ed gorman & company

Mat Coward by Sandy Auden

2005-02-14T15:50:00.000-08:00

'copyright Sandy Auden 2005'

Ed here: The Alien Online is one of my must-reads every morning. It is packed with news, interviews, reviewers author links, all done in high style. The Brit science fiction-fantasy-horror scene(s) gone as riveting reads. Here is a piece by Sandy Auden about our friend Mat Coward.

Mat Coward - trying to avoid success and failing
More than you ever needed to know about being a writer…
Submitted by: Sandy Auden
On: 09.02.2005

Mat Coward's new non-fiction book, Success…And How To Avoid It, is out now from TTA Press and takes a look at the true life of a freelance writer – something he knows a lot about having been part of the writing profession for nearly two decades.

Using many anecdotes from his own life, Coward has put together an invaluable guide for all kinds of writers, from journalists to novelists; but the difference with this book, compared to most How To Write tomes, is that Coward takes off the rose-tinted glasses, throws them on the floor, and jumps up and down on them. He delivers an honest description of what being a freelance writer is all about, and includes some solid advice for any writer, whether you're just starting out or more experienced.

"It's interesting to me," said Coward, "that every review so far has highlighted the 'honesty' of the book. It seems obvious that a book of this kind would be worthless (and wouldn't sell, and wouldn't get rave reviews) if it wasn't honest - that is, to a large extent, its selling-point. But I suppose people's surprise and pleasure at the book's honesty tells us a lot about previous books for writers."

There are many anecdotes from Coward's life included in Success. Many of them are highly entertaining but a few show how badly things can go wrong. Did Coward find it therapeutic to write down these bitter experiences? "I'm not sure it was, no," he said. "I think to be truly therapeutic for the author, a book of this sort would have to consist of detailed accounts - including names, dates and amounts - of actual conflicts between the writer and his various editors, sub[-editor]s, agents, producers, and so on. And that would, of course, be unpublishably dull; unless you were to fictionalise it and pass it off as literary fiction, and I've never yet sunk low enough to dabble with literary fiction.

"Rather than being therapeutic, dredging up all this stuff – the disappointments, the failures, the letdowns - just brought it all back to the front of my mind. I've never understood the idea of hypnotherapy; memories are buried for a reason."

For fledgling writers, yet to have their optimism ripped from them, the book highlights some harsh realities. "I wouldn't want to discourage people from writing, if they enjoy it, as a hobby, or even as a paying hobby," Coward said. "But I certainly want to discourage people from trying to do it as a main source of income; from committing their lives to it.

"Unfortunately, it is one of those things that almost everyone thinks they could do, and almost no-one actually can do. It is, for the most part, extremely hard work, pretty boring, and almost impossible to make any money at. By 'any money', I mean an income at the level of the minimum wage.

"If I were to give one really useful bit of advice to young people dreaming of a writing life it would be something that people of my parents' generation used to be told by people of their grandparents' age: get a trade. Do not go to college, because that won't equip you to earn money in a hurry; education only makes you good at feeling resentful. Get an actual trade, like plumbing or hairdressing or care-home nursing, do an apprenticeship or a day-release course, get a certificate.

"At the very least, get a lot of experience of bar work or waitressing. Not only will you always have something to write about - which is a very rare gift, as any contemporary fiction reader will agree – but you will be able to earn money through self-employment, as and when you need to. You can work a few days, write a few days, take it as it goes, ride out the famines and take full advantage of the feasts, and you will survive long enough to get something written. Every creative writing course should be required by law to include a Central Heating Servicing module."

Once you start to understand Coward's point of view, you have to ask: if it's so bad, why don't you go back to a day job? "I fantasise about doing that - getting a job," he replied. "I'm not sure about a corporate robot job, but something nice and regular, anyway. It would, after nearly twenty years of this, be a pleasant change. Obviously, it would have to be something without a stringent dress code - I've spent twenty years working in my dressing gown and slippers, I'm not about to change that.

"I never really intended to do this full-time, all the time, forever. But as it turned out, personal circumstances dictate that I'm stuck with it. Even if I could get a job, I'm not sure who'd employ me. I've been a writer most of my adult life; I have no significant qualifications, no relevant skills and no recent experience of ... anything.

"Can you imagine the job interview? 'OK, Mr Coward, and what have you been doing since 1986? We don't seem to have those pages here ...' Oh, post-86? Well, I've been sitting in a room smoking and making stuff up. 'Mr Coward, are you aware that you're wearing a dressing gown here today?'

"People starting out in writing really do need to beware of this - suppose it doesn't really work out, but it takes quite a long time not to work out? Think about this: who is going to give you a job when you're 45? Keep up that hairdressing, please!"

You can find more information about the author at the Mat Coward website or for purchasing information, head on over to www.ttapress.com.

Source: Mat Coward

Welcome to The Alien Online
Read our Reviews
Alien Online Reviews
Alien Ed-Blog
TAO Blog Index -
News, Book and Ed Blogs
Send us Feedback
Send Feedback
Please support TAO by visiting our sponsors:

www.fantasticliterature.com
New Stock List - Feb 05
Bid! Crowswing Book Aid
Tsunami Appeal Auction at:

Crowswing Book Aid Tsunami Appeal Auctions
Advertise with The Alien Online
Make our audience
your audience
Offers from Amazon.co.uk
In Association with Amazon.co.uk
Copyright © 2005 the alien online

Jon Breen

2005-02-13T10:09:00.000-08:00

The current movie Hide and Seek illustrates a problem with most film reviewing. Having read the critics we usually read, in the L.A. Times and Wall Street Journal, and listened to some more on our local public radio station, Rita and I had decided it must be one of the classic turkeys of all time, and despite the promising-looking trailers and our enthusiasm for Robert DeNiro, we’d pretty much decided to give it a miss. Indeed, some of the reviewers were indicting DeNiro for lowering himself to accepting such a potboiler at all, accusing him of just taking on the project to finance his film festival.

But then the ads for the film started to include some glowing quotes from reviewers (and these were print reviewers, not TV and internet quote whores) that proclaimed it a classic of nail-biting suspense. We decided we’d give it a try after all. How bad could it be?

Well, it’s not bad at all. It’s not great by any means, but it’s a good, solid diversion, eminently worth seeing if maybe not worth buying the DVD for repeat viewings. Most professionally made films that make it to the theatres are like that: okay, if you like that sort of thing. Very few are masterpieces, while a few more (but not all that many) are total disasters. Movie critics don’t seem able to say that very often: generally a film must be praised to the skies or damned as garbage with no in between allowed.

