advance, get a big publisher" process--which is now open only to the select few.

At the same time, society has changed.  Repressive restrictions on personal expression have subsided since the 50s, and we are encouraged to "follow our bliss" and tap into our inner creativity.  Once we do that, we want to share it with the world.  We want our music heard, our acting seen, our books read.  We don't have big names or big connections, so young musicians hire out studio time and put their music up on their Facebook pages for free, hoping they'll get a viral hit.  Actors work for free in indie films, hoping someone will notice.  Writers sign on with smaller publishers (who offer little in the way of advances, because we simply can't afford it), and some even decide to self-publish.

Now imagine the poor consumer, who's working more hours than ever and has the demands of family, work, etc., to cope with.  How can the average person, who is already overloaded, absorb all these new singers, actors, films, and writers?  The answer is -- He can't.  Maybe he'll hear about a new book from a friend, or go to a film on the recommendation of a friend, but he can't possibly read all the new books or figure out who's the "hot" new TV actor when he has 500 channels to choose from. 

So these are the conditions in which we toil.  Putting myself in the shoes of the average consumer, I can understand why, when faced with a choice, she will purchase her copy of the latest Mary Higgins Clark rather than try brand-new mystery novelist John Smith or Jane Doe.  And in terms of music, it's easiest to stick with what you know when you're an adult and not having specific acts (Jonas Brothers, Taylor Swift) rammed down your throat by multimedia conglomerates (let's try an anagram here: Y E N S I D). 

And while we're on the topic - Why should anyone PAY for their entertainment when so many people are willing to give it away for free?  I could literally get rid of my TV set and spend my entire life watching interesting videos on YouTube.  If I posted at the right places on the Internet, I could have hundreds of writers sending me free copies of their book, in the hopes that I'd say something nice about it in some public forum, which might cause some lone person in the middle of Colorado to purchase a copy from Amazon.  With TIVO, I can watch any TV show I might like and simply blip past the commercials, which pay the bills.  And why should I subscribe to a newspaper when I can get all the latest news for free on their Websites or Yahoo?  Consumers aren't dumb, and they seek to satisfy their desires at the lowest possible cost.  I can't get mad at people who want free books, as I like free books myself.  But all of this together does make my job damn hard, which is why I posted (in a recent posting) that I feel as though small publishers are increasingly becoming philanthropic organizations funded by people who have made money in other endeavors and do it for the love of reading, and are willing to see the business through the inevitable cycles of red and black ink.

I have watched some mystery writers do everything in their power -- and well beyond what is expected of them -- to establish their names.  They go to conventions, give speeches, give away copies of their books, get coverage in newspapers, have legions of fans -- and are still dropped by their publisher for lack of sales.  It happens often, and it will continue to happen.  I wish I had a solution, but I don't.  The answer is probably to have fewer publishers, fewer TV choices, and just less STUFF in general competing for our already limited time.  But that isn't going to happen, which is why I have said a million times, and will say again, that all creative types should look on their creative endeavors as hobbies that may someday earn them a bit of money -- and that they shouldn't ever quit their day jobs.

Lady Killers...of the 40s

I don't usually write too much about the history of mystery here on Mysterious Matters, but a few recent emails pointed out to me that I seem to write a lot about female mystery writers.  I wouldn't say that I have done so consciously, as I grew up with all the great male writers (Erle, Ellery, Raymond, Ross, Georges, et al.) as well as the great ladies (Agatha, Ngaio, Dorothy, Josephine, Margaret).

I do think it's true that Sisters in Crime had a massive impact on the industry's (and reading public's) willingness to read more types of book by female writers; and I'd venture to guess that of the new mystery series being published, probably 65% are by women.  I look at my own list and know that I definitely have substantially more women than men.

It's always hard to get into generalizations, but I think I have to credit women with bringing more psychology into the genre, which has been the key to their success.  Once we as a culture became aware of psychology and began using the terminology in common parlance, this became a necessity in fiction; and women seemed to be more on the cutting edge of that.  The old-time guys did a good solid whodunnit, with a wisecracking detective, snappy writing, and the occasional femme fatale.  They missed the boat in terms of the deeper psychology, and when I think about the particularly good male writers in the genre today (Michael Connelly, Reed Farrel Coleman), it's usually because I think they have a good command of the psyche over and above their ability to tell a story.

I realize, too, that I end up reading a lot of the books my wife has discovered or purchased, and she tends toward female writers.  Since we like to read the same books and then discuss, this means I have been made aware of many writers who would otherwise have passed my notice.

One of them is ELISABETH SANXAY HOLDING, who was quite the rage in the 1940s.  Two of her best-known books are THE INNOCENT MRS. DUFF and THE BLANK WALL.  Reading them now, it's easy to see why they appealed to mystery readers: they were tightly plotted novels of suspense that you wanted to read through in one sitting.  A common theme (though that may be too strong a word) is a rather weak or sheltered woman who somehow finds the strength amidst her general incompetence to take a stand against a bad guy to protect herself or her family.  If these novels were submitted to me today, I would think "You've got to be kidding - this is not the way the world is, not the way women behave."  But they're interesting as period pieces, even though I found my eyes rolling up into my head occasionally.  My wife loves them because the protagonists always remind her of her mother and many aunts, who were all expert at playing at being helpless or ignorant while being quite manipulative behind the scenes.

