Labels: 5 Questions, interview, Jason Pinter, mysteries

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: Bill Crider, book review, Cracked-Back, David Fulmer, Josh Bazell, mysteries

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: Blade Runner, book review, Jane Whitefield, mysteries, Thomas Perry

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: 5 Questions, Crimes, interview, mysteries, Scott Phillips, The Ice Harvest

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: Dave Zeltserman, Jim Thompson, mysteries, Thoughts from the Shadows, Writing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

“In the world of mystery fiction, Mr. Hillerman was that rare figure: a best-selling author who was adored by fans, admired by fellow authors and respected by critics. Though the themes of his books were not overtly political, he wrote with an avowed purpose: to instill in his readers a respect for Native American culture.”

Labels: Fiction, mysteries, Tony Hillerman, Writing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

An Interview with Ken Bruen, the Duke of Hard-Boiled Crime Noir

(Author Ken Bruen helped launch a new era in hard-boiled crime fiction. His novels are not for those who like linen napkins with their tea. His villains are mean bastards and his heroes generally will do anything it takes to get the job done. This recipe has worked wonderfully for the Irish-born writer as he’s won the Shamus Award and he’s been nominated for just about every damn mystery/thriller award in the business. He’s best known for his Jack Taylor series – noir crime books that are set in Galway. Taylor is a disgraced ex-cop who occasionally works as a private eye. Don’t piss him off. DaRK PaRTY caught up with Bruen recently to see what he’s been doing and to pick his brain about his fiction.)

DaRK PaRTY: You are often described as a "hard-boiled" crime writer. How would you describe "hard-boiled" in literary terms?

Ken: Mean as hell, black as coal and uncompromising in every sense, not for the Booker readers

DP: You are the author of the acclaimed Jack Taylor series. Jack is a fallen cop with substance abuse problems. Can you give us your personal opinion on Jack? What do you like about him and what do you dislike about him?

Ken: I like that he sees justice as being dispensed in alleys, especially with the scum of the earth walking free from so called trials every day of the damned week, I like his reading choices and what I hate about him is fixation on the past, his very, very short fuse and his inability to form a real deep caring relationship. A lot like me own self, in fact, alas and more's the damed Irish-ed pity, for us both.

DP: Ireland plays an enormous role in many of your books. The country has undergone so much change in the last two decades. Can you tell us why your homeland is so important to your literature?

Ken: Firstly, we've only been a free country for a mere number of years and then we went from dirt poor to one of the richest countries in the world and went mad and this has to have an enormous influence on the literature of the country, it is wondrous territory for a mystery novelist with all the outriders of simmering racial tension with the new immigrants, the huge influx of drugs that have flooded the country and the greed that has overtaken Catholicism as our new faith.

DP: You’re part of a literary circle that includes Jason Starr, Brett Easton Ellis, and Dennis Lehane. What exactly is a literary circle? Do you meet regularly? Does the group have a name? And where do you all generally meet and what's the topic of your conversations?

Ken: I always saw a literary circle as along the lines of Dorothy Parker and meeting in the Algonquin and drinking lights out, the only writer I regularly sit at a table with is Jason and we am (to) drink sensibly, sometimes... Jason and I are usually planning our next book for Hardcase and wishing to hell we could cast one of our books as a movie, we lie a lot about advances and money in general and bitch about… the NYT best seller list.

DP: What writers have had the most influence on your work and why?

Ken: James M. Cain. Charles Willeford, Horace Mc Coy, because they wrote fearlessly, with a very savage twisted sense of humour and with a ferocity of style that is so immediate, it's like a slap in the face and a kick in the balls, Derek Raymond too.

Read some of our other author interviews:

Duane Swierczynski

Polly Frost

Elizabeth Miller

Steve Almond

Labels: 5 Questions, books, interview, Ken Bruen, literature, mysteries

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

DaRK PaRTY: What are the elements of a good mystery story?

Otto: The same requirements as a good novel or story of any kind. Strong characters, realistic dialogue, interesting background, a theme of substance beyond the plotline, with the added requirement of the classic story arc-- beginning, middle, end, with a satisfying denouement.

