Wednesday, April 07, 2010

An Hour with Lee Child


Another year, another Jack Reacher novel from author Lee Child, right? Except that 2010 will bring fans of Child’s fictional former military cop two of his adventures, not just one. The first book, titled 61 Hours, is already on sale in Britain, and is rapidly climbing the sales charts. The U.S. edition is set for release in mid-May, and a listing on The New York Times bestseller rundown seems inevitable. Then, in the fall, another, as-yet-untitled Reacher story is due for publication on both sides of the Atlantic, bringing the British-born Child (né Jim Grant) more renown and, of course, a fatter wallet.

I have been following Child’s career for many years now, and by tradition we meet annually at the Waterstones Deansgate bookstore in Manchester, where he always begins his UK publicity tours. Over dinner, we catch up on our respective lives, and during each encounter I learn a little more about his craft and what to expect from his Reacher series. Child has proved to be one of best ambassadors for the crime/thriller genre. He never forgets his oldest fans and those who supported him back in his early writing days, after he changed careers from TV production to penning fiction.

This year we were unable to dine after the Deansgate event; Child had to rush off to London, while I was heading to Brighton for the 2010 World Horror Convention, an event that was held for the first time in Great Britain this year. Nonetheless, we managed to carve out some coffee-and-chat time in advance of his speaking at Waterstones. During our conversation, I asked him about the importance of weather in his new novel, his views on book piracy, and why there’s no sibling rivalry between him and his author brother, Andrew Grant.

Ali Karim: What came first when you embarked upon writing 61 Hours? Was it the expansive plot that ultimately had to be spread over two novels? Were you feeling pressured by your publishers? Or was it purely an idea that came into your mind?

Lee Child: You mean about the end of 61 Hours?

AK: Yes ...

LC: I see the end of 61 Hours a little differently from many who have read it. It’s about something I have been trying to develop over the last few books--basically to trust the reader a little bit more, inasmuch as in previous books I’d lay out the problem and then provide the solution. In 61 Hours, what I’ve done is lay out the problem, but trust the reader to uncover the solution.

There is no mystery to the solution, or the ending. Everything is there, the closure, the evidence is there, anyone can work out what must have happened, and it’s up to the reader to work it out. It’s all completely transparent.

AK: Even so, all of us are going to have to wait to read your next book, coming out later this year.

LC: The next one comes out in September in the UK and October in the United States.

AK: And do you have a working title for that yet?

LC: Not yet. It’s something that we’re working on currently, and we hope to have it soon.

AK: Location is always important to you in the Jack Reacher series. So why send your man off to South Dakota?

LC: Well, it’s not so much about South Dakota, but more about temperature. I was thinking about one of my earlier books--Echo Burning [2001], set in West Texas, where it was incredibly hot. The heat becomes essentially a character in that book, and I thought I’d like to do a book where unbelievably cold weather becomes the same type of character. Writing about the cold is something I’ve wanted to do for many years, but I’ve always been a little inhibited by Alistair MacLean, a big hero of mine and a thriller writer who was pre-eminent at writing about cold weather. Novels such as Night Without End [and] Ice Station Zebra, set up above the Arctic Circle where the cold weather is a real factor--he did [them] so well. I often wondered if I could write a novel set against the cold. I decided eventually to give it a go, setting a book against an icy backdrop--hence, 61 Hours is set in a cold winter in South Dakota.

AK: You have also contributed a piece to another book coming out this summer, the International Thriller Writers project, Thrillers: 100 Must-Reads, edited by David Morrell and Hank Wagner. Could you tell us a little bit about that volume?

LC: Sure. The project stemmed from a question ITW is interested in answering: “What is a thriller?” It is a very difficult question to answer, so one way is to lay out 100 books and say, “This is what a thriller is,” using great thriller novels to define the genre. My contribution went way, way back [to the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur], as there is always a secondary question: “What was the first thriller or the earliest thriller?” Many people sometimes look back 100 years to what was then referred to as “a novel of sensation,” or perhaps Wilkie Collins, John Buchan, or Erskine Childers. But in my opinion, you need to look much further back, and yes, there will be work[s] lost in prehistory. But for my money the first thriller that we know about was Theseus and the Minotaur, which is 3,500 years old and in fact is an identical story to Ian Fleming’s Dr. No, so therefore the prototype of the thriller novel.