A couple more specific points on Hide and Seek, without giving anything away. The ending is a surprise, but in retrospect the only possible solution. And one of the elements of the plot that reviewers were quickest to jump on as implausible is in fact a clue to the outcome of the movie. The filmmakers have practiced fair play, the very thing we mystery traditionalists look for and don’t always find.

One other thing: at least one reviewer implied the performance of Dakota Fanning as DeNiro’s daughter (yeah, his daughter, not his granddaughter) was no challenge to her talent, a slam dunk, she could have phoned it in. The movie world seems to be taking this kid for granted. By any rational standard, her performance is extraordinary for a child actor and one of the key elements in making the film as entertaining as it is.

Jon Breen
jonbreen@earthlink.net
Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

From Ted Fitzgerald

2005-02-12T11:26:00.000-08:00

Ted Fitzgerald:

Arthur Miller, RIP.

His passing should be noted.

I can't add to anything you can read over the next day or so, except that DEATH OF A SALESMAN, ALL MY SONS and THE CRUCIBLE have never been more relevant or important. I think a good teacher can drive Willy Loman's story home to kids of all circumstances.

O'Neill and Tennessee W. may have hit a few more balls out of the park, but if I had to pick one American play, just one, as the best, the most important, the most timeless, its SALESMAN. And I think you all are on the same wavelength.

But it's depressing how many obits focus first on Miller's marriage to Marilyn Monroe, then on his work. But, what else is new in Bushamerica?

Ted

Memorable lines from Athrur Miller's Death of A Salesmans (AP)
-- "A salesman has got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory."
-- "After all the highways, and the trains, and the appointments, and the years, you end up worth more dead than alive."
-- "Be liked and you will never want."
-- "I don't say he's a great man. Willy Loman never made a lot of money. His name was never in the paper. He's not the finest character that ever lived. But he's a human being, and a terrible thing is happening to him. So attention must be paid. He's not to be allowed to fall into his grave like an old dog. Attention, attention must be finally paid to such a person."
--"You don't understand: Willy was a salesman. And for a salesman, there is no rock bottom to the life. He don't put a bolt to a nut, he don't tell you the law or give you medicine. He's a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back -- that's an earthquake. And then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you're finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory."es from Miller plays
-- "Never fight with a stranger, boy. You'll never get out of the jungle that way."

"The Crucible"
-- "I have not moved from there to there without I think to please you, and still an everlasting funeral marches round your heart."
"A View from the Bridge"
-- "I am inclined to notice the ruin in things, perhaps because I was born in Italy."

© Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

Arthur Miller; Jack Chalker

2005-02-11T18:21:00.000-08:00

An interesting piece on NPR about Arthur Miller being a lasting American playwright--the only other two being Eugene O'Neill and Tennessee Williams.

I hadn't ever thought of it that way, not quite anyway, but I suppose it's true. From that hallowed A list of three the drop to the B list is a fur piece to travel. Not that there aren't many many lesser playwrights of wide and great talent on that list. In fact some of them are at least as interesting as the three gods. But when you think of last century worldwide with playwrights such as Piranadello and Ionesco and Pinter, I think our own hallowed trinity are the only ones we can safely put up.

Caught an interview from 1999 with Miller and he told a great Harry Cohn story. Harry's Columbia studio paid a lot of money for film righst to "Death of A Salesman" but then Joe McCarthy came along and denounced the play as an attack on the American way (I guess because it depicted a man whipped and humiliated by capitalism as a whiner and coward).

Harry decided the only thing to do was to create an 8 minute docu-drama called "Life of A Salesman" in which a jubilant American family of Ozzie & Harriet stripe celebrate Dad's joyous news that he just sold a steamship (or some other big ticket item) and let the comies put THAT up where the sun don't shine. This ran before "Death of A Salesman."

Only Harry Cohn.

---

I was always grateful to the science fiction writer Jack Chalker for publishing my first three short stories back in 1958-1959 in his fanzine "Mirage." I long ago lost my copies but about a year ago I had occasion to speak to Jack and congratulate him on being a best-selling science fiction writer, which, back in the ffties, was the holiest of my dreams.

Jack passed today at age 58.

Stuff on the web today

2005-02-10T15:06:00.000-08:00

Ed: On her must-read blog today Sarah Weinman linked to a piece about a "fab" novel sale for considerable dough. Nobody is ever going to stop publishers (or any of us for that matter) from being foolish. By my God can't somebody rein in the freaking publicity department once in a while. Listen to this hoo-hah:

"27-year-old Marisha Pessl's SPECIAL TOPICS IN CALAMITY PHYSICS, the story of a young woman and her professor father, pitched as "Nabokovian in scope and style," with a "Hitchcockian and Donna Tarttish narrative" and "Jonathan Franzen and Lorrie Moore-type metaphors," to Carole DeSanti at Viking, in a major deal, at auction, by Susan Golomb at the Susan Golomb Agency (NA). UK rights to Viking UK, in a significant deal, in a pre-empt; Dutch rights to Ambos/Anthos, in a very nice deal, in a pre-empt."

Ed: I do believe that is the first and last time we will ever see Nabakov and Hitchcock's name in the same sentence. Not to mention--God forbid--Hitch and Johnathan Franzen.

At least Marisha has the decency to be damned good looking.
-----

Two of you wrote me off line about my reference to Tom Gifford at all, wanting to know more. Unfortunately, my impression of him was formed by three or four phone calls and by talking to his grand good friend (and fine writer) Robert Byrne. Because I'm such a brown shoes kind of guy, I always like to listen to people who can take a cloudy day and by sheer force of cosmic willand turn it into a sunny, jolly party.

When Tom died Bob wrote a Mystery Scene piece about him. Tom was all classic cars and classic women and classic affairs and classic style. I don't envy that--I don't have it in me--but it's sure fun to watch. I think of Tom--in addition to being a first class writer--in the way I think of Jackie Gleason packing that long long train filled with babes, booze and buddies and heading from NYC to Miami. And curiously enough I sense the same dark Mick melancholy in each of them too.m

2005-02-09T16:12:00.000-08:00

Ed here:

A few years ago I met an attractive, fortyish, bright woman in a bookstore where I was doing a signing.

My presence create the usual problem--crowd control. But it's not what you think. The owner was in desperate need to FIND a crowd so I'd have somebody to talk to. I think there were maybe eight people there.