DP: You are the proprietor of the Mysterious Book Shop in New York. Why do you think readers are so attracted to mystery stories?

Otto: Mysteries are fairy tales for adults. They mainly depict the battle between the forces of good and the dispensers of evil. In most mystery fiction, there is a comforting restoration of order after the social fabric has been rent, which is satisfying to us as readers, whereas this is not always the case in real life.

DP: You are also the editor of "The 50 Greatest Mysteries of All Time." If you had to narrow the book down to three stories -- which three would you have selected and why?

Otto: Those three stories would change on any given day. But any list, no matter how small or how long, would have to include a Sherlock Holmes story, as he is the single greatest character in the history of literature, a man of wisdom, reason and fairness, as well as being colorful enough because of eccentricities that are not so outré as to make him farcical.

There would also always be a story by Stanley Ellin, as no writer produced the equal of his perfectly polished gems. There are half-a-dozen of his stories that could easily have been included among the top 50. Assuming no difficulty in clearing rights, I would also always be inclined to use a story by Raymond Chandler, one of the handful of most stylistically compelling American writers who ever lived-- in or out of the mystery genre.

DP: Which two writers from the past do you think had the most influence on mystery writing?

Otto: Edgar Allan Poe, as the inventor of the detective story, and Arthur Conan Doyle, as the author who made the genre beloved and, therefore, popular. Make it three, and I'd add Dashiell Hammett, who made the American hard-boiled detective story the dominant sub-genre for nearly a century in terms of talented writers employing the style and substance of his quintessentially American theme of the lone hero doing the necessary thing to set things right, which often seems quixotic to those without a moral center.

DP: Which mystery writers today do you recommend and why?

Otto: Too many to mention all, but those that come readily to mind are James Crumley, Robert Crais, Michael Connelly, Thomas H. Cook, George Pelecanos, Dennis Lehane, John Harvey, Elmore Leonard, Robert B. Parker, Joyce Carol Oates, Charles McCarry and William Gay.

There are 15 or 20 or more others who I love, too, in this great platinum age of mystery writing. I like them for different reasons, but they have in common a comfort with the language that allows them to use it in ways that no one else can use it, whether in the poetry of the prose or the creation of characters that will be familiar to readers a hundred years from now.

The 7 Toughest Detectives in Fiction

Labels: 5 Questions, interview, mysteries, Otto Penzler, Writing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

An Interview With Thriller Novelist Dave Zeltserman

(DaRK PaRTY loves a tasty mystery novel (that doesn’t involve protagonists named Dexter). Crime fiction has never been more popular – so we were happy to run into Dave Zeltserman, a crime writer in Massachusetts who just published his second novel “Bad Thoughts,” a neo-noir mystery/horror novel that Booklist praised as a “compellingly clever wheels-within-wheels thriller.” Dave lives in the Boston area with his wife, Judy; is a die-hard Patriots and Red Sox fan; and when he’s not writing crime fiction he spends his time studying Kung Fu. We talked to Dave about crime fiction and the challenges facing emerging writers in today’s book industry)

DaRK PaRTY: How did you get your start in writing novels?

Dave: I always read a lot, and at times would try writing short stories. The thing was in high school I was more of a math and physics guy, and in college majored in Applied Math and Computer Science, so writing seemed more like a lark than something I should seriously pursue. After college I worked as a software engineer, and still found myself drawn to writing fiction in my spare time.

I was struggling with a private eye story and doing a bad job trying to imitate Ross Macdonald when I discovered Jim Thompson. Reading “Hell of a Woman”, “Swell-Looking Babe” and “Savage Night” changed my way of looking at how crime fiction could be written, and allowed me to see a different way to rework my story. This ended up becoming my first book, “Fast Lane,” which 12 years after writing it was sold to the Italian publisher, Meridiano Zero, and in 2004 published by Point Blank Press.

DP: What do you find so interesting about crime fiction?

Dave: I like the toughness of it. I also like the psychological aspects of it; all that guilt and desperation and darkness and raw emotion. Good fiction is where you’re constantly upping the ante as far as conflict goes, and crime fiction is a natural for that. That’s almost the definition for noir — characters who just keep making their situation worse until there’s no hope. This is really true with any fiction, but to me the best crime fiction is when it’s written at two or more levels.