AK: Something we talked about earlier is that my particular contribution to the ITW book is an essay about Eric Ambler’s A Coffin for Dimitrios (aka The Mask of Dimitrios), and I understand you actually have a link to author Ambler.

LC: Yes, indeed. I went to the same high school as Ambler, not of course in the same year ... [Laughs] He was a little older than me ...

AK: While doing some research earlier today, I was alarmed to discover that 61 Hours is available as an E-book on a BitTorrent Web site for illegal download. What is your perspective on the piracy of books via the Internet and the issues surrounding E-books, the iPod, the iPad, and digital rights management?

LC: Well, we have two major problems. Firstly, we have this irrational expectation from the customer about price: There seems be this bizarre logic that because an item is delivered electronically, it should be free. Electronic delivery eliminates the physical book that needs to be manufactured, stored, delivered, stocked, etc., [but] the manufacture and supply [of creative works still] comes with a cost. So if you take as an “over the thumb” average cost of an average book [ignoring heavily discounted bestsellers] ... [and] say that manufacture and supply chain cost is £4 [$7 U.S.] per book, then the rest is £10 [$18]. That makes the book on a shelf cost of £14 [$25]. So, if you had an electronic book, and you strip out the manufacture and supply chain cost, the item would cost, say £10. Some [members] of the public, however, feel that an electronic book should be priced at £0.99 [$1.85], which is crazy logic.

Problem two is that digital distribution is not as cheap as people think it is, because the service costs are high as well as the [cost of] piracy protection, which is very expensive and complex. We are suffering piracy in the same way that physical bookstores suffer shoplifting. There will always be a proportion of books suffering “shrinkage,” as they refer to it in the retail world. Authors like me, and my peers and contemporaries are getting their books pirated several hundred times a week. Therefore, this problem needs to be addressed by some form of digital rights management, which is very expensive to do. So, this whole idea that digital distribution is cost-free is totally wrong--in fact, delusional.

AK: The Rap Sheet reported last month that you made a rather interesting appearance at this year’s Left Coast Crime convention in Los Angeles. Care to tell us about it?

LC: I remember nothing about that interview. [Laughs] It was done by Gregg Hurwitz, so it was completely off-the-wall. Seriously, it was a great convention, and as the title LCC suggests, it was on the far Left Coast of America, and therefore tends to be a smaller convention, more relaxed, more chilled. I had a tremendous time.

AK: There’s another book landing shortly, called Die Twice, by somebody you know particularly well, Andrew Grant. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

LC: Yes, sure, it is by my younger brother, his second book that I read a little while ago--and I was impressed. In fact, that reminds me of a question Gregg asked me at LCC 2010: “How’d I feel if Die Twice was the next Da Vinci Code?” I would feel great, there is no sibling rivalry between Andrew and I, due to the age difference. I had basically left home around the time he was out of his crib. In fact, he’s closer in age terms to my daughter than me.

You’ve got kids, Ali, so how would you feel if any of your kids were amazingly successful?

AK: I’d be delighted!

LC: Exactly! And that’s how I feel about Andrew. If he becomes the next Dan Brown, I’d feel terrific.

AK: Andrew’s writing style is very different from yours, and he tends to focus on the espionage angle. But he’s a fine thriller writer. Has that at all to do with shared reading tastes?

LC: Yes, I think you’re right; he read similar books to me. But where we diverge is that he’s had much more exposure to the corporate world, in the nooks and crannies, a bit like you, where you see some “dodgy” dealings and government interventions--he knows that stuff for real. Interview him some time, and ask him about the job he was offered straight out of university. I don’t have that government background or insight, so my work is very different.

AK: And does all of this fame for you and Andrew put pressure on your other brother?

LC: I actually have two other brothers, but they’re illiterate, so there’s no worry there. [Laughs]

Editor’s note: The Rap Sheet would like to thank Nick Lewis, the events coordinator at Waterstones Deansgate, for the use of his office to record this interview.

READ MORE:Is American Fiction Killing the Tough Guy?” by David Granger (Esquire).

The Girls and Gibby Too

This week’s entry in my Killer Covers blog looks at pin-up artist Al Brule’s jacket illustration for the 1957 paperback edition of The Man Who Had Too Much to Lose, by the unjustly forgotten Hampton Stone (aka Aaron Marc Stein). Check it out when you have a chance.

Happy Birthday, James Garner

The star of The Rockford Files turns 82 years old today!

Monday, April 05, 2010

The Story Behind the Story: “Eight for Eternity,” by Mary Reed and Eric Mayer

(Editor’s note: In the latest installment of our “Story Behind the Story” series, we introduce you to Mary Reed and Eric Mayer. For the last 11 years, this husband-and-wife team have produced “John the Eunuch” mysteries, set during the Middle Ages in the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. The essay below recounts how they began writing those historical puzzlers, and where their eunuch detective hero stands in Eight for Eternity, the new entry in that series.)

The eighth of our historical mysteries featuring John, Lord Chamberlain to the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian, is just out from Poisoned Pen Press. We’ve been writing about sixth-century Constantinople for quite a while now. To get there, we didn’t take the Via Egnatia straight to the Golden Gate. We followed more obscure and meandering paths, which just happened to end at the walls of the Byzantine capital.

As aspiring writers, we both traversed the lowlands of science-fiction fanzines and then climbed into the foothills of non-fiction magazines. Mary ascended to Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine and even the BBC, whereas Eric wandered into small-press comics. After we married in 1992, our paths converged.

In that same year editor Mike Ashley asked us if we could write a story for a historical mystery anthology. He needed something short and he needed it quickly. For authors who are serious about historical authenticity, “quickly” is a problem. Research takes time. That’s where Eric's comics came in.

In addition to publishing his own “mini-comics,” he had tried, without success, to sell some comic-book scripts. One involved an ancient superhero, a Byzantine slave who chanced upon a magic ring that had belonged to the pagan Roman Emperor Domitian. The ring could be used to summon the old gods, who had been largely deposed by Christianity. To write the script, Eric had done more than enough research for a 2,000-word story. Thus we set out on the road for Constantinople, in A.D. 532, the time of the Nika street riots, and coincidentally the setting for our current novel.

At that point, Mary’s experience in writing mystery stories took over. She came up with a suitable puzzle and a twist at the end. The story was not intended as a character study. Nevertheless, a mystery story requires a detective, so we started looking to fill the position.

“The successful applicant will be someone close to the emperor, who might be trusted with an assignment of a delicate nature. Psychological complexity not required.”

A cursory glance at Byzantine history revealed the emperors’ Lord Chamberlains possessed the proper qualifications. Powerful and influential palace officials who were close to the ruler, Lord Chamberlains had historically been given all manner of odd jobs, such as reconquering Italy in the case of Narses. So was born John, Lord Chamberlain to Emperor Justinian I (who reigned from 527 to 565).

The title Lord Chamberlain is a very loose translation from the Greek employed by some Victorian historians. Perhaps it is not the best term, but we don’t imagine “A praepositus sacri cubiculi mystery” would sound very enticing to potential readers.

Over the years we’ve come to wonder whether “A John the Eunuch Mystery” is a very effective enticement. Some readers might well be repelled by the word eunuch, and others might find it hard to warm up to a protagonist so apparently lacking in qualities that seem to dominate practically every form of entertainment we’re offered these days. If you can’t even sell beer without sex, how can you hope to sell books without it?

John’s castration was accidental, both in fiction and in fact. In fact, it was a slip by the authors. Byzantine Lord Chamberlains were traditionally eunuchs, so we gave him that appellation to add a bit of color to our brief tale. A bit of color for the authors, tragedy for the character. When Mike Ashley subsequently asked us for a second, and then a third Byzantine mystery, neither of us had the presence of mind to invent a new and improved Lord Chamberlain while we still had the chance. After John had appeared in print several times, we decided we had to deal with his accidental maiming, rather as he has had to. In the first novel, One for Sorrow (1999), we described how he was captured, castrated, and sold into slavery after thoughtlessly wandering behind Persian lines. Perhaps it was unfair, attributing our own thoughtlessness to the young John.

By sticking with a eunuch detective, we arguably exacerbated the problem by the way we treated his disability. We downplayed it. John prefers not to talk about his condition and never dwells on it. His injury does not affect the way he acts or the sort of person he is, aside from his exerting a steely control over himself so as not to allow the misfortune to consume him. Would we have been better advised, in today’s marketplace, to emphasize John’s freakishness?

“Step right up, ladies and gentleman, if you dare. Inside the tent we have a detective never before seen, an abomination against nature, the world’s first, one and only, Eunuch Detective!”

Or should we have turned him into a brooding, dark-souled noir figure? John has been given to rage on occasion. He could have spent all of his time violently taking out his rage against the world.

Unfortunately, we have a weakness for writing what we like and a worse weakness for liking what is unfashionable. Still, observant readers will note that the book covers now say “A John the Lord Chamberlain Mystery,” with no mention of his being a eunuch. This, though, was probably a case of closing the barn doors after the horse had escaped, galloped across the fields, leapt the fence, and vanished into the woods.

Although John’s wounds cannot be healed, we have over the years, added details to his character. He has even been reunited with both the woman he loved before his fateful straying, and the daughter she bore him. The arrival of those two women allows John to display the softer side of his nature, which is also demonstrated in his treatment of his elderly servant, Peter, who like John spent time as a slave. In fact, given John’s character as we depict it today, he would be incapable of the treachery carried out by the Lord Chamberlain in that first short story. If ever challenged on it, we intend to claim it was all a pack of lies circulated by Procopius, notorious for his Secret History depicting the emperor and empress as evil, rapacious demons.

That would also explain how, in Eight for Eternity, John is doing something very different during the Nika Riots than was shown in the early story. The current novel differs considerably from our previous books in that it is much more firmly wedded to a specific historic event and strongly features historical characters, including the great general Belisarius and the legendary charioteer Porphyrius.

One error we’re determined to avoid is writing the same book over and over. Significant changes to the series are on the way. John’s long-time nemesis, Empress Theodora, will be departing in book nine as we leap to A.D. 548, the year of her death. There will be changes in our cast of characters and their situations, including John’s own situation. We may very well write a book or two predominantly from the viewpoint of characters other than John, and will most likely see a little of the sixth-century world outside Constantinople.

Before then, however, John has to carry out an investigation against a murderous backdrop lit by raging fires after he is ordered to find those people seeking to use the Nika Riots to dethrone the emperor. Are the ringleaders still in the city--or even alive? Porphyrius, the most famous charioteer of his time, may know more than he tells about the mysterious disappearance of two men under imperial guard. What roles are being played by a pair of brothers with a distant claim on the throne? Does a headstrong young girl hold the key to the mystery? With the fate of the Byzantine Empire at stake, will General Belisarius and his armed troops side with the rioters or remain loyal to Justinian? To some the riots portend the end of the empire, to others the end of the world itself. John must untangle a web of intrigue in a city where death holds court at every corner before the escalating violence in the streets removes all hope of finding those he seeks.

Won’t someone please call it noir?

Foyle’s War and Peace

Rejoice, all you American fans of the British TV series Foyle’s War. That exceptional World War II-era crime drama will return to PBS’ Masterpiece Mystery! rotation on Sunday, May 2, with the first of three new, 90-minute episodes starring Michael Kitchen. The setup for this sixth season of Foyle’s War reads thusly:
It is June 1945, and VE Day has been celebrated in Britain. The state of the country, however, is far from jubilant in the aftermath of war. Keen to retire, but bound to his old job by the steep rise in violent crime that swept the country, Foyle is thrust into the dangerous worlds of international conspiracy and execution, military racism and national betrayal. He must feel his way through this new world as he faces some of his toughest challenges and gripping plots to date.
The series continues on May 9 and 16.

By the way, the summer schedule for Masterpiece Mystery! also promises new episodes of Miss Marple, Hercule Poirot, and Inspector Lewis. That schedule is here.

Sunday, April 04, 2010

Bullet Points: The Sunday Supplement

• The new edition of the Los Angeles Times Magazine is devoted to its city’s relationship with noir fiction. There’s plenty of great stuff in those pages, including an essay by Megan Abbott about the L.A. “dream factory” and Denise Hamilton’s rundown of “twenty essential books and films that form the foundation for that specialty genre known as L.A. noir.”

• Meanwhile, author Jonathan Kellerman picks what he contends are “the top 10 L.A. noir novels,” a group that includes Jonathan Latimer’s Solomon’s Vineyard, Mark Behm’s Eye of the Beholder, and “any novel by Ross Macdonald.” (Hat tip to Campaign for the American Reader.)

• Thanks to a tip from Spinetingler Magazine’s Brian Lindenmuth, I have added yet another horizontal book cover to the collection I began building last October in one of my other blogs, Killer Covers. This jacket comes from PictureBox’s new reissue of Charles Willeford’s 1988 autobiography, I Was Looking for a Street. According to the publisher’s Web site, it’s “the first in a series of reissues by this great author.”

• Tomorrow night’s edition of TV Confidential, on Shokus Internet Radio, will bring something special:
In our first hour, we’ll mark the occasion of James Garner’s birthday by replaying our salute to Maverick, a program that originally aired in September 2007. Our guest will be film and TV journalist Mick Martin, co-author of Video Movie Guide and the last writer ever to interview Jack Kelly, Garner’s co-star on Maverick. The program will also feature comments from the late Roy Huggins, creator and producer of Maverick, audio clips from noted episodes from the series, and a whole lot more.
Hour 2 will be devoted to comedian, actor, and director Dick Martin of Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In fame. The show begins on Shokus at 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT. If you can’t listen then, TV Confidential will be repeated this coming Friday, April 9, at 7 p.m. ET and PT on KSAV.org Internet radio.

• The March/April issue of ThugLit has been posted. It includes fiction by Lee Robertson (“Pink Champagne”), Stephen D. Rogers (“Tare Weight”), Hugh Lessing (“Hand Me Down”).

• April 15 is the cutoff date for people wishing to register at a reduced price for the 2010 NoirCon, which is to be held from November 4 to 7 in Philadelphia. Click here for a registration form.

• Patti Abbott and Gerald So have issued a new flash-fiction challenge, based around a dining establishment and the old Eurythmics song, “Sweet Dreams.” Stories should be limited to 1,000 words in length, and the competition will end on May 1. All the info you need to enter is here.

• Interviews worth reading: Jack Getze talks with Robert Crais (The First Rule) for Spinetingler Magazine; J. Sydney Jones quizzes Jassy Mackenzie, author of the forthcoming South Africa-set novel, Random Violence; Jones also fires some queries at David Fulmer, author of The Fall; Dan Fleming has a brief conversation with Duane Swierczynski (Expiration Date); and Declan Burke puts questions to John McFetridge about the latter’s new novel, Let It Ride, and his new writers’ co-operative organization.

• Plus one video interview: For the Archive of American Television, author-screenwriter Lee Goldberg chats up TV producer Glen A. Larson, who has been associated over the years with such series as McCloud, Switch, Quincy, M.E., Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries, The Fall Guy, and Battlestar Galactica. This exchange last 4.5 hours, so you ought to make some popcorn before you sit down to watch.

• In addition to his recommending Norbert Davis’ The Mouse in the Mountain as one of this last week’s “forgotten books,” blogger Evan Lewis is offering up a complete Davis short story, “Never Say Die,” from Detective Fiction Weekly.

• TV Squad’s Danny Gallagher listsFive Cop Shows That Should Never Be Remade,” either because the originals were too good to ruin (such as Columbo) or so awful that remaking them would be compounding a crime (example: Cop Rock).

• Efforts by the Texas State Board of Education to rewrite American history books with a more favorable bent toward right-wingers is the most recent example of this pernicious practice, but it’s not the only one.

Paperbacks for “just plain folks.”

• This week’s new short story in Beat to a Pulp is “Fetish,” penned by New York writer and Spinetingler Award nominee Hillary Davidson.

• The Webzine Crimefactory is in the market for kung fu stories.

• The latest Cocktail Nation podcast takes a look back at the life of the late Robert Culp and the 1960s TV spy show I Spy, in which he starred with Bill Cosby. Listen here.

• The Drowning Machine’s Indie Store of the Month is Aunt Agatha’s New & Used Mysteries, Detection & True Crime Books, located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

• Oh, and Happy Easter!

And Then There Were Four

Readers have finally narrowed down the list of 64 nominees in Jen Forbus’ “World’s Favorite Detective” tournament to just four: Harry Bosch, Sherlock Holmes, Philip Marlowe, and Hercule Poirot. Eliminated in the last round were Lincoln Rhyme, Elvis Cole, Dave Robicheaux, and--saddest of all, from my perspective--Sam Spade. Monday will bring the penultimate round in this popularity contest, when the competition will be cut down to only two rivals. I can already tell you that my votes are going to Marlowe and Holmes. No question. Click here tomorrow to cast your own ballot.

Friday, April 02, 2010

The Intimidating Mr. Kerr

Philip Kerr celebrates his capturing the 2009 Ellis Peters Historical Award. (Photograph by Ali Karim)

No matter how many authors I interview in my life, I may never escape the jitters I feel whenever I start talking with somebody whose writing I admire. That anxiety hit me hard last October, during a trans-Atlantic telephone call with critic and Rap Sheet correspondent Ali Karim in London. He’d just informed me that Scottish novelist Philip Kerr, author of the Bernie Gunther crime series, had been named the 2009 recipient of the prestigious Ellis Peters Historical Award, given to him that night during a special reception in the British capital. In response, I casually told Karim that, if he happened to see Kerr amid the crowd of champagne-swilling celebrants, he should pass along my congratulations. “Well,” Karim said excitedly, “why don’t you tell him yourself?” And with that, my correspondent walked over to Philip Kerr--and handed him his cell phone.

There was a lot of racket at Kerr’s end, which one would expect at an awards fête, so he probably didn’t hear most of my nervous burbling about having enjoyed his Gunther novels, as well as his other fiction, over the last 20 years. But he thanked me, nonetheless, before ringing off ... and allowing me to wipe the sudden-born sheen of sweat from my brow.

Kerr’s 1989 novel, March Violets, was one of the earliest historical mysteries I remember reading. It introduced protagonist Bernhard Gunther, a 38-year-old, part-Jewish former soldier (who’d seen action on the Turkish front during World War I) and ex-member of the Berlin Criminal Police, who’s become a private eye willing to take on “almost anything ... from insurance investigation to guarding wedding presents to finding missing persons.” The story takes place in 1936, when Gunther is hired by a steel millionaire whose schoolteacher daughter and her husband were recently shot to death, and their house torched. The industrialist wants Gunther to locate some diamonds that went missing from the dead couple’s safe, and bring down their murderer in the bargain. Pursing the case demands that Kerr’s man delve into Berlin’s colorfully sordid and corrupt corners, and allows him to reflect on the hypocrisies and political delusions of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party--the Nazis. German attitudes toward “racial purity” are explored, as are Gunther’s tastes in women, and the P.I. even gets to spend some less-than-quality time at the Dachau concentration camp.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper called March Violets “an impressive debut” that “catches the nasty taste of the jackboot era and the wisecracking flavor of the pulps.” The Times of London went further yet, declaring Kerr’s work “the best first crime novel of the year.” With such a welcome in the literary realm, it’s no wonder that the author was able to sell two more Gunther novels--The Pale Criminal (1990) and A German Requiem (1991)--before abruptly discontinuing the series, and turning to other stories. He published a succession of standalone thrillers, among them A Philosophical Investigation (1992), Gridiron (aka The Grid, for which Kerr won the Bad Sex in Fiction Award), The Second Angel (1998), and Dark Matter: The Private Life of Sir Isaac Newton (2002).

But then in 2006, Bernie Gunther reappeared as unexpectedly as he had vanished 15 years before, in a fourth novel called The One from the Other, which I chose for January Magazine as one of my favorite books of that year. It was followed in 2008 by A Quiet Flame, a work that dispatched our “hero” to Buenos Aires, Argentina, under the guise of a Nazi war criminal--and again found a place on January Magazine’s “Best Books of the Year” list. And late last month, American publisher Putnam released the sixth Gunther outing, If the Dead Rise Not. The story takes Kerr’s protagonist back to Berlin in 1934, before the events of March Violets, and then jumps ahead to find the morally ambiguous Gunther in Havana 20 years later.

In my short review of If the Dead Rise Not, published in January after the original UK release of Kerr’s book, I wrote:
Kerr is a storyteller from whom other storytellers should steal. He has a sharp ear for clever and caustic dialogue, imbues his chief players with egos and emotions enough to make them seem genuine, is economical in incorporating real people into his fiction, and in Bernie Gunther gives us somebody we can always root for--even when the man does things that ought to land him behind bars. If the Dead Rise Not is not a perfect book: there are too many coincidences in its underdeveloped latter section, and it reaches a too-speedy conclusion. Then again, I’m judging by the high standards Philip Kerr has set for his series over six installments. By lesser measurements, this is Best Book of the Year material.
Do you understand now why I might feel intimidated by speaking to Philip Kerr, without any time to prepare for that encounter?