The owner explained it by saying that it was because of the weather that so few people had shown up--sixty degrees, a fine sunny April Saturday, who would want to come to a mall on a day like this (well, apparently a few thousand people wanted to because the other stores were packed). This was the same very nice store owner who'd told me a couple years earlier that it was the "weather" then too--a balmy forty-three degree February afternoon--and only a pittance of people for my signing. Who'd want to venture out on a dangerous winter afternoon like that one? He was trying to save face--mine.

Anyway, after the little talk I gave (as I recall I was discussing quantam physics and the history of Aztec art) the fortyish woman stepped up to the table and bought two of my books and then sort of hung around to talk to me. She said that writers never seemed much like their books. My books, she said, were so dark and brooding and yet I'd basically done fifteen minutes of standup comedy a few minutes ago. She said it didn't make sense that I'd be one way in person and another way in print.

I mention this this evening because Sarah Weinman's blog had an interesting discussion on a similar topic this morning.

When I explained to the woman that I always wore a masque at book signings, she said she didn't believe me. I don't think I ever did convince her.

But it's true. In person I'm usually doing gags because it's one way of keeping people at bay. It covers my shyness. I've seen a number of writers at signings whom I suspect do the same thing. So I question people's ability to "judge" a writer's real personality by his books--or even by meeting him in person.

"Do not understand me too quickly."

I guess we all make assumptions about creative people based on their work. But the work is not always a reliable or even safe path to the secret heart.

As Thomas Gifford--a Dubuque man and international bestseller and one of the most fascinating people I ever met--always wrote in the front of his books: I am not I; they are not they.

Fair warning.

used book royalties

2005-02-08T15:08:00.000-08:00

Ed here:
t
I've noiced that the subject of earning royalties on used books has taken on new purpose now that Amazon has begun mining serious coin out of "pre-read" (hey, if it's good enough for used car dealers, it's good enough for me) books.

I'm dimly aware that an attempt was made to do this in the UK. Maybe some of you folks can tell me if it's worked out over there.

There was a pre-Amazon time when I thought the idea was sort of dumb. Hell, I buy a lot of books used and always have.Saves me a lot of money. But now, in a way that would have been impossible before Amazon, we are competing against our own pre-read books for cash.

I'm neither a leader nor a joiner of groups. I won't sign petitions, I won't march, I won't speak up publicly unless a a situation has begun to inflict physical harm on people.

But as someone who himself orders used books from Mr. Bezos, I'd like to know what other writers think of the royalties idea. How would they be calculated? Who would collect them? Is it even worth the trouble?

Be interesting to see what you folks think. --EG

Jon Breen

2005-02-07T14:37:00.000-08:00

Jon:

I finally saw Million Dollar Baby, the Clint Eastwood film being hailed as a potential classic. Were it not for the director, the cast, and the glowing reviews, my wife and I probably would have given it a miss. Neither of us are fond of boxing, and (call me sexist) the idea of women boxing is particularly repellent to me. To my surprise, though, I came out of the film with the urge to defend boxing, which brutal as it is I can’t believe is quite as awful as the movie made it out.

Without giving away too much of the story (and there’s been much controversy about the reviewers’ near unanimous decision not to reveal the assisted-suicide subject matter), let’s just say there is a fight in which one of the participants is a blatantly dirty fighter. Now, of course, a movie has to exaggerate dramatic events in sports contests to make sure everybody in the audience gets it. (Example from years ago: compare the jostling incident experienced by distance runner Billy Mills in the Olympics with the recreation of it in the movie version—can’t remember the title—with Robby Benson as Mills.) But I feel quite sure, first, that a fighter who operated in this particular way would have lost her license before this fight even took place, would have been disqualified from this fight before the key incident took place, would have been declared the loser after the key incident took place, and would have faced criminal assault charges, been the object of a personal injury suit, and been stripped of the license she should have lost already. If any of this happened, the movie doesn’t make it clear. The film is ultimately, among other things, an indictment of boxing, but it could make the point and still play fair.

Yes, Million Dollar Baby is a very good film, and Eastwood, Hillary Swank, and Morgan Freeman are all great in their roles. But I think Mystic River remains the highpoint of Eastwood’s directorial career.

Jon Breen
jonbreen@earthlink.net

Stuff on the web today

2005-02-06T17:26:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney Sunday categorically ruled out a run for the White House in 2008, even if asked by the Republican president who recruited him back into government.

Ed here: Gee, and I hoped it would be the Dickster and Rummy running together.

------------------
From a blog I'm still trying to find again--a salient comment on the central principle of Ms. Rand's writing:

"Today would have been Ayn Rand's 100th birthday. In celebration, I'm going to bake a cake and then not share it with anybody."

--------------------------
For once I feel sorry for Paul McCartney:

All right, all right, I admit it. I've never--except for a few songs here and ther--liked the Beatles. Too precious in all respects. Cream and Stones were my Brit Invasion favorites.

McCartney the egomaniac I always found especially galling. But I have to say that this bit from the British tabloid press is about as crazy and cruel as you could imagine:

"Mills McCartney has worked to help children disabled in war since losing a leg in a traffic accident in 1993. McCartney said he was particularly shocked by suggestions that his wife "losing a leg was perhaps the best thing that ever happened to Heather as it fed her desire for self publicity."

"Imagine losing a leg, and dealing with it as bravely as Heather has done and having to read that on top of it," he wrote.

Wow. And people think the press is mean over here.

--------------------
Bushie Jr. is now recommending Tom Wolfe's racy new beer- and sex-soaked novel, "I am Charlotte Simmons" to friends...according to Drudge. What's Jerry Falwell going to say?
--------------------

The Edgars were announced tonight.

Most pleasing to me was the Dominic Stansberry nomination for The Confession published by Charles Ardai's Hard Case crime line. Charles had the wisdom to publish it and Dominic had the talent to write it. I guess you know who I'm rooting for.

Stephen Marlowe

2005-02-05T14:31:00.000-08:00

Ed here: I've been swapping letters with Stephen Marlowe the last couple days. Looks as if we'll be doing a double book sometime this year containing both VIOLENCE IS MY BUSINESS, not only the best of the Chet Drums but--for me--his best crime novel period--and TURN LEFT AT MURDER which is one of those noirs that always reminds me of a book Jospeh Lewis would have loved to film. A twisty, nasty noir. In the course of our letters I mentioned Peter Rabe and Stephen wrote back saying:

You mention Peter Rabe. He and I met in the late '50s when we both were spending some boozy time trying futilely to save bad marriages in Torremolinos while it was still, mas o menos, an unspoiled fishing village. I was living in a house that Bill McGivern had occupied before me, and Peter in a house a hundred yards or so along the ridge above the village. A copa of wine cost a penny or two in those days and a four-liter jug about a quarter. When that became the reason you were living in Spain, Bill McGivern told me a year or so earlier at his farm in Bucks County, it was time to leave. We were drinking Jack Daniel at the time and there was a you-don't-have-to-believe-this look in his eye. (NB. The good folks at Jack Daniel used to send me an occasional case because it was Chet Drum's favorite drink.)

