Mysterious Matters: Mystery Publishing Demystified

Pining for a Subgenre, Part 2: Psychological Suspense

(The second in Agatho's Series of Subgenres that seem to have fallen by the wayside)

For a while, a lot of crime fiction was carrying the subtitle, "A novel of psychological suspense."  As with domestic suspense from last week's post, I think we need to begin by defining our terms.  By psychological suspense I mean a novel in which the mental status of one or more characters is questionable.  The plot is driven by the fact that readers remain in the dark about who the good guys are, who the enemy is, and the motives that drive both parties.  In the best novels of psychological suspense, readers can't quite figure out whether a character is actually sane or whether some serious psychological issues are going to cause unexpected behavior or plot turns.

For the best examples I have to turn to some of my favorites.  In Margaret Millar's Beyond This Point Are Monsters, we have a daughter-in-law facing off against her mother-in-law.  Both are emotionally wounded; but is one of them a villainess?  The fact that Millar keeps the reader in the dark regarding the answer to this most basic of questions propels the narrative and keeps tripping the reader up (in the best of ways).  Ruth Rendell has done some very nice portraits of people unraveling; I particularly like The Killing Doll, in which a brother and sister who engage in some mischief as children part ways, with the boy going on to a relatively normal life and the girl developing a more lasting psychosis as she enters adulthood.  

But my all-time favorites are the early novels by Rosamond Smith, pseudonym of Joyce Carol Oates.  These are some very fine novels--Lives of the Twins, Double Delight, and Nemesis are my favorites.  In each of them, the protagonists get in way over their heads, finding themselves questioning even their most basic identities.  Smith has a good deal of creepy fun with the psychology of twins, of people crossing economic and class barriers in ways that aren't good for them, of revealing the past bit by bit to provide pieces of insight into why the characters are behaving as they do.  More recently, Oates adopted the pseudonym of Lauren Kelly for her suspense novels, and I like these as well.  In Take Me, Take Me With You we come to see how a young woman finds herself in the position of being stalked by a dangerous man and enjoying it.

From what I've seen lately, we're not getting a lot of really good psychological fare.  On the one hand, we have a lot of books in which the novelist works overtime to make the protagonist 100% lovable and adorable.  ("Yes, I have quirks, but I'm so funny, and so witty!  You're dying to read more books starring me, aren't you?")  On the other hand, we have those dark case studies (Ellroy, Vachss) that are so bleak as to allow no sunlight whatsoever.  While I like both writers, I feel that neither is subtle psychologically; rather, the villains are simply depraved and the good guys "haunted" by unpleasantness from their past.  The psychology is slathered on rather thick, but there's little questioning as to what will happen or how the characters will behave, or how things will play out in the end.

Then of course we have those serial killer books that like to masquerade as psychological suspense.  There is no suspense, and no psychology in the vast majority of them.  Just an endless supply of dead bodies, each marked by the killer's "inexplicable" calling card, such as a peony, or a sundial, or a piece of a medieval manuscript, or a coin from ancient Rome.  The give and take between Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling, and Hannibal's ability to manipulate Clarice, had been spectacular in the early books before becoming an embarrassment in later books. 

So, I say - Let's try to bring back some good psychological suspense, with some characters who have a bit of subtlety and whose mental status is not pounded onto the page and into the reader's head by a hamfisted author.  Let's get into the vagaries of character and let the lines blur a little instead of making things so black and white.  A couple of current writers who are doing this well are Jason Starr (Panic Attack, The Follower) and Dennis Tafoya (Dope Thief, in which one of two bad guys decides to go straight, with interesting results). 

Pining for a Subgenre, Part 1: Domestic Suspense

A phrase used quite a bit in yesteryear, but not heard much any longer, is "domestic suspense."  These books were quite the rage for a while, and some of their purveyors were among the best our genre has to offer. 

How does one describe domestic suspense?  Agatho's Dictionary of Mysterious Terminology (not yet published, but written in my head) defines the term as "a book in which the primary source of mysterious goings-on is the nuclear or extended family, in which (1) each member has important secrets that they try to keep from one another, or (2) one family member is quite a rotter, unbeknownst to the others, who don't recognize, or willfully ignore, the dangers posed by that less-than-sane individual."

In the former category I would put many of the works of Margaret Millar, who explored family dynamics and relationships (often between husbands and wives, mothers and daughters, brothers and sisters) that have a menacingly dysfunctional quality about them.  In one of Millar's best, The Listening Walls, she closely follows an overprotective brother whose feelings for his sister border on the incestuous.  Margaret Yorke wrote some really fine portraits of families whose members can't stand one another--Criminal Damage, in which a long-suffering mother does her best to avoid her wacky daughter and shiftless son, is one of her best.  More recently, Gillian Flynn did a very nice job with family secrets and a chilling atmosphere in Sharp Objects. 