Wrting around the same time was a different woman writer, very successful in her day: DOROTHY B. HUGHES, one of MWA's deserved Grand Masters.  I recently reread IN A LONELY PLACE (story of a serial killer, told from that point of view, playing cat-and-mouse with the cops) and THE DAVIDIAN REPORT (Cold War tale of spies and espionage).  I came away with a tremendous amount of respect for Hughes, who wrote true noir.  Every sentence in these books rings true.  They're tough as nails but show a much stronger mastery of character and psychology than Holding's books do.  Another thing I noticed about the books is that, though relatively short, they take longer to read than you would expect.  I think this is because they are very "interior," with very little dialogue, and you have to read every word of every paragraph to make sure you aren't missing anything important.  When I feel that I have to, and want to, read every single word of every page, I feel like I have been transported into the realm of literature.  As for female characters, Hughes wasn't afraid to make her women smart and perceptive (Sylvia in IN A LONELY PLACE) or conflicted (Janni in THE DAVIDIAN REPORT). 

It's almost as if you can see the continuum of feminist writing and awareness in the work of these two women, with Holding being on the low end of the scale, and Hughes at the high end.  Of course, I am not a historian of the mystery, and I know there have been several excellent works written about women in mystery, so if anyone would like to recommend them here, please do.

I have gushed in the past about MARGARET MILLAR, who really hit her stride in the 40s and 50s, and while I'm on the topic of favorite women writers, I should also mention the really superb CELIA FREMLIN, who just died last month.  She got started in the late 40s and, like Millar, had unpredictable output, with each book being quite unique and different from the last.  If you've not read any Fremlin, you really must.   

So You're Just Starting Out...

In the last few months I've been getting quite a few queries from what I would call "young" writers.  By this term I mean people in their early- to mid-20s, often college students or recent college grads.  To all of you who fit into this category, I congratulate you.  There are challenges ahead, but you benefit by starting early.  You learn from your mistakes, make connections, and find your voice. 

And here's what I've found most encouraging:  Many of the story ideas included in the queries have been fantastic.  (I wish I could mention two or three of them here, because they were so good, but that would be the violation of a sacred trust.)   What made them so good was their originality and the thought that went into them.  These were young people who didn't just think "I'm going to sit down and write a novel"--they had really thought through what they wanted to accomplish and how they could make their work stand out. 

So today I would like offer some tips for those just starting out.  As always, remember that Mysterious Matters is just one man's opinion, and to learn from as many sources as you can.

1. Stop worrying so much about "setting up" your story.  What I have seen in these manuscripts is a very concerted effort to set the story up in the first couple of chapters.  The best advice that I can give you is this:  Your first couple of chapters must BEGIN with story, not SET UP a story.  You have to grab your readers and pull them into the action--the ancient device of in medias res is as relevant now as it was then.  I know you are trying to do the right thing by playing fair with your readers and giving them the information they need to understand the story.  But the first pages of a good mystery novel should leave the reader with a plethora of questions, not a surfeit of answers.  You don't want readers to know everything so early -- feeling that sense of incompletion is what drives suspense and keeps the pages turning.  In a nutshell:  Look at the first fifty pages of your current manuscript.  I bet you could cut that in half and get the story moving more quickly.

2. Work on your dialogue.  This seems to be a particular area of improvement for younger writers.  Dialogue is often written solely to provide information (understandable in a mystery, of course), but it is often wooden, without the cadences of real speech.  You also need to make sure that each character has a distinctive voice/speaking manner, and that all characters don't sound the same.  The old trick is to read the dialogue out loud and "hear" if it sounds right.  If you're writing about a milieu or specific place, try to visit that place and listen to the locals--or, in a pinch, find a (good) film set in that location and listen to the characters' speech and vocal patterns. 

3. Polish before submitting.  Many of these manuscripts have a few typos and grammatical errors.  Nothing that a copy editor can't fix, but any work you present to a professional (whether editor or agent) must be clean as a whistle.  This includes cover/query letters and plot summaries.  The really is no excuse for misspellings and grammar problems.  You should be editing your own work to find these, or having someone else read your work one final time before you submit.

4. Cut, cut, cut.  Your book is most likely too long.  You can give me a dozen good reasons why your manuscript is 120,000 words, and all you will hear me say is, "Get back in touch when it's no more than 80,000."  All writers--not just the young--can grow fond of certain passages or their own words, and can't always objectively figure out what sounds nice but isn't essential to plot or character (the two key elements in a crime novel).  You have to be willing to hack away at your manuscript with a machete--and then be able to deal with it when I hack away even more.

5. Study the masters.  Regardless of the genre you're writing in, it helps to read some of the masters of that genre.  Most likely you've done this already, but if you decide you want to write mysteries, you should have read at least a few Agatha Christies plus others of the specific subgenre you want to write.  For thrillers, you really do need to have read some of the greats, such as Dean Koontz and James Patterson, to understand why they have developed such a loyal following.  My key piece of advice here would be to talk to your local librarian about the most popular writers, then check out the shelves.  Lots of books by the same author in a library is a very good sign that the writer knows what s/he's doing.  Don't copy, of course, but learn by reading.

A lot of people will give you a formula for writing a query letter...I'm sure you can find dozens of Websites showing you exactly what should be in each paragraph.  I personally find that I respond well to query letters that are somewhat more personal and somewhat more revealing of the writer's hopes and dreams.  My heart goes out to the 21-year-old who says, "I want to be a novelist more than anything and am looking for someone to give me my first chance."  Some would say you shouldn't mention your age in a query letter, and certainly there are a lot of good reasons why you shouldn't.  But I like to see some personality in a query letter, and younger people, I have found, tend to write from the heart rather than sending a business-like, standardized query--and I always find myself responding well to that.