Art Scott; Tom Dickerson

2005-02-04T16:27:00.000-08:00

Art Scott

(After you mentioned) Filmax I ran right out and bought a copy of it, not a mag I was familiar with. And not a hit with me, particularly at 10 bucks. Despite a wealth of pop cult nuggets of interest, the mag looks junky, cluttered and ugly. The McGinnis piece was a recycle of the one Jenkins did for Mystery Scene, and not attractive on the cheap paper. Editorial work not top drawer either. The article on Cleveland's "Ghoul", evidently a rerun from the files, talks about "Ernie Anderson . . . out on the west coast now making millions of bucks". Ernie Anderson died in 1997.

Ed here: I'll grant you that Filmfax will never win any design awards but over the years it's published dozens of fine articles about the popular culture of past decades. Sorry you were disappointed.

-----------------------
Tom Dickerson

I was interested in how the cozy vs. hardboiled argument pertained to your own career. For a long stretch there you were considered one of the darkest writers of your generation. I know that such books as Cage of Night and Blood Moon couldn't be pubished over here ithout being heavily edited. But for the past five years your dark work has been in your western noirs and your crime fiction has mostly been limited to the lighter Sam McCain series. They're kind of dark cozies. Was that a conscious decision?

Ed: I suppose most writers who've been at it twenty-plus years stop or at least pause and look at what they've written. My books got to the point where if they had even a moderately happy ending I'd hear from certain readers that I was cheating. I believed then as I believe now that dark endings can be no less cliche than happy endings. Depends on the book and the people in it.

The Drood Review did a piece on the McCains a while back that made the point that if you look at them carefully they're pretty dark. Insanity, racial violence, backseat abortions, patricide, the Cuban missile crises, drugs, and endless miserable romantic relationships fill the books. But because I 've laced them with humor and a certain amount of sentimentality some people see them as fluff. Not much I can do about it.

CD Publications is bringing out the full version of Cage of Night in hardcover sometime this fall followed closely by a massive collection of my short stories spanning twenty-five years The Long Silence After. You want dark--most of my darkest short work is there.

But again I emphasize that if I get what I believe is a workable idea I write it. I never think now I'll write a "dark" story. It is what it is. In the 80s when splatterpunk was big in horror you got these invitations that sounded like pro wrestling promos--"I want your darkest, goriest, grimmest nightmare story. I want to rip out the readers' eyeballs." I exaggerrate for effect but not by much. I wrote one story that way. A Random House editor called me up and said that he needed a "shocker" for this otherwise tame horror anthology he was wrapping up. Could I get him something in a week? "I did. It was a better story than you might think but still not in danger of actually being good.

I guess I just kinda write what seems interesting at the moment.

Art Scott;Greg Shepard; Peter Rabe

2005-02-03T16:10:00.000-08:00

Ed,

I'm sorry to send to 2 emails, but don't know offhand which works. I'm glad you're pleased with your new home at Blogspot, but I strenuously object to their scheme by which in order to simply comment on a posting I am FORCED to set up my own blog on their site. I don't wanna have no steenking blog! (Bill, same problem with yours). Is there any way around this?

Anyhow, what I wanted to say in response to your nice piece about illustrators is that you and anyone else who loves this stuff should be subscribing to Dan Zimmer's Illustration Magazine www.illustration-magazine.com. It is a superbly produced labor of love and in recent issues has profiled great paperback artists like Robert Maguire, Ernie Chiriaka, Bill George, Bob Bonfils, Mitchell Hooks, Gerald Gregg. Plus important pulp artists, magazine illustrators, movie poster artists and the like.

And nice to see that Bob McGinnis has done a second cover for Hard Case Crime: David Dodge's Plunder of the Sun. And thanks for the plug, Bill.

Cheers,
-- Art

Ed here: Art Scott is one of the great guys of mystery fiction--writer, commentator and editor of the The Paperback Covers of Robert McGinnis, which can still be ordered. It is an exemplary collection of art. And I certainly agree about Illusration magazine. I go back through each issue five or six times. The electic collecion of illustration is astonishingly good. Man, I miss the days of slick and pulp mags. I was old enough to still buy a few pulps on the stands in the mid-Fifties. I believe in fact that I bought the final issues of both Thrilling Wonder and Startling Stories. Somehow the great Robert Lowndes scrounged enough money to keep Science Ficion Quarterly till, I believe, 1959. I bought Ranch Romances until 1960 (as I recall). It carried al the top western writers--it was the only western pulp left and they had no other place to send their stuff. Fortunately the editor (Babs something) didn't go in for treacle. Most of the stories were excellent. Gold Medal did a collection of them in the 1970s. For western fans (all six of you) it's an oldie worth picking up.

----------

Peter Rabe

Greg Shepard's new Stark House double book of Peter Rabe's Murder Me For Nickels and Dig My Grave Deep got a boxed and starred review in Booklist today. Both are major Rabe and the book is a fine looking, sturdy trade pb. I remember Barry Gifford telling me how Peter choked up when Barry called to say that he was putting new editions of three major Rabes in the mail that day. Peter was the same way when I dedicated a book to him. I sure wish he was alive so I could tell him about the starred and boxed review. Greg Shepard is doing a truly remarkable job of bringing back forgotten writers who deserve rediscovery. Another Vin Packer double is of the way soon. And the new Elizabeth Sanxay Holding arrived yesterday. I'll start on it tonight. Remember Raymond Chandler (and I believe he was sober at the time he said it; I think there's even a notarized piece of paper attesting to the fact of his sobreity)--Ray called her "the best suspense writer of my generation." Packer, Rabe, Holding and the super-stylist Douglas Sanderson--Stark House has an impressive list.

Paperback covers

2005-02-02T16:22:00.000-08:00

The new issue of Filmfax has an excellent article on the career of Robert McGinnis, one of the two or three best illustrators associated with the art of iconic paperback covers.

I'm glad to see that we've begun to pay such due and respect to the men and women who, since the mid-1800s really, have made commercial art just that--art.