“Fast Lane” at one level is a psychotic noir novel, but thematically is also about the damage child abuse causes as it’s passed from generation to generation. My new novel, “Bad Thoughts” is also at one level a crime/horror thriller, and at another about surviving tremendous abuse.

DP: Can you tell us about your new novel "Bad Thoughts"? What's it about and how did the idea for it germinate?

Dave: When I was writing it I thought of it as a metaphysical thriller, but readers and reviewers are calling it instead a mix of horror and crime, and I can see their point. The book focuses on Cambridge, Massachusetts police detective, Bill Shannon. When he was 13 he walked in on Herbert Winters murdering his mother. Now 20 years later, bodies start piling up and the victims are being killed in the same brutal manner as Shannon’s mother. Winters, who is now dead, is visiting Shannon in his dreams to tell Shannon that he’s committing these murders during blackouts. Soon everyone in Shannon’s precinct is suspecting him, even his own partner, and Shannon is beginning to have doubts about his own sanity. The mystery is for Shannon to discover what’s going on.

This is the only book I didn’t have any real inspiration for. I was working with a literary agent at the time who gave me a one paragraph plot for a book to write, that was kind of a “Silence of the Lambs” knockoff. I didn’t want to do that, instead I reworked it into something I was happy with. I was reading some books on metaphysics while I was working on this, and some of the ideas from that were used heavily in the book.

DP: What's the most difficult part about being an emerging novelist today?

Dave: Getting picked up by a major publisher is very hard. The industry has changed from a publishing house nurturing authors and working with them as they develop their skill over several novels to looking at everything as a commercial package. Editors today also have much less say in what they buy — I’ve talked with several editors at some of the large houses who like my works, but what they tell me is they can only buy formula. Books have to be overtly commercial, and these editors have a hard time buying anything that’s different.

I consider myself very fortunate to have my next three books published by one of the top UK publishers for crime fiction, Serpent’s Tail. They’re an independent, but unlike most of the small US houses, they have a lot of marketing muscle behind them. Their books end up in bookstores and they get treated seriously by reviewers. They’re old-fashioned in that they care only about the quality of the books they publish instead of the perceived “commercial” value of them.

My advice to beginning crime novelists, if you want to get published by a large house, write something that’s formula. If it’s too dark or different, forget it, the chances are you’re going to have to be published by a small house, which means few reviews and few bookstores other than a handful of independents stocking your book.

DP: What three crime novelists do you read on a regular basis and why?

Dave: In the past I’ve devoured everything that Dashiell Hammett, Jim Thompson, Rex Stout, James M. Cain, and Jonathan Latimer have written, and they’re the crime writers I most admire.

I run a crime fiction web-site, Hardluck Stories, so these days I’m mostly reading what publishers are sending me. Outside of that, I’ve worked my way through half of Charles Willeford’s books, and will be working my way through the other half — he was a brilliant writer, dark, sardonic, with very interesting sensibilities.

I’ll also probably be reading more Gil Brewer after recently reading “The Vengeful Virgin.” Probably the three best crime novels I’ve read recently are “Reasonable Doubts” by Gianrico Carofiglio, “Robbie’s Wife” by Russell Hill and “Cross” by Ken Bruen — where all three are very skillfully written and focus more on the tone and emotion than what you usually see.

Also, while not necessarily a crime novelist since he has only written two books, one crime, one horror, I think Scott Smith is an amazingly talented writer, and the writing in “The Ruins” – while very painful as far as the subject matter – was a real tour de force.

Labels: 5 Questions, Dave Zeltserman, Fiction, interview, mysteries

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

I haven’t seen the Showtime TV series based on Jeff Lindsay’s novels about a coy, overly mannered serial killer, so I can’t comment on the reviews that praise the show. But I can rightly and indignantly scoff at the reviews the first novel in the series “Darkly Dreaming Dexter” has received.

Where to begin? How about TIME Magazine: “With chills like these, you can skip the air-conditioning.” Or USA Today: “Dark and devious… daring and unexpectedly comedic.” Even the New York Times Book Review jumped in with: “A macabre tour-de-force.”