In the latter category I would put Charlotte Armstrong's classic Lemon in the Basket, in which Armstrong explores a ticking time bomb within an ostensibly happy family filled with successful children.  Another great one is Shirley Jackson's We Have Always Lived in the Castle, about a couple of creepy sisters and what happens when a long-lost family member decides to show up for a visit.

Yet despite the massive applicability of the domestic suspense subgenre to contemporary society, we see very little of it.  We have become a genre of lone wolves, alcoholics, commitment-phobes.  Our sleuths like to work alone and not get too romantically involved, lest they get hurt.  And certainly they're not having children, unless the series has run long enough to allow children to be born (Wexford's unpleasant kids come to mind).  And while it's certainly fun and interesting to explore the psychology of one key character, I can't help but think that we're missing out on a lot of really interesting premises by not exploring those deep, dark family dynamics that affect all of us. Need I quote Mr. Tolstoy? "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

And aren't the crazy-family stories in the media the most suspenseful, the most high-interest?  For a couple of recent (or at least memorable) examples, think of the Menendez brothers and what went on in that wealthy household.  Or Susan Smith, drowning her children so her lover wouldn't leave her.  The O.J. story was at its heart a domestic family drama with a great deal of mystery thrown in.  The death of Michael Jackson has made that completely insane family stand out in relief, yet again. 

So I say--bring back sleuths who are married, who fight with their spouses, who have affairs, whose children are drug addicts, who have siblings who are perverts, who have parents who are controlling, who have cousins who are liars and grandparents who are thieves, as well as long-lost unknown half-siblings from their father's never-admitted affairs while he served in the military.  Give me a familly where the middle sister kills her oldest sister and frames her baby sister for it, and whose father knows it but hides the fact because the middle girl is his favorite, while the mother also knows what's happened, but hides the truth because she hates the youngest girl and wants her out of the house--which a good conviction will provide.  Give me an onboxiously upscale middle-class family whose trashy relatives show up at inopportune times and get them into really hot water by exposing things that the botoxed mother and prostitute-visiting father would rather keep secret. 

Forum: Tell Me What to Read

Occasionally I like to venture into uncharted waters--you know, those books published by large houses.  (Yes, they are indeed worthy despite not being published by small presses....)

I'm about to take off for a trip and have narrowed down my choices to 3, all of which are sitting on my shelf, awaiting me to pull one off and stick my bookmark in.

Readers: Please tell me which of these three you would recommend, and why.  Use the "Comments" button below so that everyone else can see your comment, or email me directly.

CHOICE #1

THE SWEETNESS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PIE, by Alan Bradley

I have heard good things, but this one seems to be a love-it-or-hate-it book.  I usually like such books.  Have heard it can be a little precious; I don't have a taste for the saccharine, so I worry.

CHOICE #2

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, by Stieg Larsson

I was crazy about Smilla (of Smilla's Sense of Snow Fame, back in her heyday) so I'm liking the idea of this one.  But I'm also hearing that it's slow to start and that the pacing doesn't necessarily pick up.  And I need a good absorbing read for my trip.

CHOICE #3

THE THIRTEENTH TALE, by Diane Setterfield

I love a good Gothic, and this one is supposed to be Bronte-esque homage to the genre.  But I've heard detractors say it's pretentious and long-winded, with an unappealing heroine.  I like a complicated heroine, but have heard this one described as a "bore" by several people whose opinion I respect.  So I worry.

Overblurbing, Underselling, and the Dustbin of History

Well, I have to thank the readership of Mysterious Matters for making me feel as though I have arrived as a blogger.  I'm late with this most recent blog, and a few readers have written to ask me if I'm doing OK.  Doing fine (thanks for asking); I just tend to write when the spirit moves me as opposed to on any specific schedule.  And a few things have come up....

A couple of weeks ago I talked a bit about blurbing.  I forgot about what may be the most massive case of over-blurbing I have ever encountered.  Check out the hardcover of Celia Fremlin's Possession, published in 1969 by Gollancz.  By the way, I should go on record as saying that I think Fremlin is simply a superb writer, one whom I go back to annually just to sharpen myself on her prose. 

Now, several things come to mind about this cover:

1. Have you ever seen the front cover of a hardback, by such a respected and established writer, so overdone?  What I find most odd is that the blurbs do not even mention the titles of Fremlin's previous books, which the public is more likely to recognize than the names "Pat Wallace" and "E.D. O'Brien."  Certainly such praise is worthy of the back cover...but all of this on the front cover, instead of an interesting image or type treatment?  (Hey, at least the author got her name in red.) 

2. Check out the names on the back cover. Some of these names have survived the intervening 40 years and remain in circulation.  The late Dell Shannon still has a following, as does Emma Lathen.  Michael Innes and Hillary Waugh are also in the "firmly established, if less read" league.  But what became of Judson Philips, Edmund McGirr, V.C. Clinton-Baddeley, Lynton Lamb, and Jean Potts?  If any readers have had experience with these writers, please click on the COMMENTS button below and tell us about them.  I admit I've not heard of any of them, and I wonder what I have been missing.  The greater question is, of course: Does this list represent a microcosm of the mystery-publishing world, where some gain fame and readership, while others quietly fade away or are consigned to the dustbin of history?  And, most importantly, does quality have anything to do with it? 