I recently saw a collection of Robert Louis Stevenson book covers. Really extraordinary work in the Howard Pyle style. I also saw some Argosy covers from the early 1900s that were done very much in the way of orange crate art. If you've never see any of it, try your website or library. Fascinating and sometimes gorgeous work, generally flamouyantly romantic.

The old "Almanac" shows of the 1950s once did a piece on the depictions of Alice in Wonderland and The Three Musketeers and Sir Walter Scott down the decades and even centuries.

The History channel did a few shows on German culture after Hitler took over. Aside from such smooth moves as banning all Jews from the German film industry--thus de facto ending the German film industry or at least its greatness--they showed some of the popular art of the day. I wanted to see much more. The script talked about how stark and warlike such art became but they didn't show any of it, though if Reifenshtal was at all typical, God help us. Crowds of any size have always scared me. You can imagine then how I react to her work.

I was reminded of popular art because of science fiction artist Kelly Freas' death a few weeks ago. There was something too coy in most of his stuf for me, though his depiction of Algis Budys' "Who" (steel hooded head but otherwise human neck, chest, and fingers holding a cigarette) is one of the classic pb covers of the 1950s.

I say all this with great envy. If I couldn't write, I'd want to paint. But I haven't a scrap of talent for it. I took a painting course one time and the instructor gently suggested, after only three weeks, that I stick to writing.

The Endless Pointless Argument

2005-02-01T16:41:00.000-08:00

James Reasoner made some very good points about reading good crime novels whatever category they belong to, cozy or hardboiled. But like most reasonable people (Reason-er) James is tired of the endless pointless argument about which category is better. I sent Lee Goldberg's A+ blog my response then swiped it back for here.

From the Ed:

The cozy vs. hardboiled argument got so dull after about the sixth time I ran some version of it, I would no longer even print letters about it let alone opinion pieces.
Thus Mystery Scene had several years of pure bliss.

There's only one way to say it--we read what gives us pleasure. Why would you read something that irritated or bored you? I agree with James. No sub-genre is inherently superior to another.

I find many hardboiled novels to be ridiculously hardboiled. And God all the cliches of the form. Comic book violence and soap opera cornball--male weepies.

You wanna read real hardboiled? Read Joyce Carol Oates' THEM sometimes. Or Russell Banks. Or Denis Johnson. Or--yes--much of Stephen King. Real life hardboiled. Not updated snap brim fedora fantasies. Or just sit in a welfare office or a parole office for a day and you'll see that most hardboiled writing is strictly for armchair gumshoes. Real life just ain't like it is in most hardboiled novels.

I look at what Jason Starr is doing. He's Patricia Highsmith with a slightly broader sense of nasty humor. He tells real stories about our time. He's doing within genre something I've never read before.

I feel the same way about many cozies. Same story, same gags over and over and over. Terminal cutesy-poo. Terminal rose-colored glasses. I mean escape reading is fine by me--I still read Christie and Philip Macdonald and Margery Allingham becayse they're fine writer--but I have to say...my God how much whipped cream can you consume in one lifetime?

But as early Nancy Pickard and present-day Joan Hess demonstrate, modern cozies aren't all pap. You can bring real life into them. It doesn't have to be gory life. Nancy on abusive husbands can scare the hell out of you. Joan can break your heart with familial relationships gone awry. And their versions of their worlds are every bit as true as Jason Starr's version of his world.

Both sub-genres are filled with really good writers and really lazy writers. But if you can get past your particular snobbery, you'll find that both have plenty to offer readers who like good writing and strong storytelling in any form. And that's absolutely true.

Arguing the inate superiority of one over the other is waste of time. --Ed Gorman

The outline-Gorman

2005-01-31T16:28:00.000-08:00

Graham Greene felt that he wasted his early writing years by not outlining his novels in advance. Wasted too much time he didn't have.

I have to say that his books did get better as he got older but whether this was due to the outling I can't say.

I wish I could outline. The few times I've managed to fix an outline on both the page and in my mind, I was more relaxed with the writing itself. I didn't wake up in the middle of the night depressed because I couldn't figure out what next day at the machine would bring.

I've thrown something like seven or eight full novels away in the past twenty-some years. And double or triple than in long false starts. And mostly because I just couldn't shape the would-be book into anything coherent.

Because I write two thousand words a day, virtually every day of the year, I'm able to to finish and revise most of my novels in a bit more than three months. So throwing whole books away isn't a total disaster.

One of my editors told me once that she thought the false starts I threw away were my first drafts. She pointed out that while I struggled with depression and occasional migraines in getting a hundred pages down--pages I'd inevitably throw away--I was actually prepping my materials the way a sculptor does before he or she begins serious work on a piece. She was right on one point. A lot of thrown away pages do help me rough about the story and the people so that when I start over on page one I write very quickly straight through to the end.

Maybe that's just my process and there's nothing I can do about it.

But damn it seems great--from afar--to be one of those folks who outlines a book and then sits down and writes with barely a hitch. Or does that ever really happen?

From Jon Breen

2005-01-30T16:23:00.000-08:00

Here’s something to stir things up. Take any artistic endeavor in which two very successful contemporaries work or have worked in the same general field. If one of them is slightly or somewhat more commercially successful, the other one will probably be somewhat more artistically successful.

For example, take John Grisham and Scott Turow, both associated with legal thrillers, both bestsellers, both good writers. Everyone would have to agree that Grisham has been the greater commercial phenomenon, but I think most would agree that Turow is the finer novelist.

Second example: the two major composers of musical theatre in the past few decades have been Andrew Lloyd Webber and Stephen Sondheim. Both have had their hits, but Lloyd Webber has clearly been the more commercial. Sondheim, I venture to say, is regarded by students of the field as the greater artist.

More examples: among contemporary film directors, Stephen Spielberg more commercially successful, Martin Scorsese more artistically successful; in espionage fiction, Ian Fleming more commercially successful, John Le Carré more artistically successful. This one’s a closer call but defensible: in Golden Age British detective fiction, Agatha Christie more commercially successful, Dorothy L. Sayers more artistically successful.

Not sure about this one, but someone I know who reads everything both these writers comes out with would say Stephen King is the greater commercial phenomenon but Peter Straub the better novelist. I definitely don’t agree with this one, but many would say that between the late-night talkers Jay Leno with the higher ratings is more commercially successful but the hipper David Letterman more artistically successful.

So there’s the game. Is it worth playing or is it wheel-spinning nonsense?

Jon Breen
jonbreen@earthlink.net

Best Blog Blogging

2005-01-29T14:23:00.000-08:00

Mark Evanier's News From Me covers popular culture, past and present, with such grace, style and wit you have to wonder how many hours a day he works at it. A lot, one would assume, especially on days when the words number 1,000 or more.

It is incomparable both because of the hard news and Mark's skill in making that news relevant to the reader. He puts virtually everyting he reports on into a context that enhances and illuminates the subject.

His week-long coverage of Johnny Carson's death and life points the reader to many other sites but in the process cover also gives us a look at his own somewhat complex feelings about the star-the man-the place in showbiz history-collective memory.

I'm told there is some kind of contest for best blog of the year. I haven't run across any e site to send my vote to.. But if and when I do, I'll bet you can guess whose name wil be n my ballot.

The Return of Terrill Lankford (sounds like a western, doesn it?)

2005-01-28T15:12:00.000-08:00

A COUPLE OF BADASSES

The last time I blogged here I confessed to a terrible track record of reading (or lack of) in 2004. My movie viewing habits weren't much better. I probably hit the theaters less than ten times last year, so once again it would be ridiculous for me to have compiled a top ten list of the great movies of '04. In December I did go on a major DVD blitz, taking advantage of BLOCKBUSTER's "all you can view" service, trying to catch up on movies I had missed. Not much impressed me until a few days ago when I watched the DVD of Mario Van Peeples' BAADASSSSS. If I had seen ten great movies last year I think this would have still topped my list. It is a one-of-a-kind experience. A movie about the making of SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAADASSSSS SONG thirty years ago, by the son of the man who made SWEETBACK (an independent film that would usher in the era of "Blaxploitation" films. Now some of you may wonder if that's a good thing. But without Blaxploitation you don't get a lot of today's cinema, including, obviously, most of Tarantino's work), a son who was made to "perform" in every way imaginable in said movie as a teenager. This is probably the best movie about making movies that has ever been made. It shrieks of authenticity. And the similarities between the shooting of BAADASSSSS and SWEETBACK are too numerous to mention. See it for yourself. And do yourself a favor and watch all the extras on the disc and listen to the commentary track which features Mario and Melvin. It's rich with historical importance and telling father/son dynamics.

Yesterday, coincidentally, the movie that inspired BAADASSSSS was on cable, so I just had to give SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAADASSSSS SONG a look. Part social commentary. Part soft core porn. Part action film. Part horror film. 100 per cent rebellion. This movie was the cinematic equivilant of refusing to move to the back of the bus when it was released in 1971. It's a crude exercise, but a powerful one when put in proper context. Watching it after viewing BAADASSSSS achieves that goal. SWEETBACK is a raw piece of work, but it took a certain kind of madman to see it through to the end. BAADASSSSS pays tribute to that madman. And to all the dreamers who do whatever it takes to make their vision a reality against all odds.

SPEAKING OF COINCIDENCES

Long ago I was involved with a movie entitled SUNSET HEAT which stars Michael Pare, Dennis Hopper, Adam Ant (!) and Little Richard (!!!!!). I don't want to get too deep into the sordid history of this flick at this time, but if you catch this cinematic lark and notice a passing resemblance to my book SHOOTERS you will note that my attorneys did as well. I had sold the screenplay to SHOOTERS (way before it was published as a book) to the producers of SUNSET HEAT. When I caught them doing some things that were outside the scope of my contract, I pulled the project away from them (at a financial cost to me that today makes me question my sanity at that time). Undaunted, they carried on without me and came up with a remarkably similar project to satisfy the people who were actually putting up the money for the movie. Attorneys were activated. Shots were fired. And when the smoke cleared we were all fairly happy (which is not how these stories typically end). I receive a "Creative Consultant" credit somewhere after the honey wagon is listed in the end titles of SUNSET HEAT. I also received a check which kept us all out of the courtroom. I would prefer that the movie remained a fading memory in my life, but technology doesn't allow us to get away from our sins that easily. As I clicked around the cable channels yesterday I stumbled upon one of its many airings. This is not a movie I would watch all the way through in one sitting, but it is enough of a curiosity that I usually watch a scene or two when I trip over it. This time I happened to catch it moments before Little Richard showed up for what was basically an extended cameo. The funny thing is, during his scene he managed to ad lib one of his favorite lines, "Honey, you make my big toe shoot up into my boot!" A few hours later, I'm watching the Craig Ferguson version of the Late Late Show (bring back Kilborn!) and the second guest is - Little Richard. Here he was 13 years later and he blasted out the same line about the toe and the boot!

Hey, if it ain't broke.......

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO PRESENT DAY

One last note before I check out for another few weeks: The biggest problem I have with the recent Academy Award nominations is the fact that Jamie Foxx got nominated for Best Supporting Actor in COLLATERAL. As anyone who has seen that film will attest, he is the lead in the picture. Or at the very least, the co-lead. Cruise may be the bigger name (temporarily), but the story is told, primarily, from the point of view of Foxx's character. He also has more screen time than Cruise (or anyone else) does. And he's the HERO of the piece. He shouldn't have even been qualified for this award. I know this is "The Year of Jamie Foxx," but did they have to take a slot from some deserving character actor and give it to a lead performance in the supporting category? Is this a way to give Clint the faux "Lifetime Oscar" for his performance in MILLION $ BABY and still reward Foxx for RAY, for which he has also been nominated as Best Actor? I hope not. But the damage has already been done. Someone is missing their rightful nomination as Best Supporting Actor. And I can think of someone from the very same movie that did "Best Supporting Actor" caliber work and could easily have been acknowledged here instead of Foxx: Mark Ruffalo as the ill-fated narc. Ruffalo is the best thing in that movie. His few scenes in the film provide a realistic counterpoint to the over-the-top main storyline between Foxx and Cruise that give the whole movie a level of credibility that it wouldn't achieve otherwise. That's what a supporting role is. Not the guy with the lead role in the film and the equal billing with Tom Cruise.

Personally, I would have really liked to have seen David Carradine acknowledged for his work in KILL BILL 2. That was a career best performance for him, and even though his character's name is in the title, he truly was a supporting character in the movie. (And how many more shots does a 67 year old actor have at an Academy Award?) I think it's a real shame that Carradine or Ruffalo or some other deserving actor has been denied a slot because of Foxx Fever. But hey, they still haven't given me the keys to this town, so don't blame me if it doesn't run right.

See you...whenever.

TL

lankford2000@earthlink.net

Sarah Weiman's First Bad Review

2005-01-27T17:37:00.000-08:00

Sarah Weinman got a less than wonderful review on a piece of fiction she wrote. She talks about it on her blog today. Not surpisingly, she doesn't like the feeling a tepid review leaves her with. It's her first negative review and she wonders how her readers felt about their own first bad reviews. It's an honest and well-written reaction something all writers go through.

I've never figured out how to respond to bad reviews. There was a wanna be professor at the noted and nearby writer's workshop who called me to "commiserate" about my first bad review. He'd read it in "Publisher's Weekly." The fact that he was trying to sell his own mystery novel--and still is--was inherent in his call. He'd never called me before. Nor has he since.

My first reaction to my review was embarrassment. I am basically ashamed of everything I've ever said, done and written. I despise myself to that degree. So I spent the first few days post review thinking that no matter where I went, people were whispering about me. There goes that guy who got a bad PW review. Humiliating.(Even though fewer than 1% of the folks who live here could tell you what PW was.) Humiliating--and well-deserved. This guy--me--can't write for beans.

Kirkus on the other hand gave it a rave, Library Journal called it an "auspicious debut," Variety really liked it, and Booklist said something to the effect that I had a fresh and engaging voice. If I got twenty reviews, eighteen of them were approving.

But the PW I sulked over.

Over the years, PW has given me many favorable and several notably unfavorable reviews. Same with Kirkus, the NY Times, etc. and etc. The favorable outnumber the unfavorable. While the bad ones don't bother me quite as much as they once did, they can still ruin a nice spring day for me.

The kind of bad review that angers me is the one where the reviewer becomes the star rather than the book at hand. You see this more in the High Lit and entertainment press than you do in mystery. The most savage of genre reviewing is found in science fiction.

Every once in a while a civil, even-handed mixed review can be useful. Somewhere back there a Chicago Trib reviewer gave several paragraphs of praise (David Frost's line is that to a writer a fair and balanced review is eighteen hundred words of tightly packed praise) but then dinged me for two problems he'd noted common to all my work. I thought about it, decided that they were indeed problems, and called him next day and thanked him. He said he couldn't beieve I was thanking him for knocking me. But his criticism helped improve my craft.

During my eighteen years at Mystery Scene, I generally refused to run really nasty reviews. The few times I did I regretted it because in both instances the trashed writers called. They were devastated. I just couldn't see devastating anybody else. Mixe d reviews I ran all the time. But crash and burners, no way.

Writing is hard work. It's understandable to want that work if not praised at least considered in a respectful tone.

John Simon always used to mock the looks of stage actresses in his reviews. I was always happy to hear when somebody went after him for it. I especially felt that way when I got my first look at him one night on a Dick Cavett show. My God how could this guy rermark on anybody's looks? He should be walking around with a bag over his head. He's the epitome of the reviewer who makes himself rather than the work to hand the star. He was on Cavett show one night with Phillip Roth. Seated right next to Roth, Simon trashed some other writer and said something like He's not even capable of minor art like our friend Roth here. Wanna bet who's work will still be red a century from now--Simon's or Roth's? Roth was a gentleman and didn't deck him.

It'd be nice if there was a Bad Review pill you could take. Lie down for an hour after taking the pill and wake up refreshed. No more of all the symptoms bad reviews inspire--anger, embarrassment, self-pity, self-doubt. You're right back at the machine and doing your best work ever.

If you see such a pill advertised on some strage cable channel late at night, please jot down that 800 number for me, will you?

l

Silent films

2005-01-26T18:30:00.000-08:00

Thanks to TCM, I've become a fan of silent films. I'm now as comfortable with them as I am with talkies.

They're a more inconic form than sound film. Last night, they showed a Garbo silent from 1926. Garbo had never done much for me. The acting was always good but the great esteemed beauty the photographers extolled just never appeared for me.

But in the silent I saw last night, the lighting was such that it de-emphasized the sharp angles of her face and softened them,, making the eyes larger and and the cheekbones softer. She looked downright sexy, a figure of dreams rather than a photography session.

A few weeks ago TCM did two minor silent Harold Lloyd pictures. The next night they showed one of his early talkies. I actually preferred him in the silents. Somehow the silence emphasized his gawky manner of walking and that rubbery face built around the nose that looks sharp enough to be a dagger.

I suppose ultimately silent film resembles dance to a large degree. The eye fastens on movement. Body language and facial expression tell the story, the dialogue cards merely setting up scene and story.

Holy moley, maybe Norma Desmond was right when she said at the end of Sunset Boulevard "We had faces then." I sure can't think of any of today's faces that would rival the ones in the silent pictures.

Lee Goldberg; Steve Hockensmith

2005-01-25T16:02:00.000-08:00

Frm Lee Goldberg on my Parker comments:

But the Sunny Randall novels take all the worst aspects of the Spenser books...and make them even worse. Can't stand Spenser's constant talk about his dog? Sunny's relationship with her dog borders on psychotic. Can't stand another scene between Spenser and Susan? Wait until you read the Sunny and Susan scenes... yeah, that's right, Susan is in the Sunny books, too.

Ed here: Sunny & Susan! You had me laughing out loud. I tried two chapters of a Sunny book and gave up. I'm sure glad I did after you said there were Sunny AND Susan scenes in the book. "Unspeakable evi!" whispered Fu Manchu.

To clarify one thing I said in the Parker piece. I meant nothing personal when I said that all of his heroes were in masochistic romantic relationships. I know nothing about Parker personally but the men-women stuff in his books are certainly masochistic.

Listen, Spenser, Jesse--believe it or not there are a lot of women out there who can be giving, tender and downright FUN!!!

But to his critiics, I still say give Jesse Stone a fair read and you'll be surprised how good the books are.

From Steve Hockensmith

Ed,
Just saw this from you on Bill Crider's blog:

<Yeah, I always feel badly when a beginning writer asks
me for a blurb. When I tell him I'm nobody and that
the editor probably won't use it anyway, I always get
the same reaction--but you've published so many books.
Yes, friends, unsucccessful books. The marketplace
defines us by computers and nothing else.>>

Steve here:
I started to post a long reply...then stopped when I
remembered that my editor has asked me to keep our
blurb list under wraps for a while. I was going to say
something about how surprised I was to learn that
blurbs routinely go unused and how that makes me
appreciate all the more any established writer (such
as you and Bill) who'd keep helping out first-time
authors despite having seen their blurbs eighty-sixed
in the past. Since I didn't say it on the site, I
thought I'd say it in an e-mail.

So -- thanks again! Hopefully, it's not success in the
marketplace that defines a writer to other writers.
It's talent and class. You and Bill have both.