Wow. Sign me up.

But it took a laborious week to struggle through the 288 pages in the paperback version of “Darkly Dreaming Dexter.” Why did it take me longer to read “Dexter” than to read William Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying”? Because it is an agonizing chore to wade through a bad book every single night.

The word “overrated” can’t fully describe the deep disappointment in this hollow, poorly written drivel. But I can divulge to readers 10 damn dramatic reasons to avoid it (warning: plot spoilers ahead):

1. Debasing and Degrading Damsels. The women characters are either chopped to pieces by a serial killer or exploited for their sexuality (Dexter’s cop sister, Deborah, spends most of the novel parading around dressed as a hooker and Dexter dates a sexual abuse woman who he eventually seduces – and guess what! She loves it! It turns out that all this deeply damaged woman needed was sex with a mass murderer).

2. Dull, Drab Ducks. The characters are all clichéd stereotypes that resemble cartoon characters more than real people. There is no depth here – no attempt even – to explore below the surface of any of characters.

3. Ditzy, Dumb Deborah. Dexter’s sister is one of the most vapid, self-centered, unlikable characters you’ll ever read. She shrills. Every time she’s on the page it is like listening to fingernails being dragged across a chalkboard. She gets to utter dialogue like this: “If tits were brains I’d be Einstein… That’s what she’s spreading about me. That kind of crappy tag sticks to you, and then they don’t promote you because they think nobody will respect you with a nickname like that. Goddamn it, Dex, she’s ruining my career.”

4. Defective, Deluded Drivel. The reviews all praise Lindsay for coming up with the concept of a serial killer who hunts for other serial killers. I’m sorry, but haven’t any of these reviewers read Thomas Harris? You see he has a character by the name of Hannibal Lector…

5. Disturbing, Droll Dexter. As the first-person voice of the novel, Dexter’s witty sense of humor is so damn annoying that by the time you’re halfway through the book you hope his next victim is himself. He isn’t half as clever as he thinks he is when he says things like: “Please Deborah? You’re saying please to me? Do you know how nervous that makes me?”

6. Dumb, Disappointing and Done. A cryptic, implausible, and, ultimately cop out of an ending. The real kicker is when Lindsay introduces a long lost brother as the real killer. I think I groaned out loud. Are you kidding me? Let’s not even get into the myriad of forgotten loose ends (how did his brother escape? How did Deborah survive? What happened to the stooge who confessed?).

7. Decrepit, Directionless Diagnosis. Lindsay fails to deliver on the most important aspect of any police procedural novel – making the investigation seem real. It is clear that Lindsay has no clue as to how actual police investigations work. Did he do any research at all? The crime scenes read like cocktail parties where Dexter – a blood splatter expert at the forensic lab -- pops up whether he’s working or not. He’s like a fast food clerk who comes to work on his days off wearing his uniform.

8. Dumb Dialogue. Some of the chatter between characters makes you wince. Scenes of dialogue often have no point. They don’t seem to drive the plot or reveal character. They just are. Ditties like this:

“Sorry,” I said.

“Yeah. Sure.”

I sat down in my chair and didn’t speak. Deb likes to unload on me. That’s what family is for. “Why were you so anxious to speak to me?”

“They’re shutting me out,” she said. She opened my doughnut bag and looked inside.

“What did you expect?” I said. “You know how LaGuerta feels about you.”

She pulled a cruller out of the bag and savaged it.

“I expect,” she said, mouth full, “to be in on this. Like the captain said.”

“You don’t have any seniority,” I said. “Or any political smarts.”

She crumpled the bag and threw it at my head. She missed. “Goddamn it, Dexter,” she said. “You know damned well I deserve to be in Homicide…”

9. Downright Dubious Detective. The police investigation of a brutal serial killer is in entirely in the hands of one detective – a woman with a spotty record in closing cases. There’s no task force. There’s no FBI intervention. There’s no state police involvement. In “Dexter” the case is entirely in the hands of one woman police detective (who, of course, is a dumber than Deborah).

10. Deceitful Decorum. Jeff Lindsay (a.k.a. Jeffry P. Freundlich) was nominated for the Mystery Writers of America’s Edgar Awards for Best First Novel. But it was dropped after the group discovered that the deceitful Lindsay had published several other novels under another pen name.