3. The above thoughts are relevant to this week's internal dialogue because it's occurred to me recently that today's mystery authors are working harder than I've ever seen to establish themselves.  The crop out there right now is fairly desperate to achieve a level of familiarity, sales, and royalties that will provide them with continued contracts and livable income.  The word "desperate" may have a pejorative connotation, but I don't mean it that way.  What I mean is that so many writers want so badly to be best-sellers, or at least good-sellers; more so than at any time in my career.

And I think I know why this is the case, and I think it has to do with the economy.  Let's face it, life in the working world has become pretty complicated and annoying in the last decade.  There's no longer the concept of "corporate loyalty" as jobs go overseas and workforces are shredded.  Meanwhile, we continue to get other bad economic news.  This has been going on for a while, so can anyone blame people who want to chuck it all?  The dream of being able to stay at home, sit at your keyboard and tell stories, and have people scoop them up as soon as they're published, is a powerful one.  What an idyllic life it would be, all the more so because it would pay the bills and avoid the hassles of commuting and/or an idiotic boss.  Yes, there would be those pesky editors imposing their deadlines and forcing covers on you that you don't like, but all in all, it would be a pretty darn lovely lifestyle--the antithesis of what most people go through to make a living in this day and age.   

Of course, it isn't realistic, for all the reasons discussed not only on Mysterious Matters but also all over the Web.  As we all know, everyone loves a free book and does everything in their power NOT to buy new ones.  Reviewers think nothing of selling books they've received but haven't reviewed.  Advances are getting smaller (and rightfully so), with something like 85% of first-timers not even earning out their advance.  The dream of a large royalty check will remain a dream for most people, which is why we see so many "older" writers submitting manuscripts.  With their golden parachute or with the aid of a spouse who supports them, they can take the time to "write," but more than that they can afford to jump through the really ridiculous set of hoops that they have to in order to get published.  And then what happens?  The books disappear, like those of Jean Potts and Helen McCloy, never to be seen again.  This is why I have said in the past, and I will say again, that writing fiction should never be considered anything beyond a hobby--especially if you have a family to support.

I realize this sounds a bit downbeat; and honestly I curse the Internet for its ability to endlessly resell books, which have deprived publishers and authors of reasonable revenue and income.  That said, I do think we'll be around for at least a while longer.  I myself could not afford to do this job if I were a younger man attempting to pay a mortgage and feed my children.
 

Subtlety Gets Us Nowhere

With all that's being written about the Kindle, and the future of publishing, and books vs. electronic products, I thought I should go on record as saying I have no idea how it will all pan out.  I HOPE that more options means more books sold, regardless of format, which would mean more revenue for publishers and more royalties for authors.  I fear, as many do, Amazon's Microsoftian attempt at world domination in this arena, but that's another whole story not worth getting worked up about, at this time.

I use this as a starting off point to talk about a mild fetish of mine, which is that from time to time I just like to feel hardcovers published in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s.  First, I just love the paper.  Some of my first printing Charlotte Armstrongs (Lemon in the Basket, Seven Seats to the Moon, The Protege) have paper so thick that the books could survive a nuclear holocaust.  There is just something so satisfying about turning those thick pages.  Ironically, the paper, while thick, feels light, which is a wonderful paradox that makes me a little giddy.*

But what I have been noticing lately is the copy on the front covers of these hardbacks.  Nowadays, we are used to seeing author name, title, "An [insert sleuth name here] Mystery," and perhaps "Author of [fill in previous book title]."  OK, that's all well and good--no complaints.  But I see from some of my favorite books that the publishers went even further, attempting to position the book through extra verbiage on the cover.  Here are a few for instances:

Margaret Millar, VANISH IN AN INSTANT (1952):  The cover says, "Her best novel of murder and suspense since THE IRON GATES."  Now, I find this odd because Millar wrote many terrific books after THE IRON GATES, including DO EVIL IN RETURN, THE CANNIBAL HEART, and ROSE'S LAST SUMMER.  So did the casual bookstore shopper in 1952 think, "Oh, Millar's last few books stunk; I'm glad she's back in the form she was in for THE IRON GATES"?  Anyway, I've gushed about Millar here before, so won't do so again.  The only thing I can think of is that the editor really loved VANISH IN AN INSTANT and was looking for a way to convey that on the cover.

Norah Lofts, THE LITTLE WAX DOLL (1960): The cover says "A tale of modern witchcraft."  A good call on the publisher's part, because Lofts was known for her historical novels,and the publisher probably wanted to signal to readers that they were to expect something different with this title.  (This is a fabulous book, by the way.)  The history here is that it was originally published under Lofts' pseudonym Peter Curtis, then re-issued to take advantage of her fame.  That's all to the good, because this is a sadly overlooked classic.  Doubleday did something similar with Lofts' THE CLAW (1981), saying on the cover that it is "A novel about the ultimate violation" (rape).  Yes, that's truth in advertising, yet I can't say that I think it would really pull in readers and might even turn them off.

Craig Rice, THE RIGHT MURDER (1941): This one has all the basics on the cover, but the spine adds "A witty fast paced mystery," which is a good description.  I wonder if this takes into account the way books were shelved on bookstores in the 40s--or if this was more done in consideration of people who walk through the library stacks in search of something interesting to read.

Margaret Millar, THE FIEND (1964): How's this for additional cover copy: "A suspense novel in which nine adult lives are enmeshed in the horrible threat to a little girl's life."  Wow--an entire plot summary on the front cover of a hardback.  No one does this anymore, do they?

And this, ultimately, is my question:  Should we start doing this again?  People are busy, and a bookstore (especially the mega-outlets) are exercises in sensory overload.  We now have this tendency to make all of our covers look the same, with a strong central image and (when relevant) the author's name in type so huge that it overwhelms everything else.  But the modern book requires the reader to then pick it up, read the flap copy, flip through it--and in an era where people don't even want to read newspapers any more, can we really expect them to read flap copy?

So maybe we SHOULD start doing plot summaries, or positioning statements, on our hardcovers so that people can instantaneously figure out whether or not the book is for them.  That might work better than blurbs from people whom the reader may or may not have heard of; and I really have begun to think that blurbs are wasted real estate because nobody takes them seriously on a hardcover.  (A paperback's a different story.)

Just think about some of the possibilities for covers:

Janet Evanovich, Super Stupid Sixteen - "A novel in which an absolute airhead who can never learn her lesson deals with continued family shenanigans while putting the bad guys out to pasture"

P.D. James, Death of a Self-Important Poet - "Inspector Adam Dalgliesh of Scotland Yard investigates the murder of a narcissistic, sensitive poet who is increasingly getting on people's nerves"

Elizabeth George, What Fools These Mortals Be - "The two biggest snots in the world, Inspector Lynley and his wife, deal with an intricate plot while looking down their noses at that pain in the ass Barbara Havers, who acts like a complete idiot half the time"

*Interesting note about paper: Small press books, due to smaller print runs, often use better paper because we don't qualify for the cheaper paper.  So, our books are often printed on better paper than mass-market paperbacks or even other trade paperbacks.  Ironically, the fact that our paper is better causes some to look askance at us, and to toss out the accusation of "self publishing."

Interns Taking Over the Publishing Biz

Too much going on this week for a "real post" (a certain convention is in full swing), but the following is making the rounds, and rightfully so.  The person who wrote it knows the business.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2009/10/19/091019sh_shouts_weiner/

What is the solution?  Some would say, "Publish many fewer books, especially in fiction." 

What can readers do?  Ask your library to buy books, and buy only NEW books from bookstores or online booksellers.

What the Hell Does "Well Written" Mean?

So, everyone says that for a book to get agented and published, it has to be "well written."  I'm not sure that is 100% true - we can all think of people who have made the best-seller lists whose books are competently, or borderline-competently written, but not WELL written.

However, I think it's fairly safe to say that if you are an unknown (i.e., non-celebrity, non-politician, non-sportstype, non-CEO), your manuscript has to be well written.  This is one of those terms, I realize, that is bandied about without ever being quite defined.  I suppose we could say it's like pornography - we know it when we see it - but I thought I'd try to come up with a more specific definition.

So, in my opinion, well written means the following:

1.  Properly spelled, grammatically correct, with punctuation in the right place.  This is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for good writing.  I think a lot of us can put up with an occasional typo in a manuscript.  Everyone's human, and God knows that after looking at the same manuscript every day for a year, a writer can be forgiven for a misspelling or a missing comma.  I do think most of us see beyond that.  But multiple errors in the first few pages signal a generally low level of competence and cause us to tune out.  (Case in point, so that I can get down off my high horse - in Meredith Phillips' guest blog from last week, I had several typos in my introduction and conclusion that Meredith herself pointed out to me!  Slightly embarrassing, to say the least.)

2. Good variety in sentence and paragraph structure.  I sometimes see manuscripts that are 300 pages of simple declarative sentences.  That might be OK for children's or YA adult books (though I doubt it), but it won't fly in an adult novel.  Please give me some dependent clauses, some participial phrases, some gerunds or infinitive phrases.  Ask a rhetorical question or two.  Vary sentence style and paragraph length (especially paragraph length!  300 pages of 3-sentence paragraphs makes your book look like it suffers from ADD.  300 pages of multi-page paragraphs makes it look as though you've channeled James Joyce, most likely not on his best day.)

3. Simple, effective description.  I always feel that the best writers evoke a scene, a character, or a characteristic in a minimum of space.  I like a sentence or two of description--and then get on with it.  For more complicated locations or items that are intrinsic to plot, longer description is fine.  I like to see similes, etc., in descriptions--something other than telling me how big the thing is, and what color.  I also feel that, from a reader's viewpoint, a simple sketch lets readers fill in the details and makes the book more absorbing.

4. Sentences that stop you cold.  You might think that a sentence that stops me in my tracks is a bad thing--that it would kill the suspense or slow down the pace.  And yet I find that the books that I acquire always have sentences (usually on every page, or in every chapter) that make me think, "Wow, that was a great sentence."  Margaret Millar had hundreds of these.  I also recently read Sharp Objects, by Gillian Flynn, and there is a woman with the ability to write killer lines.  I think that what informs these killer lines is a sort of authorial perception or intelligence that engages my own--a way of putting an idea or description into writing that would never have occurred to me.  And I am impressed by that.

5. Good dialogue, in the appropriate places.  This is a real problem spot for first-timers.  Oh, the thousands of pages of banal dialogue I have read in my lifetime....  Dialogue should provide important information or reveal character.  It shouldn't be useless banter, a phenomenon I call "mother and daughter syndrome" (hope my wife isn't reading this).  My oldest daughter and my wife talk on the phone at least twice a day, for half an hour, about absolutely nothing.  They seem to enjoy it in life, but in a novel such conversations are useless and even annoying.  Another problem is stiff dialogue that sounds phony, or having all characters speak in the same way, which makes everyone sound the same.  The opposite problem specializes a character's way of speaking to such an extent that s/he sounds like a caricature.

6. A sense of control.  I really want my author to be in charge of the manuscript--in charge of my mind.  By giving myself up to a manuscript, I relinquish control over my time, and I want to make sure I am in the hands of someone who is using my time properly.  Writers who have a sense of control are excellent self-editors.  They can read what they've written and slash entire paragraphs or pages because they see that the cut material doesn't further the story, or develop character, or serve any other purpose.  In other words, a well-written book partakes very little in self-indulgence.  And yet some self-indulgence is to be expected and even encouraged, as these flights of fancy can really capture your imagination and make the author's unique voice stand out.  The best writers know when they can get away with it, and when they can't.

7. An awareness of the novel as story.  I really can't stress this enough.  A well-written manuscript has the reader in mind from page one.  From the outset, the reader thinks, "This is a story I want to read" (and, one hopes, "These are characters I find interesting").  A well-written book parcels out information, knowing that at its core it exists to reveal secrets little by little, rather than in huge chunks of backstory or chapter after chapter of exposition.  Someone who reveals backstory just about perfectly is Louise Ure.  Her books should be required study for how to handle backstory.

8. And, finally, a sense that the author is an interesting person whom I would like to meet.  When I read a really good manuscript, I always feel that I want to meet the author.  Now I may be somewhat disturbed by their vision or find their world view bleaker than my own, but I still want to talk to them, to see what makes them tick.  The same may be true of a cozy writer.  While I can't say that I am a huge fan of that sub-genre, I think an excellent sense of humor is a must in a cozy writer, and I imagine that having dinner with that author would be full of laughs and wry observations.  It's that sort of je ne sais quoi that builds a devoted readership.  The problem is that many of today's authors think that becoming email friends with readers is a substitute for this, when they are two very different phenomena.  I come from an era where I think writers should be slightly apart, slightly admired by their readership, rather than posting thousands of Tweets all over the Internet in a desire to expose themselves as much as possible.  Now, of course, that has been done successfully, and our publicist is always encouraging writers to do exactly these sorts of things, but I have never claimed not to be a man of contradictions.

Why We Persevere

Those who read Mysterious Matters with any regularity know that I am a tiresome and sometime long-winded advocate of small and independent presses.   Independently held publishers have long been a source of innovation and fresh new voices, as well as fabulous books that our corporate cousins find too quirky, or not commercial enough, for their tastes.

I have been hoping to have the voices of other small presses contribute to Mysterious Matters, and I feel fortunate this week to present a guest blog by Meredith Phillips, editor at Perseverance Press.  Even before I began corresponding with Meredith, I felt a debt to Perseverance for publishing the terrific works of Taffy Cannon and Janet LaPierre; now, after reading Meredith's guest blog, I feel even more that she has spoken for so many of our country's independent publishers.

So, without further ado, I am proud to present....

************************************************************************************************

Why We Persevere

by Meredith Phillips, Editor

Perseverance Press/John Daniel & Co.

 

 

In these days of shrinking readership, book sales, and review space; electronic dominance; consolidation of large publishers; and general economic instability,  why does a tiny company of five people continue to publish “mysteries for the new Golden Age,” as the Perseverance Press slogan defines our mission? Especially when no one is making very much money from this quixotic venture?

 

The answer lies in our love of the traditional mystery and our desire to help keep it alive. Speaking for myself, there is also a component of personal fulfillment: editing is one of my favorite activities and having a red pencil in my hand makes me feel more alive and more like myself. (Okay, I know I’m weird.) I think my publishing partners have similar motivations of self-actualization. So the ultimate answer is, it’s what we do.

 

My old friends John and Susan Daniel have a long background of bookselling, writing, editing, marketing, and publishing for other companies as well as under their own name. I had a one-person mystery publishing company throughout the 1980s, then took a hiatus to freelance edit during the ‘90s. In 1999 we joined forces to publish mysteries by established midlist authors who had been dropped by their large New York companies. Specifically, I wanted to resuscitate beloved characters and settings, which I felt had been murdered by cruel big-publishing bottom-liners (cue Jaws music). It’s criminal, if you ask me. I hated the idea of never again mentally inhabiting Janet LaPierre’s coastal California Port Silva, or Shelley Singer’s Bay Area environs. Since I knew Janet and Shelley from local MWA and Sisters in Crime activities, they were the first authors I called.

 

We were greatly encouraged in 2000 when the third and fourth mysteries we published, Guns and Roses by Taffy Cannon and The Kidnapping of Rosie Dawn by EricWright, won six award nominations between them (for the Agatha and Macavity, and the Edgar, Ellis, Anthony, and Barry), the latter a winner. A year later, Keepers by Janet LaPierre was nominated for the Shamus. But there were no more nominations for the next seven years, though we published many books we’re proud of, most of them still in print. Sales have ranged from abysmal in a couple of cases to well beyond our expectations in others, with many going into multiple printings.

 

We’ve published two writers’ handbooks, by Carolyn Wheat and Kathy Lynn Emerson [at right]. Of course they’ve sold much better than the 40-plus mystery fiction books we’ve put out to date (averaging four a year), since nonfiction always sells more. How to Write Killer Historical Mysteries by Emerson has won an Agatha this year, and is nominated for the Anthony and Macavity to be given at Bouchercon in October.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another award that a Perseverance book won this year is the WILLA Award (named for Willa Cather) from Women Writing the West for Buffalo Bill’s Defunct by Sheila Simonson. This is an example of a new series started by an established author, in which we also specialize. The next book in Simonson’s Latouche County series is out this fall, An Old Chaos [at left]. She’s an example of a writer who had to drop out for ten years, to care for elderly parents, after a successful five-book series for St. Martins in the ‘90s. Ten years is a lifetime in publishing, and the challenge is to remind older readers of her previous books while trying to interest a new generation of mystery consumers.

 

 

 

 

Another writer with a ten-year hiatus is Edgar-winner Wendy Hornsby, who has now added to her prize-winning series about filmmaker Maggie MacGowen with this fall’s In the Guise of Mercy [at right]. Wendy has put together a West Coast book tour to make contact with her old and new fans. This book is more hardboiled than our usual fare, but written with such compassion that any reader will warm to the admittedly noir-ish  material.

 

I think there’s a misconception out there that PP/JD publishes only cozies. In the early years of this decade we did detour into cozies, since that’s what we were mostly offered; one or two even had recipes (gasp!). Although this sort of book certainly has its strong points, it’s not my personal favorite. Ever since I’ve been reading mysteries I’ve liked best the kind of book that’s not too cozy and not too violent. It’s hard to define this middle ground, but the majority of mysteries used to occupy it. However, there seems an increasing push toward both ends of the spectrum, the cozy and the hardboiled, and a thinning out of the middle. Many big-name authors still occupy it (Grafton, Muller, Brett, Paretsky, Lovesey, L. King, Crombie, Barnard, Penny, Pronzini, E. George, Elkins, Spencer-Fleming, Francis, et al.) but the proliferation seems to be in craft/job cozies at one end and explicit, often hyper-violent thrills at the other. Recently, we’ve been publishing more to the middle, even across it. Another increasing subgenre for us is historical mystery; in my opinion this category is a refuge for readers like me who prefer traditionals.

 

An old joke goes: The way to make a small fortune in publishing is to start with a large fortune. We do pay advances to our authors, and my partners and I generally end up with modest profits. The real problem with our bottom line is the number of middlemen who take bites out along the way. By the time a book is in the reader’s hands, it’s gone through several layers of wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. (The way books are shipped back and forth across the country, when you include returns, the people mainly making money from books are UPS, FedEx, and Yellow Freight—in my opinion.) We do need a large distributor for all kinds of reasons, and they take away many headaches in marketing (along with adding others). They represent us to the large wholesalers that bookstores prefer to order through, to bookstores themselves, and even to Amazon.com.

 

The Internet has been both friend and foe. Competition from online booksellers (along with chains) has probably closed many indie mystery bookstores and mom-and-pop businesses. (We love these stores, which have always given us great support, and couldn’t manage without them.) On the other hand, the online merchandisers have made it possible for any buyer to go online and obtain any book with only a few clicks. Furthermore, anyone can go to www.danielpublishing.com/perseverance and view our forthcoming, current, and backlist books, saving us from the ongoing drudgery of print catalogues. (And customers can order directly from us with a discount.) Of course, Amazon’s Kindle and others have made a whole new kind of reading possible. With only a few sales so far through that medium, we’ll have to wait and see how we’re affected by electronic reading of books.

 

One drawback to the latter is the loss of our talented designer/typesetter’s attractive and meticulously crafted design. The book is just “dumped,” so to speak, into the electronic version. We’ve always taken pride in Eric Larson’s distinctive look for each book, but do readers ever notice? Perhaps subconsciously, I like to think.

 

Eric is still in Santa Barbara, where everyone else but me was living when we formed our partnership. John and Susan Daniel have moved to Humboldt County in Northern California, and Susan’s marketing/web assistant to San Francisco. I am in Palo Alto, and our distributor, SCB, is in LA. We cover the state, so to speak, and somehow make it work through daily communication by phone, fax, and of course e-mail—without which we couldn’t keep the company going no matter how hard we persevered!

 

Note: You can reach Meredith Phillips at DandD AT danielpublishing DOT com. 

 

Publicity 302

I decided not to call this posting "Publicity 101," because there are already thousands of blogs offering publicity (sometimes called "marketing") tips for writers.  Why repeat all of that here?  Besides, to be 100% truthful, if I knew all the secret ingredients for a successful publicity campaign, I would mix them up in a heady witches' brew and magically turn all our books into best-sellers. 

What I would rather do is offer some thoughts and perspectives on publicity, some random quasi-truisms about this terrible business of marketing.  And for me, it really is THE most challenging part of the industry.  I have edited and published some wonderful books that just didn't hit, for no particular reason that anyone can figure out.  At the other end of the spectrum, I know of some writers who are tireless in their efforts to promote themselves and their work - who still do not sell the "required" number of copies and are dropped by their publishers.  There must be a terrible frustration, for writers, knowing that their books review well - they do everything they possibly can to get the word out - and they still don't sell enough books to earn out their advance.  I share their pain, while suffering the additional pain of knowing that we, the publisher, have lost a lot more money on that book than the author has.  (Very few of us ask for advances back, which means if you don't earn out, we have paid you more than you would have earned in royalties, which comes right off our bottom line.)

So, yes, it's a tough game.  And here are some things to think about.

1. Success comes by selling one book at a time.  I think a lot of writers have fantasies of their books stacked near the front door of Barnes & Noble, with people entering by the hundreds, grabbing their book, and rushing to the checkout counter.  It really doesn't work that way.  Most of the retail outlets will order very small amounts of a single book--they don't keep endless stock of every book in the back room.  When they sell their one or two copies, they order more.  I always tell my authors that every book sold is a victory for them--it means that a reader has decided to spend his/her hard-earned dollars on a new writer, on something different, rather than going for the tried and true.  And with each book sold comes the possibility of it falling into the hands of a powerful media person who can push it in the right channels.

2. Mainstream success comes from appealing to readers beyond mystery lovers.   A lot of really fine writers follow the conventions of the traditional mystery, and the best of them can achieve moderate success but not blockbuster status.  Once established in librarians' minds, we can expect a decent level of library sales, often enough to keep publishing new books by that writer.  However, if you want a blockbuster, you need to have an audience that goes beyond Dorothy-L or 4MA.  You have to write books that the "general public" wants to read -- something fast, escapist, and dare I say "generic"?  (Think about Patterson -- the books are traditional serial-killer thrillers.)  This is one of the reasons I think "hobby mysteries" got so big a while ago--everyone saw them as an opportunity to cross over into a wider audience.

3. Best-sellers usually have an element of wish fulfillment to them.  Again, looking at the best-seller list, I see a host of characters who are aspirational for readers.  In other words, I think the writers who hit it big succeed in creating characters who make the average reader think, "I wish I was that person."  What woman wouldn't want to be a Mary Higgins Clark heroine--smart, classy, nice, tasteful, well-bred?  And for those of you who want to be tougher, more street-wise women, you can always be Eve Dallas (with her passionate lover) or V.I. Warshawski.  If you have a crazy family and have a tendency to get yourself into ridiculous scrapes, you see yourself in Stephanie Plum.  My point is that these writers create characters who are larger than themselves, who are sort of Jungian archetypes that offer widespread appeal. 

4. Shoving your books at people doesn't make people buy them or read them.  I think we have all been to conferences where writers are actively selling their books, perhaps even trying to "guilt" us into buying them or shoving them into our hands.  Sorry, it doesn't work.  That sort of behavior usually builds resentment, and I don't know of any writers who's made it big by behaving that way.  You are much better off doing talks (in which you talk about things OTHER THAN your book) and getting coverage that way.  Alumni magazines are a good source for interviews, as can be local papers (though more and more seem to want a quid pro quo in terms of advertising from the publisher).  Try, try, try to the best of your ability to get as much media coverage as you can, but know that it will be a tough road.  As our publicist says, "No one wants you until you're famous; and then they quickly forget how they spent years ignoring your pleas." 

5. Look for opportunities for bulk sales.  Although success comes one book at a time, there is nothing like selling a couple of hundred copies at a clip.  One way to do so is to organize with other local writers and offer readings/workshops at community colleges, universities (harder to get into), or high schools.  Especially in affluent communities, such evenings tend to be well-attended by both students and parents, and your books can fly off the table.  The best advice I can give about any workshop you might do is this:  DO NOT MAKE IT ABOUT YOU.  You have to offer your audience something interesting, funny, or insightful, not a litany of the reasons why your book is so great and why they should buy it.  Trust me, the members of your audience have made up their minds within 30 seconds of hearing about your book whether or not it is the type of book they'd like to read.  All the convincing in the world isn't going to change their minds.

A Good Mystery Is Not a Donut

OK, I admit that I chose that title purely for effect.  I was going to call this posting "Don't Forget the Middle," but if I saw that in my IN box, I'd delete it without even looking at it.  I mean, how boring can you get?

So here's my (strained) metaphor. The essence of a donut is the hole in the middle...it cannot exist without that void at the center.  The same is not true of a good mystery novel.  I am inspired to write this because I have seen a number of manuscripts (and read a number of books) that start off with a bang.  The books have then taken one of two paths: a steady downhill slant toward a boring ending, or a middle third in which nothing much happens, followed by a climax that seems to come out of nowhere, where all Truth is revealed (and not necessarily by detection).  Both undesirable scenarios share a problem: a boring, uneventful, middle 100 pages of the book.

I think this is really a must to avoid.  Agents of course put a lot of stock in your opening chapters, as do editors.  But we need to see the story carried through with panache, and that means pacing your plot and delivering the goods consistently, not just at the beginning and the end.

From the writer's end, the challenge is of course how to keep things moving during the course of the "investigation," which usually finds our sleuth driving hither and thither, meeting a lot of people and asking a lot of questions.  That scenario does get sort of tiresome when there's no variety or nothing to shake it up.  Herewith some suggestions for not losing your reader in the middle:

1. Kill someone.  The oldest trick in the book, and 99 times out of 100, it works.  I mean, it shouldn't, because it's probably the most hackneyed and overused plot device of all time (serial killer books--I'm talking to you), but it does snap the reader back into attention, especially if it reveals a tiny bit more about the killer and/or gives the reader some additional clues or information.  An endless series of corspes, however, can get boring.

2. Kidnap someone.  This is another useful technique; take a main character off the page and let us wonder what's become of him or her.  Is s/he "missing" on purpose?  What could s/he be doing, and why is s/he out of touch?  Frankly, with all the kidnappings in the news, I'm surprised this isn't used more often. 

3. Change narrator. More and more writers are using multiple narrators, a technique that I quite enjoy.  You can take the story to a certain point, end it with a surprising revelation, then shift to a new narrator, who can continue the story and provide more surprises.  I like multiple narrators because I think they offer the opportunity for more interesting character studies.

4. Change point of view.   Some writers (Patterson comes to mind) will alternate between first-person and third-person narrative.  Detective tells the story as "I," crazed psychopath is followed in third-person limited.  (Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen the opposite done, with Killer doing 1st person and sleuth in third.) In the older days, I think we publishers were a bit crazed ourselves in thinking we had to distinguish different points of view typographically, perhaps putting one in roman face, the other in italic, but now everything just goes roman, for the most point, and we let the reader figure it out.  (Though, to be honest, we usually do use a new chapter to signal a change in POV.) And I don't have a problem with that--these are mysteries, after all, and the reader should have to work a little bit.

5. Provide a false ending, and take off in a new direction.  I love stories where the investigator thinks all has been solved and wrapped up in a neat little ball by page 150.  Killer is identified, brought to justice (for example)...and then we find out--We have the wrong man.  Or a good character (i.e., one we believed to be good) is exposed as quite bad--and we go on from there to the true ending.

6. Put the protag in some jeopardy.  Another device that's old as the hills, but it works and is one of the best suspense techniques.  Have the protag followed, shot at, his car wired with a bomb, brakes tampered with, etc.  Try not to rely too much on coincidence, or the sleuth just happen to having three highly uncommon items in her purse that will be enough to defuse a bomb.  There's an old term, fem jep, that refers to the old Gothics where women got placed in jeopardy and were rescued by a man, or (later on) managed to save themselves.  The term is often used pejoratively in our feminist era, but I would argue that the early books were able to muster up so much suspense precisely because they put an innocent or naive type into a situation way out of their control.  My point is that putting your protag, whether male or female, into jeopardy mid-way through the book is a completely valid thing to do and even makes your book more readable and sellable.

Here's to full middles, and the end of donut manuscripts!