-Steve

Ed here: Most of my blurbs are used, I guess, but for a reason--they're always "Ed Gorman, Mystery Scene"

And that's fine. Publishing is a business. The object is to sell books. Thus you do what's necessary. They're not singling us out in any way. Nothing personal there at all.

__________________________________

From Bob Sassone; Lee Goldberg

2005-01-25T09:51:00.000-08:00

Bob Sassone said...

I haven't read the last 5 or 6 Spenser books. I was a huge fan but realized there are too many other writers that I enjoy more recently. Jeremiah Healy, Will Christopher Baer, Robert Crais, catching up on some Ross MacDonald's I never got around to reading.

I was also put off by Parker's comments when Robert Urich passed away. I talk about them here, if anyone is interested:

The hell with Robert Parker.

No, not the wine guy, the author of the "Spenser" books. Robert Urich passes away, and the quote he musters is this:

"This is a shock. It's too soon, and he was too young...He wasn't the perfect Spenser...Bob was not a great actor, but he was big and physical, and he looked good and he showed up to the set knowing his lines. A lot of people liked him in the role, but I can't even say in honor of his memory that he was quite right for the role. But then, who is?"

This is offensive on so many levels. It starts out well, but then turns into some mish-mash of misguided integrity ("hey, I gotta call em like I sees them!") and a backhanded compliment (or not).

"He wasn't the perfect Spenser..."

He wasn't? Sorry, whenever I read the Spenser novels (that's read as in rhyming with "red," past tense), all I could picture is Urich as the character. He was perfect. A perfect TV star in the perfect TV role (as was Avery Brook's portrayal of Hawk). That show lasted three seasons because of Urich. I remember hearing something about how Parker didn't want the the TV series to use first-person voiceovers. Funny, those voiceovers were some of the best things about the show. They gave it an elegance and mood that most shows, especially detective series, never capture. Books and TV shows are very different things. You shouldn't worry about how the book is being portrayed; the books live on. But Parker never seems to be happy with how his creation is dealt with. Except now, of course. He has Joe Matagna in those second-rate A and E Spenser flicks that think Toronto passes for Boston. I hope he's happy with them.

"Bob was not a great actor..."

Let's kick the man when he's down (way down). Actually, I say that Urich was a fine actor. He probably would never have gone onto win an Academy Award, but so what? This guy starred in 15 TV series as a leading man, and a few as an ensemble player, over a 30 year career, so producers and casting agents and TV fans certainly found something that they liked about him, again and again and again, even if some of those shows didn't last long. You don't have to remember that Emeril was his last TV show. That show was horrible because of the writing and the concept, not Urich. Remember Spenser and Lonesome Dove and the cheesy but fun Vegas and his flair for comedy and how he worked hard and was a good guy.

"...and he looked good and he showed up to the set knowing his lines."

Ahem.

"A lot of people liked him in the role, but I can't even say in honor of his memory that he was quite right for the role. But then, who is?"

Maybe this guy shouldn't do interviews. A beloved human being is dead too young, and he thinks that NOW is the time for literary and acting opinions? Notice also that he gets in a little plug for his books. "The character of Spenser, as I have written it, is my too complex to be portrayed by a mere TV actor," he seems to be saying. Egads.

Perhaps this is how we'll remember Parker:

"He wasn't the perfect author...he wasn't a great writer, but he had fingers and owned a typewriter and he knew how to type. A lot of people liked his books, but I can't even say in honor of his memory that he was quite up to writing the "Spenser" books. But then, who is?"

Lee Goldberg said...

I remember that quote, Bob. It pissed me off then and it still rankles reading it again. What a profounding stupid thing for Parker to have said.

Then again, I'm biased. I worked on SPENSER FOR HIRE. Robert Urich was one of the nicest men I've ever met.

Robert B. Parker

2005-01-24T16:11:00.000-08:00

Ed here:

A discussion on various logs of late on the relative worth of Robert B. Parker at this stage in his long and industrious career.

The consensus judgment seems to be that he wrote brilliantly early on, that in fact he rescued the entire private eye genre from malaise and cliche, and that he brought tens of thousands of new readers to the form.

I agree with all of that.

Where I have trouble is the funeral pyre so many of his critics seem to be building. Doesn't take the care he used to; isn't as inventive as he once was; writes the same book many times over.

Now I'll agree that these things are occasionally true of his last decade or so at the writing machine. But it's certainly not true in general.

Is Spenser tired and parodic? I think so, yes, in many of the books. Am I sick of Susan Silverman? Oh, my God, I wish she'd take a job at the Lifetime channel and never have time to talk let alone see Spenser again. Still, every once in a while, every three books, say, there's a return to form. Maybe not great Spenser but solid and fun Spenser.

But what I really don't understand are the harsh judgments on his Jesse Stone series.

I'm just now finishing STONE COLD and I have to say it's one of the most entertaining books I've read in the past twelve months. The dialogue is prime Parker, character drives the story far more than the plot, and even though Stone's machismo gets tiresome, he comes off as a decent, complicated, beleivable middle-aged man who is a) an alcholic and b) in love with Susan Silverman's twin sister.

Now as an alcoholic myself, I can testify that Parker's take on the malady is both moving and clinically true.

The ex-wife is as problemmatic--this is my take only, not a universally held opinion--as Susan but at least not as full of cant and pomposity. But it does make you wonder if the Parker hero, in whatever guise, isn't a masochist in his romantic relationships. Parker sure does convey real pain here; there's one scene where he begins to confront his ex-wife's date that made me writhe. I'm a jealous type myself. You're right there with Jesse and sure wish you weren't.

The A plot has to do with a pair of trendy serial killers, man and wife. They do it for fun. What's notable here, and I assume Parker was aware of this, is that the marriage of the serial killers is a far more loving and supportive one than any marriage a Parker hero has ever been in.

The B plot has to do with a bunch of snotty high school bullies. The kids work fine but the magic scenes are when their prominent parents come to the station and wail on Jesse as only privileged people can. Jesse shows a whole lot of restraint.

So please don't tell me it's over for Parker because it isn't. Nobody--not even Balzac or Dostoyevsky or Dickens, all of whom wrote a whole lot of books themselves--can possibly trot out a winner every time. Impossible. And writing quickly seems to be Parker's natural pace.

As a book, a piece of writing, an amusement with the sting of truth every few pages, this novel warrants an A and is a whole lot better than many of the sudsy and pretentious novels that critics are genufelcting in front of these days.

Thanks To Bill Crider...

2005-01-24T10:36:00.000-08:00

...I'm using a new blog spot on your radio dial. This will be home from now on.