Monday, June 18, 2018

A Conversation With Terrence McCauley


Terrence McCauley may not write about white hat good guys, but he is one. We’ve been friends since sharing a panel at the Albany Bouchercon and hit it off right away. (To give you an idea of the kind of person he is, he handed me a signed copy of his book Prohibition the first time we met. Past experience shows first acquaintances are more likely to present me a restraining order.)

Terrence is probably best known for his University series of techno-thrillers that includes Sympathy for the Devil, A Murder of Crows, and A Conspiracy of Ravens. He also writes a connected series based in Prohibition-era New York, of which The Fairfax Incident is the new release.

One Bite at a Time: Terrence, there’s a lot of stuff I want to say and ask about this book, but let’s not forget the most important part of any author interview: Give us a taste of what The Fairfax Incident is about.
Terrence McCauley: It's a noir/spy tale set in 1933 New York City that involves Charlie
Doherty - a disgraced former NYPD detective - who is hired by a wealthy woman to prove her husband's obvious suicide is, in fact, a murder. I'll give away too much of the plot if I say much more than that, but believe me when I tell you that things get awfully complicated very quickly. It doesn't take long before the bullets fly, the intrigue deepens and the bodies begin to pile up.

OBAAT: Charlie Doherty has risen above your other 20th Century characters to become the protagonist in Slow Burn, The Devil Dogs of Bellau Wood, and now The Fairfax Incident. What is it about Charlie that appeals to you?
TM: I've spent an awful lot of time writing about Charlie. He also appears in my novella Fight Card: Against The Ropes. I love the character because he's the most human of my protagonists. He doesn't have a code. He has a gut instinct and a pang to do the right thing for reasons of his own. He doesn't have many morals, really. He's as corruptible and as flawed as the rest of us. That's not because he's a bad guy or an intentional anti-hero. It's just the way he is. He's a product of his time, just like all of us are, and his time happens to be the early part of the twentieth century. I often write his stories in the first person, which is a great way for me to set up the world in which I write. I know some people yawn or roll their eyes when they see a book is set in the 1920s or 1930s. They figure it'll just be another hats-n-gats rehash full of tough talking guys and dames with lively banter and long legs. I've never written to stereotype and Christ help me if I ever do.

Instead, I describe the times through Charlie's perception of things. Setting my stories back then isn't just an excuse to write pastiche or write Chandler fan fiction, but to relate real-world events in a fictional context. It's fun to write that way and, based on several early reviews, people really enjoy this character.

OBAAT: Doherty is the classic and perfect mix of the world-weary and cynical private eye. One line describes him better than anything else in the book, and even that is his description of someone else: “For a man who didn’t have many good qualities, Wendell Bixby had more than most.” It’s a great line on two levels: describing Doherty by what he thinks, and just outstanding writing that captures the period flawlessly. On the other hand, your University thrillers are as fast-paced and contemporarily written as anything out there. How are you able to switch back and forth.
TM: The expected pacing of each genre I chose helps. For example, no one picks up a 1930s novel expecting breathless action. Sure, I could write one, but it would throw the reader and pull them out of the world I'm looking to create. In contrast, if I start a Hicks book with a long set-up about why he's working on an assignment, I'll lose people before I even get them interested in the book.

As period fiction is often set in a world we've never experienced, I think a reader appreciates a little extra time spent on justifying the world-building that goes on at the outset of the story. That world needs to be subtly re-enforced throughout the book because it's easy for the reader to forget the time period of the setting. Historical references and some choice lingo can help.

When writing the University novels, I drop in plot points here and there while keeping the action moving. I intentionally avoid too much exposition because I don't want to slow down the book. As the stories are set in modern times, I also keep the descriptions and backgrounds of the characters to a minimum because I want the reader to make their own connections to the characters. I've received some criticism for this minimalistic approach. There's merit in that. People have said they'd like to know more about the past of my characters to help explain their motivation.