Labels: books, Dexter, Jeff Lindsay, mysteries

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Losing Faith in My Once Favorite Literary Gumshoe

I’ve read every Spenser novel -- from his debut in 1974 in “The Godwulf Manuscript” to last year’s “Hundred Dollar-Baby.” I use the word “read,” but I really mean that I devoured them as if they were a plate of boneless Buffalo wings. I joined Spenser when he first met Hawk in “Promised Land” to when he got shot trying to salvage his love for Susan Silverman in “A Catskill Eagle.”

I admired Spenser for his no-nonsense approach to life and his code of honor. He symbolized strength, resolve, and determination, and who couldn’t be amused by his wry approach to danger? I liked the concept of Spenser as the tarnished knight in shining armor protecting the innocent and the weak against criminals and bullies.

So it is with a heavy heart that I come to grips with the fact that I want his creator, Robert B. Parker, to kill the son-of-a-bitch.

There’s little chance of that. In a recent interview in the Boston Globe Magazine, Parker was asked if he ever considered killing Spenser. Never one to mince words, the ever-pugnacious Parker answered:

“No.”

He also admitted that he had no plans to “off” sidekick Hawk or Spenser’s annoying girlfriend, Susan.

It’s too bad. I’m about to fill out the Penguin Group’s “Great Read – Guaranteed!” to get my money back on “Hundred Dollar-Baby,” which was so mediocre that it could barely keep my interest during an overbooked flight from Texas to Boston. I fully believe Penguin needs to give me my money back – and to throw in a couple of extra bucks.

The plot was slap-dash, the characters – especially the unlikable and unfathomable character of April Kyle – were tired, and the banter between Spenser and Hawk is becoming stale (I think they need a new act). This is prostitute April Kyle’s third appearance in a Spenser novel – and it has been two too many.

But real problem is that Parker has been losing his Spenser fastball for a long time. The reality of that startling, but obvious, fact came crashing down on me after reading “Hundred Dollar-Baby,” but it probably started with the ill-conceived, Western knock-off “Potshot” in 2002 -- where Spenser turns into Wyatt Earp.

The signs have all been there: For example, after I read “Cold Service,” I realized that it was the same book as “Small Vices” – only the roles are reversed. In the first one Spenser is shot and Hawk nurses him back to life and in the second Hawk is shot and Spenser nurses him back to health.

After 35 Spenser novels (“Now & Then” comes out today), Parker’s shtick has gotten a bit tired. The books are blending together into a mishmash that’s difficult to discern. Hell, we don’t even get great titles anymore -- remember the good old days of “Taming a Seahorse” and “Pale Kings and Princes?” Now we get bland titles: “Double Play” and “Widow’s Walk.”

Spenser feels like he belongs in a recycling bin. Every novel is the same novel over and over again:

• Client walks into office with problem.
• Spenser solves said problem.
• Turns out the problem solved isn’t the real problem.
• Client lies to Spenser.
• Spenser cooks dinner and asks Susan for advice
• Sex ensues.
• Spenser annoys bad guys – and lying client.
• Spenser and Hawk get into a violent confrontation.
• Bad guys try to kill Spenser.
• Spenser, Hawk and politically correct tough guy friend (who is either gay or Latino) retaliate.
• Truth is revealed.
• Spenser saves client or client dies.

When I was a journalist, I has the pleasure of interviewing Parker before a talk he gave at a Massachusetts state college. He was a fantastic interview and a delightful speaker. I think Parker is an excellent writer – and should be credited with keeping the private eye novel alive during some very dark days. He's written some outstanding mysteries.

But even he has moved on to other protagonists – Sunny Randall and Jesse Stone. His two new characters have brought his writing back to life. He’s got new ideas and new characters to explore.

Spenser is a relic. He’s the old quarterback with the creaky shoulder and bad knees still trying to thread the needle – but tossing up more interceptions than touchdown receptions.

Parker should retire him with dignity.

With a bullet between the eyes.

Labels: books, mysteries, Robert B. Parker, Spenser

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail