THE NEXT BIG THING--blog chain!

The Next Big Thing is a blog chain in which participating authors answer ten questions about their current work in progress and their upcoming publications.

One of my new authorial "finds" and friends is author Susan Furlong Bolliger, who tagged me for this ongoing blog chain. You can read her cozy mystery, MURDER FOR BID, soon on the Kindle!

Susan writes from the Midwest where she lives with her husband and four children. Her articles and stories have appeared in national magazines such as Country magazine and Woman's World. Be sure to visit her website, where you'll find out much more about her work, at www.sfurlongbolliger.com or read her occasional blogs at http://booksgoneviral.blogspot.com/.

Thank you, Susan, for including me in your lineup of tagged authors. I’m always quite loquacious anytime I can get someone buttonholed and make them listen to me blather about my writing methods and projects. Bwaa-ha-ha!

Because it's too creepy for me to interview MYSELF yet again, let's pretend that Grover (yes, from the Muppets--what, ya got something against Muppets?) is asking the questions.

What is the title of your work?

NICE WORK (A Jacquidon Carroll Mystery)

Where did the idea for the book come from?

Over the past couple of years, just about EVERYONE has been laid off or RIFfed (Reduction in Force) out of a job at least once. The experience is depressing and humiliating even if you didn't particularly like the job, and even if you weren't at fault and you were not let go for cause. Anger at those who so callously replaced or deleted you is inevitable. After my worst boss got rid of me, I thought, "Why not give my mystery heroine this experience?" So many readers have written to me crying after reading the opening scene of NICE WORK by Denise Weeks, telling me that I got it spot-on. They often miss all the clues I'm planting and all the groundwork that's being laid in that scene because of the emotional impact. I think that's good, though, because it makes it tougher for them to solve the mystery (GRIN), but also because one of the first jobs of a novelist is to arouse passions and evoke emotional responses in their readers.

My heroine, Jacquidon Carroll, and her intrepid sister Chantal must then clear Jacquidon of a possible accusation of murder . . . because the day after she exited the company "throwing a hissy fit" and making a scene, her ex-boss dies under suspicious circumstances. They uncover an elaborate web of deception involving a BDSM club and community that's not quite fair with all of its members. It's all played for laughs, not for lust, when the innocent (somewhat, anyway) sisters blunder into a couple of real live private sex clubs in order to track down some suspects. The book is a traditional/cozy with an edge--and with lots of Sister Sleuths banter. Remember the old "Snoop Sisters" television series starring Mildred Natwick and Ruth Gordon? (No, you're not old enough--but it was part of the same NBC Mystery Movies series as "Columbo," "McMillan and Wife," and "Banacek." Great classic stuff.) It was a real hoot. Well, this is the same sort of deal, only with twentyish sisters in the modern (and even more confusing) world. It's a romp and a trip!

What genre does your book fall under?

NICE WORK is a traditional (cozy) mystery with an edge.

I couldn't call it a straight "cozy" because of the BDSM substory and the sex club visits, and there's a somewhat larger cast of strangers involved than with the Agatha Christie-type "village" mysteries. We're in big D and its suburbs, not a refined English cottage. But the book has no gore or blood or icky stuff and is safe for those who will not read horrific things or books that snuff out innocent animals or children. No nightmares here!

Which actors would you choose to play your characters in a movie rendition?

Jacquidon and Chantal have to be played by actresses with sisterly chemistry. I guess you don't want me to reach into the past and cast geniuses like Claudette Colbert and Audrey Hepburn, so let's see. Jennifer Aniston for Jacquidon. Reese Witherspoon for Chantal! Aniston was wonderful in the little-known THE GOOD GIRL (a drama) and of course in OFFICE SPACE. Witherspoon has done so many comedies, including the LEGALLY BLONDE stuff. They would really make the film. But of course these are headliner stars, and it could be that I'll have to settle for others.

For Jacquidon, our beloved heroine . . . how about Kaley Cuoco from the Big Bang Theory? Or even the actress who plays Amy Farrah Fowler as Jacquidon and Kaley Cuoco as Chantal. I know they could do drama as well as comedy.

The romantic interest, Fred Gordon, would have to be someone I have a crush on. David Spade could be great in the role, but maybe moviegoers look for a tall hottie when it comes to the romantic lead, so perhaps if Jim Parsons from the Big Bang Theory can play it straight, that's the guy to cast. We could go with Ray Romano, in a pinch--or maybe even Johnny Galecki. Am I glomming too hard on the BIG BANG THEORY? (Bazinga!)

I've always had a special place in my heart for Nick Bakay, the actor who had a bit part in Craig T. Nelson's series "Coach" and who voiced Salem the cat/witch in "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch." I think it would be a real hoot to put him in as Detective Mueller, my heroine's nemesis.

What is the one-sentence synopsis of your book?

After being accused of the murder of her ex-boss, Jacquidon Carroll must navigate a maze of BDSM clubs and online sites frequented (and abused) by the late supervisor as she searches for the real killer.

Will your book be self-published or represented by an agency?

My agent and I parted company amicably earlier this year, when I decided to go with small/indie presses instead of beating my head against the wall of traditional New York publishing. However, small presses are far from self-publishing. Self-publishing has exploded recently, which has good points and bad points, but has certainly glutted the market with new books to choose from.

I am now under contract with three small presses. Oak Tree Press has more than 200 stellar novelists, many of them writing mystery and romance and producing more than one book a year. Muse Harbor Press is starting up with some of the most edgy young adult fiction around. Pandora Press has branched out from its origins as an occult/New Age house and is now carrying chick lit and romantic suspense as well as traditional mystery and suspense titles. Publishing has completely changed over the past year or two, and nothing's guaranteed today, what with everything in such turmoil. Readers now must be their own gatekeepers, as all those "free" e-books may not be of the highest quality, and it's inevitable that readers will get burned while picking out titles by authors new to them--as well as running across wonderful books that wouldn't have been found by the traditional presses, books readers adore. This is a very exciting time for authors and readers, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it all shakes out.

How long did it take to write the first draft of your manuscript?

NICE WORK took over a year to finish in draft form. That was almost ten years ago. I began by running it through a workshop and having critique partners give me feedback. It then underwent a serious revision and was vetted by my best beta readers. I entered it in the St. Martin's/Malice Domestic contest, where it finaled among the top five entries, but was not chosen as a winner. I let it percolate for a year while I worked actively on the Ariadne French mysteries (beginning with a book that will now be the second in that series, not yet out). Then I went through again to fix details that were outdated (computer-related stuff that had changed, cell phone technology that had improved) and submitted it again to the St. Martin's contest. I got a very nice letter from my judge in the initial round, and the book went to the final round again, but still didn't light their fires. I put the book aside for a while again. Last year I heard about the Oak Tree Press Dark Oak Mystery Contest and entered. The book won! Now the series is in print, and a sequel is in progress. So don't give up.

What other books would you compare this story to within your genre?

It's a longer book like those by Diane Mott Davidson, and is a little like her books in that the characters' lives play an important role. It has a spirit of whimsy like the Joan Hess "Claire Malloy" series. It's like the old Anne George "Southern Sisters" mysteries, and I hope it fills the void left by the ending of her series.

Who or what inspired you to write this book?

The idea that in fiction, I could make justice triumph and love conquer all. I like the way that a traditional mystery is actually a morality play, one in which evil deeds and intent get exposed and restitution is made. I also thought that the world needed the banter of the sister sleuths again, and a series that didn't rely on gross yucky scenes to titillate the groundlings, but on an intellectual puzzle and funny romp.

What else about your book might pique the reader’s interest?

Many people know nothing about the BDSM lifestyle. I teetered on a tightrope as far as balancing the "funny" stuff that I needed to come out of this one and the task of NOT mocking or jeering at the alternative lifestyle, which is all that BDSM is. One of my sleuths keeps reminding people that it's not evil, not a perversion, and so forth--it's just a preference or choice. At the same time, someone inside the lifestyle DOES betray the trust of others in this story, and that can happen in ANY situation where relationships are built on trust. So it's also a cautionary tale about looking before you leap and about protecting yourself without hurting others.

I hope that my portrayal of Jacquidon as a newly diagnosed diabetic will resonate with the many readers who have diabetes. She goes through a period of adjustment (that's a great movie, BTW--"Period of Adjustment") and even experiences some lapses due to her "cheating on eating," both purposely and inadvertently. One plot point teeters around the fulcrum of her having really poor judgment one evening and making a few phone calls that the police later claim point towards her guilt. It makes just one more hassle in her already complicated life, and it's something that many diabetics will relate to.

OH, and she's unemployed . . . and goes to employment counseling, where the additional stress of budding romance threatens her serenity. Everyone likes a nice romantic subplot, and many people will recognize the stages of looking for another job (and accepting that the old one is gone.)

Fin!

I’ve invited several talented writers to participate in The Next Big Thing blog chain. Watch for their posts next week!

James R. Callan is the author of several non-fiction books and four mysteries, including two released in 2012: Cleansed by Fire and Murder a Cappella. Long the leader of the Northeast Texas Writers Group (and their neat-o conference in the Piney Woods of Texas), Jim writes the Sweet Adelines mystery series as well as the Father Frank mysteries. Visit his blog at http://www.jamesrcallan.com/blog, where he posts every Friday (usually with an interview of another published author.) He is a fellow Oak Tree Press mystery authog. Check out www.jamesrcallan.com as well as www.murderacappella.com and www.cleansedbyfire.com (the latter two being sites devoted to each of his mystery series.)

Lesley Diehl is another Oak Tree Press author who also writes for MainlyMurder press and UntreedReads.com. Lesley retired from her life as a professor of psychology and reclaimed her country roots by moving to a small cottage in the Butternut River Valley in upstate New York. In the winter she migrates to old Florida—cowboys, scrub palmettoo, and open fields of grazing cattle, a place where spurs still jingle in the post office, and gators make golf a contact sport. Back north, the shy ghost inhabiting the cottage serves as her literary muse. When not writing, she gardens, cooks and renovates the 1874 cottage with the help of her husband, two cats, and, of course, Fred the ghost, who gives artistic direction to their work. She is author of several short stories and several mystery series: the microbrewing mystery series set in the Butternut Valley (A Deadly Draught and Poisoned Pairings) and a rural Florida series, Dumpster Dying and Grilled, Killed and Chilled (to be released late in 2012). She recently signed a three-book deal with Camel Press for The Consignment Shop Murders including A Secondhand Murder. For something more heavenly, try her mystery Angel Sleuth. Several of her short stories have been published by Untreedreads including one (Murder with All the Trimmings) in the original Thanksgiving anthology The Killer Wore Cranberry and another (Mashed in the Potatoes) in the second anthology The Killer Wore Cranberry: A Second Helping. She invites readers to visit her on her website at www.lesleydiehl.com and her blog at http://anotherdraught.blogspot.com.

Dennis Havens is not only a gifted writer, but one of my oldest (that means "longest-kept," not "older than dirt," even though he's also that!) and dearest friends. His many mystery/thriller novels include COLOR RADIO, FLASH FLOOD WARNING, and REGARDS, B. T.. Most of his books are currently available from XLibris Press. His current project is GINGERS, an exploration of what would happen if someone started stalking and killing all the redheads and strawberry blondes. He guest-blogs here next week!

Lisa Peppan is another of my long-time writing buddies who posts from the great wilderness of Canada. Her novel SOME WHEN OVER THE RAIN CLOUDS is now out from Amazon, and is well worth your attention if you have any affinity for taxi drivers (and their daily woes), time travel, or fantasy/science fiction. You'll encounter new ideas in her work, I guarantee. She will also be guest-blogging here as her entry in the NEXT BIG THING blog circle!

NICE WORK for the Kindle

Live long and prosper!

Plot Your Mystery--Part II

Before we begin, I need to announce that my contest-winning traditional mystery NICE WORK is now out for the Kindle, at last!

NICE WORK by Denise Weeks--Oak Tree Press Kindle edition, $3.99
http://www.amazon.com/Nice-Work-ebook/dp/B00AB68AGO/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1353488196&sr=1-3

Do you have a Kindle or Kindle reader? Isn't it HUNGRY?

Frankly, I NEED people to download this Kindle version, or at least try the sample (WHICH IS FREE) to show that this series has an audience (and I believe it does). At only $3, the book costs less than many fast-food burgers.

Now everyone who said they were waiting for the Kindle edition can get it for post-Turkey Feast reading!! While the others are watching the football festival, you can be glancing down at a FUN humorous mystery with touches of BDSM (but played for fun, not for lust).

ANYWAY! Let's chat a bit more about plotting a mystery versus plotting a romance or other non-mystery.

The mystery must play a game with the reader. The game's afoot!

Okay, all fiction plays a game, especially fantasy. Fantasy invites the reader in to play a game of willing, suspended disbelief and have a sense of wonder invoked. In fantasy, the reader has to go along, or she can't enjoy reading the work.

But in a mystery, there's a crime to be solved, and it has to be solved by your amateur sleuth by circumventing the usual ways and outwitting the baddies and probably the police . . . *and* the whole time you need to let the reader have a fair chance of guessing, while making it fun to guess. And you have to play the game such that at the end, the reader says, "Oh! I would've never guessed. But now that you've told me, I see it. How could I have missed that?" You have to deliberately put in clues and red herrings that lead to plausible alternative theories.

This means that, whereas the scenes for Dulcinea and my other books just came to me "because that's what happened next" or "that's what was needed and what had to happen because of the characters," I had to actually think of places my sleuth could go and reasons she could give for being there, places she could get information about this crime. And since she didn't do the deed, she had to guess who to go to and what questions to ask.

It was very much a case of having the book planned out, and then saying, "Well, I have to have a scene of finding out this clue without making that the obvious purpose of the scene . . . we must distract them by dangling this false bait in front of them, with just enough finesse that they *think* they're being clever because they believe THAT is what I'm hiding, when it really isn't!"

I was also constrained by being in the real world rather than in my alternate-universe fantasy, and thus I had to let the police react the way they really plausibly would (meaning research--I talked to two Richardson detectives and one lady who investigates for the DA's office in Collin County and one social worker who knew about what happens to children who go into protective custody.) I had to figure out how much of this to put into the book without making the reader bored (but some had to go in to explain why she had to do things a certain way.)

In fact, in the final revision for MARFA LIGHTS I realized I had never had Ariadne (my sleuth) meet the victim's husband's parents, although they could be a great vehicle for giving some information that I hadn't figured out how to work in yet. I knew this revelation had to come before a certain event and after she'd been to the police to turn in what she'd found (and gotten into trouble, because they thought it incriminated her). Whew!

I also had to be careful how much detail I gave about locations. When Ari arrives at various places, there are clues to be seen in the environment, and I had to give those clues a place in the text . . . without making them the ONLY detail given. And without overdescribing. Whew, twice!

It was so much easier just to know what was happening to Dulcie, or to my other heroine Starla the waitress/singer, or to my other-other heroine Paige the jingle writer. Because what happened to them was organic, coming out of their actions in the face of circumstances, and because of what others did (according to their natures) and what they prompted as dilemmas or responses for Starla or Dulcie.

For example, when Dulcinea's father throws the jealous hissyfit over Raz stealing his customers (in his own shop--this is a quirk of Da, because he oughtn't to have been jealous of the younger man he had hired, but oh well, that's Da for you), she has to mediate without alienating Raz and while still making Da happy (she has to live with the man, after all, and obey, as long as she's under his roof, in that culture) and not hurting his ego too much. And she has to smooth it over with the customer, who gets upset over their scenemaking. This led to the scene of Dulcie alone with Raz in which he confides in her his doubts about their safety and why he is doing what he does . . . and this leads to her getting caught talking to Raz about "secrets," which makes her father feel they're plotting against him and trying to run the shop THEIR way . . . anyhow, then he accuses Raz of stealing something from him and Raz finds it by magic, and then he says, "But you were the one who took it, so of course you found it, that proves nothing," and then Raz quits his job and leaves, and Dulcie is heartbroken (being in love with Raz), and then the next morning when Da misses his mage's sack, they assume Raz took it, and that leads to Dulcinea sneaking away to try to catch Raz on the road before he gets far away so she can quietly give it back . . . and then she gets into trouble by meeting that false monk on the road, and she's too young/immature to curb her mouth and then he casts that spell to make her tell her intended mission, and. . . .

Um, ahem. *At any rate*, that story was organic and grew out of its seeds and its characters and their secrets and aims. My protagonist was MAKING it all happen, in a way, so it revolved around her naturally. With the mystery, this stuff happened to someone my protagonist sort of knew, and she got herself involved as a suspect, so she had to investigate in a systematic way as self-defense, but she wasn't really INTEGRAL to it, other than being the one who comes up with the solution and has to (on her own) confront the criminal and rescue herself. (Whew, yet again.) That seemed far tougher to me, because she had to insert herself into other's lives and ask questions, and I had to make up three ways this could have happened and "believe" them myself in order to make that mystery reader see them, and then I had to let my heroine rule out the other two and get in trouble proving the third. It was way, way tougher, and I always felt that most scenes could be replaced with similar ones --- as if there were many ways through that puzzle maze. Whereas with Dulcinea, what happened had to happen that way. It couldn't have happened otherwise to tell that story. I mean . . . what do I mean?

Does this make any sense?

My stories are typically organic and come out of the character. The character has a situation, and one day something changes that really zaps her, and events start rolling out of control, and she has to answer the call to adventure by coping with it and doing what she can. The mystery was a puzzle. Things did start happening when my sleuth poked and probed, but she was never the integral center of events. The victim and criminal were, and had been in a pre-story drama of their own leading up to the crime. So the story of solving the murder was much more a story *about* a story that happened in the past, one she had to uncover bit by bit. While Dulcie and Star and Paige were telling their OWN stories about and by themselves, pretty much as they were happening.

This doesn't negate what I said about readers needing to like and be invested in the success of your sleuth/detective. It's just that in most mysteries, the sleuth is not the center of the puzzle, but the catalyst that finally blows the ruse apart and lets us click the last puzzle piece into place instead of forcing it in where it doesn't belong (the way SOME PEOPLE used to do with all my jigsaw puzzles as a kid, *grrr*.)

My perception of the process may have to do with my method of "beginning at the beginning, or very close to it" (thank goodness for that), but then getting the ending, and then having to get there from here. With me, and thank goodness I have *this * much structure to my chaos, when a novel comes to me, I usually "get" the first scene, the opening scene, and the premise right away, and as I scribble or type this out, the ultimate ending scene comes to me and the "theme" of the novel with it. Weird, but I kid you not. (It sure beats writing five chapters and then realizing the story starts *there*.)

Then I get about ten pages or so into that opening and I say, "What the heck? How do we get there from here?" (I may find that the only part I keep of this original opening is that first sentence which sparked it all, or I may delete that and begin with the third paragraph, or I may just rearrange it all in the proper order--but I always do use this opening in some way, even if I delete the next ten pages and connect it with chapter three.)

And then I start to freewrite some ideas I have about the middle of the book. I may get an inkling about a scene here or there that will be a major turning point (usually plot point 1, plot point 2, a vague idea about the crisis and black moment and resolution, some of the other scenes that are more colorful.) Then I have to go back and fill it all in. Usually, there's a character driving all this. Either my main character is having an adventurous conflict with some colorful type, or she's about to get head-to-head in anger with another one . . . you know. And that colorful character begins to act or talk, and we suddenly get the next event that's tied into the story or subplot. Then we have to make this all a novel that flows. Work, work, work, that's all we ever do around this slave camp!

But you can't really do that as much with a mystery. Well, you CAN, but you also have to stop and PLAN the CRIME and how it happened, and then you need to justify why and how your sleuth stumbles across it, and you have to make her have a stake in solving it (why would she, unless she's the accused, or the victim was her best friend, or her friend is accused and she's convinced he's innocent, or whatever?). You have to think up a few clues and a few false clues. And you have to insert her somehow into the world of the crime so that she can get info. It's so different from having events that just grow out of previous events and mushroom into a huge worldchange and character change for your hero or heroine.

OR you could just start typing something that interests you and keep going until you hit THE END. It works for some people.

Or so I am told.

Plot Your Mystery In A Day--Part I

You've written books. That's not the problem. The difficulty you're having is that a MYSTERY has to be done partly with the left brain, the logical/spreadsheet side, while a regular book can come mostly from the right side, with prodding from the Girls in the Basement and the Muses you are channeling.

So now you're going to try a mystery. And this means you'll have to sit down early and do a little outlining. Ouch! Let's just call it "plotting." That's what our perp has been doing, after all. We'll assume you have been living with your sleuth and his/her milieu for some time now, and you've got a reason for him/her to be involved in solving this crime.

You've decided on your crime/victim (and method: hitting, strangling, etc.) and perp and at least two other people who will be suspects. But your READER can't figure this out until your sleuth does!

I always sit down and figure out three ways that the crime COULD have plausibly been committed, or hidden, or whatever. Then my sleuth has three theories she can hit upon, and the third of them can be "pretty close." I never ever give her the EXACT crime, because then what would Our Villain have to spill at the end where she confronts her/him and gets the full story? (grin)

The intrepid mystery writer now needs to make up real and false clues that will point to the villain AND ALSO point to the other suspects to keep the reader guessing. Don't be afraid to make these off-the-wall; when you're actually writing the scenes, you can always change them or tone them down.

Once you have a list of clues and red herrings (or fake clues), you will need a timeline for the book, showing the order in which the clues will appear. ALL the major clues pointing to the real perp (motive, means, opportunity) MUST be planted in the first third of the book. (I am NOT making this up.) This is part of the "fair play" sort of mystery so that your reader has a chance to figure out whodunit. Clues must be planted in such a way that they're hidden or their meaning isn't known till the end of the book.

So how in the world will you keep readers from seeing those clues and flinging the book against the wall? You'll need to use subterfuge and sneakiness. Fortunately, these are major traits of most writers.

Our first trick is to HIDE THEM IN PLAIN SIGHT. Remember Poe's purloined letter. They have to be sitting there on the mantel, but seem part of the collection of Star Trek toys that is arrayed around them. If you're going to skewer the victim by having shishkabob speared through with (deadly) oleander branches, have him wander through someone's water-feature-filled back yard or go to a picnic--and notice the flowering oleander all around. It's right there in plain sight.

Another trick is to hide the clue in an inventory, litany, or other pile of ordinary items. Let's say that a scratched Swiss army knife is a major clue. Then when the sleuth goes through someone's pockets--all right, you don't want people to hate the sleuth for snooping, so make it that she is leaving an office party and goes into the bedroom where everyone's coats are piled on a bed and grabs up her purse and her windbreaker/raincoat, only it ISN'T hers, and she does notice that it's getting a little tight and thinks that's because she gorged on those little dates filled with cream cheese and crackers with Brie and jam . . . but when she gets home and shoves her hand into that pocket to get her keys, or whatever, she finds that they are not there BECAUSE it's actually someone else's coat. Nothing's in the pocket but a pocket knife and some stale sticks of gum. She has to get into her house, so she digs out the hidden key in the garden or calls someone--the plot drives us forward. And the coat and knife are forgotten until you want her to remember them.

I've been dinged in the past for having a character take inventory of a purse, knapsack, or other container, but it is a great boon to a writer. You can show character by what is being carried. You can show what is important in the story by what's found. And you can hide something the character will need later, such as a flashlight or bus token or diary! But I digress.

When you can't hide a clue, just show it with flair RIGHT BEFORE some BIG THING happens. IMMEDIATELY grab the reader's attention and focus it on something big that seems really important at the time. For example, your hero overhears the perp's phone conversation and hears a big clue. He is shocked, but before he has time to think overmuch about it and fit it into the puzzle, a siren goes off outside or a deafening crash is heard upstairs. The old masters loved to use a SCREEEEEAM or the dousing of the house lights. Our Intrepid Sleuth dashes upstairs or outside to take care of the crisis--neighborhood fire, broken mirror upstairs, second dead body discovered by young screamer--and by the time this is dealt with, both your hero and your reader have forgotten the overheard conversation UNTIL near the end, when he is putting two and two together. Maybe even four and four. Aha! He (and your reader) remember now.

As far as putting some numbers to it: a cozy series mystery is expected to be 85K words, or at least between 80K and 90K. This is 360 pages. As I mentioned before, ALL the clues have been put in by the 30,000th word--the end of the first one-third of the text--which should fall on or about the 120th manuscript page. The last two-thirds of the text is spent tracking down clues, following rabbit trails, suspecting the wrong people, etc. The last five chapters MUST ramp up the tension. Either your sleuth has guessed the perp (and is wrong, and is about to be confronted with the truth), or is very close. If your chapters are about 15 pages, then you have 10-11 chapters full of clues and red herrings, and chapter 25 is your final wrap-up.

I am a pantser and not a plotter. This means I don't rely overmuch on an outline per se (that's PER SE, Latin, not "per say," BTW, if you're following along in the home game), but I do keep a list of scenes sometimes or even just a list of details. I need to know the general shape of the story in brief. Sometimes I will even have a file or synopsis that is expanded, including what I think each chapter will probably hold. ("We need to have her learn to sight-read before she discovers the Mystical Sheet Music and plays it to open the hidden bookcase in chapter 4!")

This can all change during the writing, of course, but I always know the ending of my books before I start writing. Otherwise, to me, it's like starting off on a trip without a map and wandering around hoping you finally get to somewhere interesting that will make it all worthwhile. You might get there, but it can sure take a lot longer. You might instead run out of gas before you get anywhere. Or end up on the South Side of town without a paddle . . . or even a baseball bat for self-defense.

Even though the plot is the main thing to many mystery readers (or at least to the reviewers, especially the ones on Amazon), remember that a mystery is not "what happened" ("the jewelry store was smash-robbed"), but WHAT HAPPENED TO A PERSON OR PEOPLE ("Joe lost his shirt when those thugs smash-robbed his store and the insurance dragged its feet about paying up fair and square").

Readers MUST care about your detective and somewhat about your victim or his/her mourners or what he/she leaves unfinished. Sometimes readers should even care about the suspects and perps. WHY does she want or need to solve the mystery? (Usually, she or her sister is a suspect. Or something like that.) What is the connection she has to the victim or to his/her relatives or organization? She has to care about what happened if you want your reader to care. Will it matter that much if she comes up with the REAL PERP? It'd better.

You may think that a bad guy is a bad guy, but don't forget that most people think they are doing the reasonable thing, that they are in the right or are at least justified in their actions and beliefs. Most "baddies" do not see themselves as baddies. They are just on the other side of what YOU think of as the right and proper action. They see themselves as doing God's work, getting revenge, putting things right, or whatever--not just "getting away with something," usually, although that can play in as a factor. So when you make up the motivations and reasoning for your perp, be sure it is reasonable from HIS or HER point of view, however stinky that POV may be for you and your sleuth. People have reasons for what they do. People ALWAYS have a reason for their actions, even if you think it is a bad or false reason.

Most villians (unfortunately) look like the guy next door, or are handsome/beautiful, or whatever. They aren't a Snidely Whiplash in black leather and a twirling waxed mustache. They look like normal people: a relative, your neighbor, someone who works at the same job or goes to the same school as your heroine, is on the hero's sports team (maybe even as the coach or sponsor), etc. She is on the PTA committee with your victim. He used to date your victim or her sister. What I'm getting it is that the real perp should be connected to your victim in one of these "normal" people-trees. Don't just make him an anonymous stranger who blows into town and commits a random crime. PLEASE don't do another serial killer sociopath with multiple personalities!

Don't forget the victim(s), even though they may die in the opening. A victim can be sympathetic or detestable. If everyone hated him, it is easier to create a big list of suspects. On the other hand, if nobody seemed to hate him, you have a tougher mystery for the reader to solve.

If the victim is your old boss . . . that can work. It worked in that crazy movie I caught on cable the other night, HORRIBLE BOSSES. Even though that was a pretty screwed-up black comedy. It also worked in my novel NICE WORK, available now on Amazon and in all bus station restrooms.

This should give you some idea how different it is to write a traditional mystery. Maybe you ought to stick to romance . . . or maybe you'll try your hand at this. After all, if *I* do it, how hard could it be? LOL!

(I know this was "TL;DR," but the right type of person read through to the end. I commend you. Now go write a mystery. Send me the link when you're in print!)

No such thing as bad publicity

At least that's what my dad always said. I think he had it right! People remember your name, and then say, "Why do I know this person?" They might just pick up your book or album because the title rings a bell.

This week I'm featured on the Romancing the Heart interview site. Be sure to visit and LEAVE A COMMENT!

http://romancingtheheartinterviews.blogspot.com/

My other mystery, MARFA LIGHTS, is included in the All Mystery E-Newsletter. I'm on the bottom of the list with "W" there, but it's still good.

I grow weary of having to promote all the time. I have other books to write. I need to work on the books I already have under contract. I am not an extrovert. Why, O Why? But we have to toot our own horns. No one else will blow them for us. So to speak.

Stories as VR headsets

"Story" was and is the world’s first and best virtual reality machine.

When you're reading a good story and you're absorbed (assuming you have good reading comprehension and you're paying fair attention), it's like the old TV program: YOU ARE THERE.

Even if you're not identifying with the hero and you're only watching out of the fascination you have with a train wreck, you should still be seeing the sights, hearing the sounds, smelling the coffee, and feeling the angst of the characters in the story world.

But first, let us back up a step. What IS a story? Is it that rambling anecdote your co-worker has been droning on about for three minutes without actually saying anything other than "like, man," "she was all like 'He's a fool' and stuff," and "I know, right?" Sort of. But not really.

A story is not just a plot that orders characters around. A story has to have a character arc, IMHO.

A story is how what happens (the plot) affects someone (the protagonist) in pursuit of a difficult goal (the story question) and how he or she changes as a result (which is what the story is actually about).

Despite appearances (and disregarding all the beautifully cinematic stuff you sometimes see on the big screen that has no meaning and leaves you asking, "What was that about?" as you leave the theater), *story* is internal, not external.

A story is not about the plot, even though so many readers, reviewers, and even writers believe it is. (Why would there be two words for it if they didn't have different meanings, connotation as well as denotation?) A *story* is about how the plot affects the protagonist. The *story* is what helps us as readers take the "vivid, continuous dream" that we have co-created with the author, extract the helpful bits that feed our need for story (including the take the author has on the eternal human condition), and make sense of the world using the information.

In part, the way a story gives us the sense that we’re in the protagonist’s world is through identification with the character(s). Writers convey the protagonist’s internal reaction to what happens via internal monologue, thoughts that are slipped in between the action or dialogue, or even subtext in the dialogue itself (the toughest way to do it, as different readers will get different things out of it depending on their cultural immersion). This is what gives readers the vicarious experience. We want to evoke emotion in readers AND allow them to identify with the hero.

That’s why it’s maddening that writers are constantly warned not to include internal thought. For most readers, the introspection just slides on in with the rest of the story. But editors and agents weary of seeing the endless "thinking" in some literary tomes went too far in banning it entirely. You don't want to have three pages of introspection about what happened in the past stuck into the midst of action. You don't want to have someone ask Tad a question and then have him muse for three pages about various things it reminds him of before you have him answer, partly because the reader will have forgotten the question and the setting in story-present by the end of the musings, and partly because it makes story-time seem in slow motion. This does not, however, mean that a few thoughts slipped in will not make it clearer for our readers. And clarity is our goal, above all, as I mentioned in a previous post.

Chip and Dan Heath have identified a phenomenon they term the "Curse of Knowledge." They remind us that "when you know something, it’s very difficult to imagine what it’s like not to know it." This is why some math professors find it impossible to teach middle school math or explain a simple fast Fourier transform to a classroom full of drooling undergraduates: they can't IMAGINE what it would be like not to just SEE the derivative when you look at something. To apply this to writing your novel, think about how many things you already know about the character and the plot. Not all of this is known by the reader. Unless you put it on the page, either express or implied, the reader can't just KNOW this stuff.

Writers are often taught that it’s talking down to the reader to actually let them know how the protagonist is reacting to what’s happening. This is wrongheaded. As Aunt Fannie Belle would've said, "It ain't, sugar. If you don't tell me what you mean, I'll never know."

Writers are often told that if you simply show something happening, the reader will always accurately intuit what the protagonist’s inner response is. In almost every case, this is patently untrue, and instead of inviting the reader in, it locks the reader out. Readers get frustrated. Readeres misunderstand what you are saying. Readers bring their own issues and ideas to the fire and throw them onto the blaze, making a maelstrom, when all you meant was that the guy blinked. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But when will readers know this? Is there some kind of Big Symbolism that we're missing here?

The deeper problem is the universal notion that it’s the reader’s job to “get it” rather than the writer’s job to communicate it. Thus the writer tells us, in passing, that Ashley is obsessed with mayonnaise. (In point of actual fact, she is terrified of mayonnaise and faints when she thinks it might touch her body, as it would burn off her skin.) He doesn't spell this out, however. No one has come right out and SAID what the problem is. The writer has implied it in the way she glares at people who order no mustard at Whataburger and with similar subtle clues. Now the writer assumes that when Joe orders a pastrami on rye with mayo (how dare he!) right in FRONT of her, we’ll know exactly why she breaks up with him on the spot and runs away screaming. I mean, how could we not know?

Writing like this is really very passive/aggressive. "What's wrong, Fred? You seem troubled and distant." "Yeah, well." "What's wrong?" *sniffle* "Well, if you don’t know, I’m certainly not going to tell you.” *wail* *sob*

Certainly there are times you'll have to trust your readers to “get it,” but you can only do this once you’ve given them enough specific information so that they actually can.

When it comes to story, telling is not always bad. In fact, ALL stories are told. "Tell me a story!" is the child's original demand of the parents at bedtime. Well, go ahead . . . TELL it.

"D'oh!" Character stupidity as a plot device

I wanted to explore further some of the musings I wrote about yesterday.

I see so many books and films or television shows in which the stupidity or carelessness of a main character (usually one who has been sensible up until this point) serves as a major plot device. Sometimes this is forgivable, but most of the time it's not. What are authors thinking?

Or are they not thinking?

Do readers/viewers even care?

I think they do.

I'm not talking (mostly) about a momentary lapse. The smartest, most on-the-ball character (or human being) can accidentally shred the wrong document or mention something that is supposed to be kept under wraps a while longer. I'm talking about the big-time mistake made by a character who hasn't been set up to be the "cute ditz" or "clueless moron" of the piece, a mistake that leads directly to the next plot development or (worse) to the happenstance solution of the crime.

I hope that readers can see when an author is setting up a plausible lapse. For example, in my Jacquidon series, Our Heroine has just developed diabetes. She inadvertently drinks a little alcohol and eats the wrong snack foods, causing her blood sugar to swing. This in turn leads to poor judgment (just as it does in real life). This explains why she leaves a couple of phone messages one evening for someone she should probably be steering clear of. I need her to make this mistake in order to have something the cops can seize upon as "evidence" pointing to a thread of actions they claim she took (which she didn't take). I am hoping that readers pick up on WHY I had her get into the reduced-mental-processing condition so she could make this minor mistake. It's not a MAJOR plot point, but it is yet another brick on the yellow brick road the police are trying to build to railroad her.

One of the actions questioned in a recent review was that Jacquidon backed down rather than prolonging a bad scene in which she was being challenged/attacked. I had her get out of the situation (which had been engineered by another suspect in order to throw suspicion away from herself and onto Jacquidon, by the way) instead of fighting back and making a bigger scene because she ISN'T TSTL. In my experience, any time you "fight back," onlookers will jump to the conclusion that YOU are the irrational and crazy one because they only got their attention attracted when YOU started yelling back. It's never a good thing to be identified as someone who goes crazy in public (no one ever remembers the provocation, trust me!), especially when you're already under investigation as a murder suspect. Keep your cool and analyze WHY things happen and WHO it could benefit to start such a scene, and you will be ahead of the game. (In real life as well as in fiction.)

You never want your characters to be Too Stupid to Live. Now, I realize that some of the characters whom I see as TSTL seem perfectly normal and reasonable to their authors and fans. Still, we can all agree that a character should not, upon hearing a noise outside at 3 AM, fling open the front door wearing only a filmy nightgown to shout, "Who is it?"

TSTL actions are usually big boo-boos, linchpin decisions on which the rest of the plot turns. It comes down to authors giving the plot precedence over characterization. "Why did you do that?" "Because the script said so." The writer forces what was a perfectly intelligent character into an act of utter stupidity so the preordained plot point can happen (usually with extra added shock value), instead of having the character drive the plot.

Here are some rules of thumb:

* PICK UP that gun that the bad guy dropped before he gets it back

* YELL when someone approaches you and seems threatening; run in a broken-field pattern and be noisy so as to attract the most attention possible. It's better to be embarrassed than to be overcome and hurt by a perp.

* DO NOT get into the car of a person who is holding a gun on you. You're better off if you stay in that WalMart parking lot and he shoots you, because you could get help and the shooting will attract attention. If you go with him, you are dead--and will probably suffer greatly on the way out.

* If you are going somewhere to meet a stranger in a dark alley, SET UP A RESCUE; at least call one of those police friends you have and ask them to be waiting in the background should the meeting go south. Better yet, don't meet the person. Make them come to YOU in a diner that is full of people and in public.

What are the things like this that would make you throw a book against the wall and stop reading it?

New Review of NICE WORK!

A review of NICE WORK is up at Reviewing the Evidence! Yay!

http://www.reviewingtheevidence.com/review.html?id=9371

(You know, I don't know why Blogger sometimes makes the links live and sometimes doesn't. It is a puzzlement.)

I really appreciate the review! It helps to get the word out there. I'd love to see the Kindle version become available soon; I know the price is somewhat high on the trade paperback. Still, a paper book might be a cool Christmas gift (hint, hint).

I've noticed a couple of similarities in the reviews done by people who say "this wasn't my favorite book" or "I had problems with the characters." One thing I do note is that they don't have any problems following the plot twists and/or accepting them as logical. That was, frankly, my biggest concern. I figured that people might not believe some of the things that happened. I'm happy that it seems the suspenders of disbelief are stretching appropriately.

(This is a musing on the usefulness of reviews for authors, not an "attack" on reviewers. I'm musing about why parts of the book might not come across as intended.)

*contains spoilers or semi-spoilers for those who are bothered by such things, although so does this particular review*

Generally, I use the advice given or implied in reviews to improve the next book. It's always good to get feedback that isn't restrained or edited. However, sometimes I simply can't agree with ALL the advice being given, although I appreciate the effort that any reviewer goes to in order to put their concerns into words. I know how tough it is to read something and review it!

I'm surprised that a couple of people have objected to Jacquidon's attending the funeral of her former boss. For one thing, I point out in the book that she has worked for the man for several years, and she believed during that time that they'd had a fairly good relationship. She saw his recent behavior as an aberration. So I can't see her *not* going to pay her respects. Also, Tracy (her co-worker and best friend) practically strong-arms her into going, remember? That conversation takes up a couple of pages in the book, featuring Tracy's crystal blue persuasion. Many times, at least in mystery fiction, the perp will attend the funeral, so sleuths get information from it. I think there might be a couple of clues planted in that scene, for those who are analytical and paying proper attention. But oh well.

The bigger surprise, though, is that this reviewer doesn't like it when Jacquidon gets (basically) verbally attacked at the end of the service when she goes to tell the family and close friends how sorry she is (because of course she IS--I couldn't hear of the passing of one of my former co-workers or bosses without feeling for the family, because I'm not a sociopath.) The reviewer complained that when Jacquidon is basically shouted at ("You killed him!"), she doesn't shout back. Well . . . I think that it's never a good idea to make a scene, especially if you ever want to get another job. (These people might be contacted by the new potential employers; it happens, especially if the new job requires an extended background investigation or the HR department likes to call around. Sometimes that saves a company from hiring someone who really IS a problem child but looks good on paper.) I think that the better part of valor is to quietly say a few words in your own defense, apologize (because obviously they feel intruded upon), and exit. That's basically what she did. It is part of her characterization that she wouldn't shout back or shove back. That would be (in her view, as well as in mine) a childish and immature response to their actions. Their actions might have been taken out of pain and confusion, or it might have been someone trying to pin the blame on Jacquidon even MORE firmly . . . perhaps that could be seen as a clue or red herring.

I know that readers today expect a completely Alpha hero or heroine who fights back and throws vases and stomps feet, if not swinging swords and firing Colt .45s into the air like Yosemite Sam, but that's not the only kind of hero there is. Mine are generally more thoughtful and think before they act. If cornered, they'll come up with some way out other than violence, if possible. Sometimes it's not possible.

But isn't shouting back what you should do in real life? No, I'd say not. My advice would be that if you ever ARE confronted verbally with accusations about something you didn't do, and/or you get into a dangerously brewing situation, that you take the sensible route and speak softly while exiting. You might have to brandish a big stick, but if you start bashing people over the head with it, YOU will be in trouble for assault. It's better to fade out of the scene and deal with rumors by doing something other than screaming and shouting that they're false, as this often leads to comments like, "Thou dost protest too much."

Trust someone who has been in that particular situation. (NOT accused of murder, but confronted by someone who felt wronged and who wanted to make a scene with me as the star victim.) It is better to respond quietly and take the first opportunity to exit, even if you think that is "chicken," because if you allow the situation to escalate (or, worse, if YOU escalate it), I guarantee that most onlookers (and oh, yes, this sort of confrontation will gather a crowd) will go away thinking that YOU STARTED IT and YOU MUST BE GUILTY OF SOMETHING AWFUL and YOU ARE A TROUBLEMAKER. It's not fair, but that's how it works out. (Note that newspaper retractions never have much effect, as the readers of the original story still believe what they've read.)

I know this kind of scene shows up in movies all the time because they're doing the bread and circuses thing, but that's the movies. You don't want a reputation as someone who heedlessly shouts at a funeral or in an office or in the parking lot, trust me. Try to avoid escalating things into an ugly scene if possible, in real life (and in fiction, if your character is smart enough to avoid it). A word to the wise is sufficient.

This particular reviewer questions why Jacquidon and her sister are reluctant to tell their mother that Jacquidon is under investigation for this murder. Well, that just means I must not have portrayed the mother properly. (I'll do better next time.) Most moms are somewhat older and fragile, and why worry them when there's nothing really to tell? The truth comes out when the sisters go to their mom to help them read something that's written in a language that their mom understands, and they are forced to confess. So it's only at first that they keep this to themselves. I think that's wise, and so did they, but you'll have to make your own decision. If your mother can't do anything more than worry and fret and possibly have palpitations over the idea that you're unjustly accused . . . I'd advise that you wait to tell her. I mean in real life. But we'll all hope that none of us ever get into this situation!

I was dismayed that a couple of reviewers (this one included, but there was another one as well) didn't see any clues in the short interlude during which Jacquidon judges a corporate spelling bee. Not only is she attending the event with a suspect (Tracy should be a suspect in most readers' minds by this point in the story) who might reveal more helpful information, but also Jacquidon catches sight of a second suspect there and chases her down for questioning.

I thought it would be more fun to have a suspect appear in a new and interesting setting rather than always having the scenes in restaurants, offices, classrooms, private homes, and so forth, the way so many stories do. It's always neat when I read a mystery and the scenes aren't just all courtroom, police station, office, telephone conversations in cars, and that mundane stuff we've all seen over and over again. If a scene is set at a carnival (okay, THAT one was done in so many films that it's almost a cliche), in a house of ill repute, or in a hot-air balloon (which is a scene from one of my forthcoming works), and readers have the opportunity to learn something or experience vicariously something they've never experienced, so much the better, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see anything wrong with hanging a colorful background so that readers get more fun out of a scene (and possibly the action develops character as well). But some readers want nothing but nonstop focus on the main plot action, and that's fine. That's the way they roll.

I like a secondary plot or "B story" to relieve some of the seriousness. (Even Shakespeare was allowed some comic relief.) I don't know if there's something about a romance inside a mystery . . . I see it almost every time in a cozy these days. I didn't want Our Romance to be with a cop in this one, though. I get really tired of female amateur sleuths hooking up with the detective on the case. It never bothered me in the Claire mysteries by Joan Hess, or in the Goldy mysteries by Diane Mott Davidson, but it bugs me in other books now. It's more fun if you don't have a Close Personal Friend on the police force, I think. Of course you'll get up close with a few cops if you're being investigated, though.

I like to learn something when I read, even if it's fiction. That, again, is a personal preference.

The point here, I suppose, is that different readers read for different experiences. If you like an experience that doesn't have an obvious B story, then you won't like books with subplots that take away time from the main action (even if they're tied in--for example, the employment counselor who becomes a romantic interest in NICE WORK turns out to be a computer whiz who helps decode some clues later in the book). Reviews are good for initially determining whether a book will be to your liking (I often use them to check whether children and pets are victimized, because I simply do not read those books), but often you'll find something different from what any one particular reviewer found. You'll find your own story, because you help the author to show you the "vivid, continuous dream" (as John Walker phrases it).

However, if something shows up in more than one review, it's time to consider why the scene didn't come across the way it was intended. It takes time for this information to percolate through the gray matter and reach the Girls in the Basement all deciphered, so maybe by the time I'm polishing the sequel, I'll figure out a way to make this stuff come across more clearly. Clarity above all is the goal! And entertainment . . . yeah, entertainment. That's the business I'm in, after all.

Go ahead, read 'em . . . we'll write more.