Frankly, I haven't come up with a way of doing that without it appearing like writing or a data dump. And since I want to avoid stereotypes, I didn't want to have a scene where one character is reviewing the file of another, filling in the reader on the character's past. Can it be done? Sure, and it has been done plenty of times. But since I'm trying to do something different, I have to take chances. Sometimes they pay off and most of my readership agrees. Sometimes they don't and I try to change things up a bit in the next book. Those who have read the University series starting with Sympathy For The Devil see a clear change in minimalist storytelling to a more expanded and explained motivation for many of the characters. Instead of showing who they are simply by their actions and motivations, I'm a bit more blunt about it. The criticism has been good for me and better for the books. I think each new book is better than the one before it.

OBAAT: The story revolves around the death of an insurance magnate named Walter. Any tribute here toward Walter Neff of Double Indemnity?
TM: I hadn't thought of it that way. If there is, it certainly isn't intentional. I wanted to write about a wildly wealthy man who wasn't very well-known. A wanna-be Astor who wasn't quite there and never would be. Oil or railroad barons were too sexy for Walter Fairfax. So, I made him an insurance executive. His wealthy obscurity also made it possible for the events in the book to transpire as I wrote them.


OBAAT: You do as well as anyone I can think of in evoking the period, in this case just before World War II. The scene in the New York Athletic Club had me seeing the characters in black-and-white as if in an old movie. I wasn’t around then and you’re substantially younger than I am. What kind of research did you do?
TM: I watched lots of documentaries about the time period. I wanted to get a sense of how
people moved and dressed and spoke back then. Some movies give you a sense of that, but only a sense. People didn't roll their r's or speak with a slight British accent in the way actors do in old movies. We have diction coaches to thank for that one. Not everyone sounded like Cagney or Bogey or Raft, either. Charlie certainly doesn't. He's tough without being a tough guy. He's not a hero, but he's no coward either. To paraphrase the Bard, he doesn't seek a fight as he is, though as he is, he won't run from one.

As I've stated in several other interviews, my grandmother was born in 1902, so I grew up hearing stories about how things were back then. Subsequent research has made me love the period even more.

OBAAT: You’ve shown you can handle techno-thrillers and period pieces with equal aplomb. I know you’ve also done a Western. Tell us a little about that.
TM: I've always had a warm place in my heart for westerns because they tend to reflect the soul of the nation at the time they're made rather than reflect the time in which they are set. For example, 1930s westerns had the romantic lead and the damsel in distress. In the 1940s, they were detectives with cowboy hats and six-shooters on their hips. In the 1950s, television killed any authenticity the genre could ever hope to have, but it was popular, so what do I know? The movies of the 1950s began pushing the limit, though, with Anthony Mann and some John Ford westerns showing a darker side of the genre. A revisionist movement spread through the genre in the 60s and 70s where cowboys, save for Clint Eastwood, could've easily been hippies rather than denizens of the old west. Boundaries of the genre were pushed by wandering esoteric westerns that asked more questions than they answered. The 1980s saw more action-oriented westerns like Silverado and the 1990s more realistic tales like Unforgiven, Tombstone and others. Lately, the anti-establishment western has enjoyed something of a resurgence.

With all of that in mind, I wanted to try something different. I wanted a straight-up oater that told a good story people could relate to and believe. In short, the prosperous town of Dover Station, Montana finds itself under siege by a band of renegades and thieves. It's up to Sheriff Aaron Mackey and Deputy Billy Sunday to stop them and free the prisoners they have taken hostage.

The first draft was more Deadwood than Gunsmoke and the publisher asked me to tone it down by quite a bit. I wanted to depict two lawmen doing the right thing, leading by example and showing themselves ready to go to any lengths to uphold the law. It's a typical McCauley story with Gray Hats vs. Dark Blue Hats rather than white hats v. black hats. I did a fair amount of research on how life was back then and wanted to write a novel that reflected that reality as much as possible. For example, those showdowns at high noon? Didn't happen. The shopkeepers cringing while bandits robbed the town blind? Not as often as you might think. Like one man I interviewed in Arizona a few years back told me, "You're not going to spend months riding out here in all types of weather, where damned near anything could kill you, just to stand there and let some son of a bitch shoot at you or steal your stuff without a fight.” It made sense to me and helped me increase the dose of realism in my story.

OBAAT: Thrillers, period pieces, Westerns. Is one more fun to write than the others? Do each of them feed different part of your Muse?
TM: I've always loved the period pieces best because they have the benefit of hindsight to draw upon for inspiration. For example, the first Charlie Doherty novel - SLOW BURN - was loosely based on elements of the Getty kidnapping. THE FAIRFAX INCIDENT discusses the very real presence that the Nazis unfortunately had in this country in the early 1930s. My fear with westerns is that people who don't already read them have a preconceived notion of how they'll turn out. The strong, silent cowboy ready to defend the school marm against the hired gun. That's not the kind of stuff I write, but I may suffer from that kind of genre bias. The same goes for the spy thrillers. If I make it too technologically based, the stories won't age well. Writing about anything too current is always risky because the subject matter could be outdated by the time the work sees the light of day.

That's why I try to make sure all of the work I do is character driven. Current events may come and go, but good characters stand the test of time. Just look at LeCarre and Deighton. Their work still holds up because their characters and humor remain interesting even the world is a much different place than it was when they wrote their books.


Wednesday, June 13, 2018

The French Connection


It’s safe to say The French Connection is a seminal film. Not just among the all-time greats, but as influential a movie as one can think of. All subsequent crime films had to take The French Connection into consideration when making artistic decisions. (The Godfather is not a crime film. It’s an epic soap opera about criminals. One of a handful of the greatest films ever made, but it’s just proof that no genre is irredeemable when done properly.) I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve seen The French Connection, and I can reliably be counted on to watch the chase scene anytime some Facebook reference gets me to looking at car chases in general. (The Seven Ups will also get a chunk of my time in those circumstances.)

A couple of years ago I wrote a post about the greatest screen adaptations of all time, particularly those where the film exceeded the book. Jaws. The Godfather. L.A. Confidential. I mentioned The French Connection, too, but it had been years since I read the book. I decided it was time to renew acquaintance. I was 15 years old and had never read such a documentary account of the innards of a detail police investigation when I read it the first time. I wondered how it would hold up to my more experienced eyes.

I needn’t have wondered. In fact, I wish I hadn’t. To be fair, the book is dated. Tastes, even
in reportage, have changed dramatically. Robin Moore’s The French Connection came years before Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff. Still, it’s been a long time since I read such a deadly dull recitation of events that are themselves not inherently interesting.

Legend has it that much of the movie was improvised, even though Ernest Tidyman won an Oscar for his screenplay. He earned it, if only for getting people to realize Moore’s examination of every goddamn tree in the forest could be turned into an entertaining and still realistic film. Where Tidyman and William Friedkin use Popeye Doyle’s obsessive investigational techniques to hold together what is, when viewed closely and critically, a pretty flimsy plot, they never let you forget what’s at stake. Sure, Popeye’s an asshole—so was Eddie Egan, the cop that character is based on—but we’re fascinated to watch how he relentlessly pursues an investigation no one else has much confidence in. (When Doyle’s boss, Samuelson—played by the real Eddie Egan—asks Popeye’s partner if he agrees with Doyle’s wild claims, the best Buddy Russo can come up with is, “I go with my partner.”)

Granted, the film has the luxury of making the entire investigation seem as if two cops and two feds handled it all; in fact there were over a hundred investigators. The film also has the advantage of being able to gloss over things the book pretty much has to explain. The problem is that those are often the best parts of the book. How they figure out who Patsy Fuca (Sal Boca in the movie) really is. How they get the name of Jean Jehan (Alain Charnier in the film) after following him to his hotel. That was fascinating. Unfortunately it’s only about 20% of the book. The rest is spent describing, in detail, which streets the cops followed Patsy down as he tried to lose them. Then which streets they travelled trying to find him after he gave them the slip. Gruesome detail of the most tedious events until it’s hard for a reader who knows what’s going on to figure out where they are. Maybe a native New Yorker would bask in the intimacy. I’m a country boy and it just got tedious.

The French Connection is a wonderful example of how fiction can tell a better truth than facts. The filmmakers made up almost everything about the main story except for its inciting event—Egan and Grosso actually did stop by the Copa for a drink when they stumbled across Fuca and his friends throwing money around “Like the Russians were in Jersey,” to use a line from the movie. Little throwaway lines characterize the cops and provide backstory better than twenty pages of minutiae.

I already considered The French Connection a film that exceeded its source material; I
underestimated how much. No need to read the book. Watch the movie, understanding it’s a fictionalized account and what really happened took a lot longer and was a lot harder than what you see. (Not that the real cops weren’t extraordinarily lucky a few times.) Keep all that in the back of your mind and enjoy one of the best examples ever of not letting facts get in the way of the truth.

(Someday I’ll get around to breaking down Don Ellis’s superb soundtrack.)

Friday, June 8, 2018

Guest Post: Controversiality by Chris Bauer


Submitted for your approval, a new word: controversiality. Shakespeare invented words all the time. Assassination, cold-blooded, arch-villain, addiction, scuffle. Thousands of them. It might not have been the first time they were used in conversation, but scholars say it was the first time these words were seen in print.

A level set: I am to Shakespeare as Mad Dog 20/20 and Two-Buck Chuck are to Château Mouton-Rothschild.

Controversiality is a literary minefield. A place where under-published genre authors are often told not to tread, by agents, publishers, and other writers. Writing a thriller? A suspense tale? A horror title? Toss in some hotly contested topics, and it could become a literary death wish.

But I like using controversial topics in my stuff, he says. Topics that are original because they’re taboo, or because they utilize discomforting characters or situations, their uniqueness oftentimes coming from the controversial topics themselves. Controversies, and taking risks in the interest of originality, can provide great backbones for plots and character traits.

Examples, you say? Why yes, got a few handy, thanks for asking.

The landmark Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision. It’s a catalyst for the political crime thriller Jane’s Baby by yours truly, about assaults on the Supreme Court both legal and physical. Are the characters pro this, or anti that? Conservative? Liberal? Progressive? Is it right to make them, or their institutions, targets of bad actors? The novel’s heroes and villains have biases; how could they not? Some parallel the author’s. Gotta stir the pot, he says.

Or characters with physical and mental challenges that make readers wince. Like a hero fugitive recovery agent with Tourette syndrome. Or his ride-along who’s a little person, with the hero consistently using that one very derogatory term to describe his ride-along because his subconscious can’t help itself.

Wait, what? And you made these characters recurring, in a series? You’ll be excoriated.

Or gender identity, where a transitioning transgender character with conflicting body parts is mainstreamed as a cold-blooded assassin (thanks, Mr. Shakespeare) fueled more by revenge than environment, and not by his internal wiring. America is a Gun, a thriller work in progress, is an example.

 “But transgender people have enough real-life challenges trying to fit in. Don’t show one as being psychotic and evil. It fuels the hate.” Sorry, but nope. Genre fiction is a great equalizer. It can blast right past the sensitivities. Don’t make the story the character’s struggle in dealing with his/her inner conflict and/or lack of acceptance. Normalize it as just another genre character trait. Give him non-gender identity motivation for why he goes batshit crazy enough to kill people. He’s a genre villain who is transgender, is sympathetic, and not a villain because he’s transgender, also not any batshit crazier because his gender packaging is reversed. Story is king, with the character’s personal conflict simply an accouterment.

Or illegal immigrants and their mistreatment in this country. Poor, frightened, and ripe for exploitation. It’s one of the plot threads for Hiding Among the Dead, the first crime novel in a series about commercial crime scene cleaners. Still working on convincing my agent it should go on submission.

Or the crème de la crème of controversies: guns, and gun control. It’s not simply controversial, it’s radioactive. The aforementioned America is a Gun addresses how characters who live and die by their firearms mimic many of our real-life law and order heroes in that they’re fed up with the proliferation of guns and would gladly accept changes to gun ownership laws, and their own rights too, if it could significantly reduce the real-life bloodshed, so they do something on a grand scale about it. As a novel it dives head-first into the gun lobby mosh pit, but accepts that firearms are ingrained in the civilian pursuits and lifestyle of past generations and present, are so much a part of America’s history, and are here to stay for generations to come.

And here’s where things can get dicey. Why would an author spend time producing material for public consumption that he knows will immediately piss off half, maybe more, his potential audience? Where, when looking for blurbs from acclaimed bestselling authors, she receives kudos for the material, the plot, the pace, the entire story, but the kudos need to be off the record because she flew too close to the sun for the blurber’s brand?

The answer is the other half of the audience is still a helluva lot of potential readers, and this author should be so lucky to write something that appeals to them. But this isn’t the way all publishers and agents feel, unfortunately. Shooting oneself in the foot before one un-holsters a weapon (sorry) can severely stifle a manuscript’s salability, they say.

How is all this working out for me? Only one novel sold so far. Ask me in another five years.

So I’m just going to let this sit out there: Controversiality works if an author can weather the pushback and the rejection. If it adds to the originality of a story, or the voice, or the delivery of a good plot, then hell, go for it. Take the risk. Maybe even embrace it as your brand, or at least one of them.

Paraphrasing Ty Webb (Chevy Chase) in Caddyshack, while Danny Noonan (Michael O’Keefe) lined up his iron shot after Ty’s blindfolded effort landed a few feet from the cup:

“Just be the ball. Be… the ball. You’re not being the ball, Danny.”

Naysayers? Fuck ’em. I’m just gonna be the ball.

*  *  *

Chris' new book is Jane’s Baby, of which Logan Krum, writing for The Northeast Times, says, “The plot is a tightly wound coil ready to spring at any second. Bauer wants to draw no conclusion for the reader -- he just wants them to contemplate their own thoughts.” As a Philly native Chris has had lengthy stops in Michigan and Connecticut, and he thinks Pittsburgh is a great city even though some of his fictional characters do not. He likes the pie more than the turkey. His short fiction has appeared in Thuglit, Shroud Magazine, and 100 Horrors, and has been podcasted by Well Told Tales. He's a member of International Thriller Writers, Pennwriters, and the Horror Writers Association. Chris is not to my knowledge related to the actor Chris Bauer, best known here for playing Frank Sobotka in The Wire. This Chris is a better writer, and that’s what OBAAT is about.




Monday, June 4, 2018

Movies Since Last Time


The French Connection (1971). I found myself home alone while The Beloved Spouse was helping with The Sole Heir’s wedding preparations and thought I’d watch L.A. Confidential. Realized as I was scrolling through the DVD collection I had the French Connection soundtrack running through my head as an earworm. The French Connection holds up to repeated repeated viewings (repetition intentional), and not even after the plot holes wear through the fabric is the overall value undermined. This is a film much more about attitude and the onsessions of Popeye Doyle than it is about any plotting and set the tone for what are now called “Seventies movies.” A true classic, and I don’t throw that term around loosely.


Wind River (2017). This is the kind of movie that could get me out of the house to watch movies again. Taylor Sheridan’s follow-up toHell or High Water, which I loved, is at least as good. Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olson pair well as a hunter for Fish and Wildlife working with a junior FBI agent to solve the mystery of a young woman found dead on the prairie six miles from anywhere. Olson is not Super Fed. She was just the closest agent when the body was found, sent to stabilize the situation until more senior agents can arrive as a major winter storm approaches. She’s smart and tough and knows her limitations. When Renner tells her the way to find this killer is by backtracking where he’s been, she’s sharp enough to realize he has skills she doesn’t have, but needs. Their relationship is built on growing trust and respect and avoids the impulse too many movies have to make something sexual out of it. There’s already plenty going on in Wind River. Highest recommendation.


Sunset Boulevard (1950). A movie I actually did leave the house to see, driving to a theater to watch
one of Turner Classic’s screenings in a multiplex. Not quite like it must have been in 1950 when the whole building was one theater and there might have been organ music instead of commercials, but close enough. The acting is a little stylized for my taste, but that fades in comparison to the story and the personalities—more than just characters—portrayed. Another film that grows on me as I notice something different every time. I knew it was coming and was still crushed when Max confesses that he was Madame’s first husband. Also the only film to start with the dead man talking to you that gets away with it.

Whiplash (2014). J.K. Simmons deserves all the accolades and Milles Teller might be the best combination of actor/drummer ever, but the movie doesn’t hold water. Admittedly, my standards are
high, as I have a Masters in Music and worked as a free-lancer for almost ten years, but no teacher anywhere could get away with ten percent of the shit Fletcher pulls in this movie, not even for a week. Hell, drill sergeants can’t get away with some of the shit he pulled. No musician would set Andrew up for the gig at the end the way Fletcher did and ever work in that town again, and I have a hard time believing anyone wouldn’t have seen their drummer walk into a competition bleeding from the face and head and not turn to the jurors and say, “We’re gonna need a minute.” Still, it’s an absorbing film in the moment and the music is spectacular.

Kill the Irishman (2011). A 70s story told in the style of a 70s movie that works. It’s no French
Connection—it’s not even a Hickey and Boggs—but it does what it sets out to do and stays true to itself throughout. Based on a true story of Cleveland hood Danny Greene, who took on the Italian mob and dared them to kill him. Literally. On television. Ray Stevenson is outstanding as Danny, supported by a who’s who cast of crime film stalwarts including Vincent D'Onofrio, Val Kilmer, Christopher Walken, Robert Davi, Tony Lo Bianco (Sal Boca in The French Connection for those not in the know, bringing this post full circle), Steve Schirripa, and Paul Sorvino, with extra realism added through the use of actual news clips when Greene was big news not just in Cleveland but nationally. It’s not a classic, it’s not even great, but it’s solid, knows what it wants to be, and does it well.

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

The Promise of Failure


John McNally occupies what is, at least in my experience, a unique place among writers who share their advice about the craft: more than authoring books on how to write, he talks about how to be a writer. They’re not the same thing.

McNally has written three books on writing. The first, The Creative Writer’s Survival Guide, talks about all the things to be considered when making writing a career that don’t involve actual writing, such as making enough money to live on while your career gets its feet under it, how to choose a writing program, how to handle workshops, and publicity. Highly recommended for anyone considering writing as a career, or in the relatively early stages of it.

His second book, Vivid and Continuous, is the how-to writing book. It’s designed to be used as a textbook, though it works well for individuals. It also lays out well for anyone trying to get a better handle on things they might not have been ready for on a previous reading. This is a book I take a look at every couple of years and consider to be on a par with Stephen King’s On Writing.

We’re not here to talk about either of those today, as McNally has released another book that deserves attention from writers of any experience level. The Promise of Failure (University of Iowa Press) is McNally’s examination of what it’s like for a professional writer to have to prove himself again with every book. Sure, there are writers who don’t have to deal with rejection anymore, if only because their names have become so well recognized that people will buy their grocery lists and wonder what was meant by “romaine lettuce.” Did she change her mind about what kind of lettuce she wanted? Did someone tell her they didn’t like romaine lettuce? Did she have a bad experience with romaine lettuce that reared up from her subconscious mind after the list’s first draft? (“Then I remembered when Algernon took me to my favorite restaurant to tell me he was leaving, though he knew I was pregnant. A piece of romaine lettuce hung from the corner of his mouth, waving insolently at me as he ruined my life. Until then I loved romaine lettuce.”) No offense, but you’re not one of those writers. You wouldn’t be reading this if you were.

What McNally does in The Promise of Failure is to prepare the rest of us for the inevitable bumps in the road. How to avoid as many of them as possible. How to make those we do encounter smoother than they might otherwise be. How to find that failure exists on multiple levels and is in large part defined by your personal definition of success. How failure can in some ways be a good thing by freeing you to try something you might not have done had “success” set you on another path where the vistas weren’t as wide.

As with all of McNally’s books, The Promise of Failure is written in common sense, matter of fact language. He has a working class background and has come up through the ranks of writers by having made his share—and maybe then some—of choices he would not, in retrospect, repeat. You know, just like the rest of us. The book isn’t a lecture delivered from someone who has either won a Nobel Prize in Literature, or thinks he should have had those Scandinavian pricks understood the subtleties of the English language. McNally is your uncle—maybe a Dutch uncle—sitting next to you at a quiet neighborhood bar making an effort to tell you what to expect. Maybe you’ll get it, maybe you won’t, and maybe something he says today will resonates later when you most need it. Whichever way, his conscience is clear, and you walk away knowing he meant the best for you.

(Full disclosure: I read an advance copy provided by the University of Iowa Press. I was a student in John McNally’s workshop during the winter and spring of 2002 while he was George Washington University’s Jenny McKean Moore Visiting Writer.)

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Guest Post by Sharon Buchbinder


Happy Friday, folks, and welcome to a new feature here at OBAAT. The blog runs three times every two weeks, on Monday, Friday, and Wednesday. For at least the summer, Fridays will be given over to guest posts from other writers, not necessarily from the world of crime fiction. It’s a way of broadening all of our horizons and hopefully getting some cross-pollination going.


Today’s inaugural post is from Sharon Buchbinder. Sharon is one of the first friends I made at the multi-genre Creatures, Crimes, and Creativity conference held annually in Columbia MD. Sharon worked in the health care delivery field, as well in academia before the writing bug called her back. She has since become known for her work in the contemporary, erotic, paranormal, and romantic suspense genres.

Sharon is one of those writers that makes others want to hang around us. (By “us” I mean writers, not necessarily me.) Her generosity toward other writers and readers can be seen by her regular sponsorship of the C3 conference, which this year includes a scholarship for one aspiring, unpublished author, providing an opportunity to leant what he or she is getting into first hand from a variety of writers and publishers. Getting a chance to catch up with Sharon is something I always look forwards to and I’m delighted to have her as OBAAT’s first guest poster in what I hope becomes a long-running series.



Ready, Set, Listen Up!



With spring coming in fits and starts, you know it's really going to be here...soon...right? I get REALLY bored when I walk my dogs, so I always have my earbuds in and a book playing when I'm hoofing it. The time flies and so do my feet! So why not be prepared with some good audiobooks to power up your work outs? I have two award winning books that are now available in audiobooks, both narrated by the awesome Jeffery Hutchins.



The Haunting of Hotel LaBelle, Hotel LaBelle Series, Book 1
When hotel inspector, Tallulah Thompson, is called in along with her pug, Franny, to investigate renovation delays, she meets an extremely annoyed and dapper turn-of-the-century innkeeper. The only problem is he’s in limbo, neither dead nor alive, and Tallulah and the pug are the first to see him in a hundred years.
Cursed by a medicine woman, “Love ‘em and Leave ‘em Lucius” Stewart is stuck between worlds until he finds his true love and gives her his heart. When he first sees Tallulah, he doesn’t know what he’s feeling. Yet, her stunning beauty, and feisty attitude pull him in.
With the fate of Hotel LaBelle on the line, Tallulah with the help of a powerful medicine woman turns Lucius back into a flesh and blood man. She and Lucius team up to save the hotel, but Tallulah can't help but wonder if he will ever let go of his past love and learn to love again. Available at Amazon and iTunes


Legacy of Evil, Hotel LaBelle Series, Book 2 
When a wild mustang is shot in Montana, renowned horse whisperer and telepath, Emma Horserider, is called in to calm the herd and find out what happened. Once on scene, she is almost killed by a bullet-spewing drone and calls her black-ops brother for backup.
Emma's help roars into her life covered in tattoos and riding a Harley. Remote viewer Bronco Winchester takes the assignment because he is ordered to, but he wonders what type of assistance his boss's sister needs. That is, until he sees Emma, a valiant warrior woman proud of her Crow heritage.
Posing as a married couple, Emma and Bronco go undercover to infiltrate and stop a hate group. Both are anxious enough without the growing attachment they feel for each other. When the lives of many are on the line, they are not sure if they will live or die - let alone, have a chance at love. Available at Amazon and iTunes
What's your LEAST FAVORITE work out activity? I confess, it's working on my abs. Does anyone have a cure for flabby abs? PLEASE SHARE! LOL!

Monday, May 21, 2018

No One Cares


People can do a lot worse than to read Joe Clifford. Not just the books; the blog. Maybe especially the blog. (Not that the books aren’t good. Nomination for the Bill Crider Award, anyone?) True, Joe can be a depressing SOB once in a while, but never without purpose. His blog is always thought-provoking, and one can only hope he’ll get more consistent about posting them.
 
Joe’s been re-examining things lately, and on March 15 he reminded me of something I’d forgotten in a post titled “Dennis Lehane’s Note.” Regular readers know how I feel about Lehane and his work, so I perked up right away. What Joe mentioned wasn’t news to be, but it was a worthy reminder:

One of my favorite bits of advice re: writing comes from Dennis Lehane, who carries a little reminder in his wallet: No one cares. Yeah, that can be depressing to some. To me (and Dennis) it’s freedom: No one cares. You can do whatever the fuck you want.

I typed up no one cares and taped it to my monitor next to the desk placard The Sole Heir bought me that reads, “If you were in my novel you’d be dead by now.” Joe’s right. It’s not depressing. It’s liberating.

It occurred to me several years ago why more people don’t buy my books: they don’t need them. Not just my books. Anyone’s. My personal library has hundreds of books. It’s smaller than many writers I know, but still substantial compared to the general public. I looked at those shelves one day and realized that, as a man in my early 60s, I never need to buy another book. I have enough books I’d love to re-read that I could live happily going through my library from one end to the other and starting over. I buy new books because I want to, not because I need them.

Sure, there is a handful of people that I’ll read whatever they publish. And a couple I wish would break their self-imposed hiatuses and write something new because they were in that handful but haven’t put out anything lately. (I’m looking at you, John McFetridge and Declan Burke.) I’m not actively seeking new authors, though I occasionally stumble onto someone in social media and check them out.

I’m a writer, and if that’s how I feel about books, imagine how the average reader feels. Lehane’s right: No one cares.

I’m okay with that. It means I can take a few months off to get my head back together after what The Beloved Spouse calls The Chaos™ disrupted large chunks of my personal and family life. It means if I want to re-boot the Penns River series and switch out a bunch of characters, I can. If I decide to write the next novel more as a loosely-connected series of vignettes with the same cast and location instead of a through-written novel, I can. You know why? Because no one cares.

Except me. I’m the guy who has to live with the book every day for twelve to eighteen months. It needs to be what I want it to be.

Down & Out Books has been great. Very supportive and patient, but they don’t really care. It’s not like they came to me when I suggested what I might do for the next book and said, “Whoa, take a deep breath. That’s a money-making franchise you’re fucking with here.” Maybe a new approach will get me over the hump. Maybe it won’t. No one knows. So what the hell. Roll with it.

This is something writers don’t want to hear, that no one cares, no one needs our books. Sorry. I like writing and I’d almost certainly write something even if Down & Out cut me loose. (Note to Eric and Lance: Not that I’m interested in finding out. Just saying.) The Beloved Spouse loves me. The Sole Heir loves me. My mother loves me. My ex-wife’s dog loves me. None of them care a bit about my writing except for how it affects me; they care about me. If writing makes me happy, they’ll want me to do it. If it doesn’t make me happy anymore, they’ll be good if I stop. It’s liberating and exhilarating to know the only person I have to please when I sit at the keyboard or with a pad of paper in my hand is me. You know why I get to feel like that?

no one (else) cares.