Fortunately, the author didn’t hold this episode against me. When I asked to interview him by e-mail for The Rap Sheet, he quickly acquiesced. He didn’t even balk after I sent him dozens of questions. And then dozens more!

A little background on Kerr before we launch into this exchange: He was born in Edinburgh in 1956, one of three children in a very religious household. “Some Sundays I went to church three times,” he told Scotland on Sunday a couple of years back. In that same newspaper piece, we learned that the author was derided as a youngster for his “swarthy complexion,” which he inherited from his mother. “I got called ‘Paki’ and ‘nigger’ and was spat on,” Kerr recalled, adding that the nickname he acquired at what was then Melville College, in Edinburgh, was “Rastus--even the masters called me that. But it was more ignorance than prejudice. Let’s just say it was character-forming.”

Kerr attended university in Birmingham, England, where he studied--not happily--law. He went from there into jobs in advertising, accountancy, and television. But he knew long before entering the business world that what he really wanted to be was an author. It just took him a while to compose publishable fiction. Then he couldn’t stop doing it. He’s now married to another novelist, Jane Thynne, with whom he has a trio of children. And on top of his books for adults, he has penned the “Children of the Lamp” series for young readers, published under the byline “P.B. Kerr.”

During our interview, we discussed this author’s “evasive” Baptist father, his experiences as an advertising copywriter, why he abandoned and then returned to the Bernie Gunther series, the challenges of writing about Germany’s Nazi years, and what’s up next for his globe-trotting detective.

J. Kingston Pierce: At what point in your youth did you discover a love for books? And which authors were your earliest favorites?

Philip Kerr: I discovered a love for reading when I was about 7 or 8. I was an avid fan. Not the avid fan described by Thomas Harris in Red Dragon, but something close to obsessive anyway. ... There was nothing else to do in Edinburgh between 1956 and 1968 but read books. My father had a shelf of forbidden books: books that were forbidden to me, anyway, and these quickly became my favorites after I discovered the key to the cupboard in which the shelf was located. This was mostly James Bond, Mickey Spillane. Lady Chatterley’s Lover, of course; [I] must have read that when I was about 10. The Devils of Loudun, by Aldous Huxley (marvelous stuff--read it when I was about 11 or 12). Denis Wheatley, natch. But I liked Bond best. And of those, [I liked] Live and Let Die the most. I liked the old Pan paperback covers, which often had bullet-holes.

JKP: Did you have family or friends who encouraged your interest in reading? Were your parents bookish sorts?

PK: Nobody encouraged me in the slightest. My parents weren’t really bookish. My father joined the Book of the Month Club, but it was me who read the books. Scots people don’t go in for encouraging children so much as warning them against masturbation and reefers. My mother was forever warning me against smoking reefers; and she believed in white slavery. She was always telling my sister about the dangers of that. As a boy I rather liked the idea of white slavery. Still do. The Scots never really liked me. I’m dark, you see, and they thought I was a bit racially suspect. As a result, I don’t really like the Scots very much. It’s hard to feel much warmth for your own race when they’ve rejected you.

JKP: Do you have siblings? And are your parents still living?

PK: I have a sister, still living. And a sister, who’s not still living. [My] parents have moved on to the next world.

JKP: What did your parents do for a living?

PK: My father and mother were very religious. At one time my father considered becoming a minister. As a lay preacher. His best friend became a lay preacher and still is one. He and I get along very well.

My father was also a failed Liberal candidate for the 1964 general election. He was also an undertaker. My dad used to say that for us it was always Boxing Day.

JKP: It seems your father was a lot of things at various times.

PK: I’m not very comfortable answering questions about my dad. He died so very young, you see. I get evasive about him mainly because he was so evasive about himself. He did so many jobs in his short life that I can never decide which one sums him up. He had a difficult life. When he was 21 he discovered that his mother was in fact his aunt. His real mother was housekeeper to a rich Jewish family in New York, and I think she got shagged by the boss, although she never said for sure. She gave the baby to her sister and swore her to secrecy. Later on she married the butler; very Remains of the Day, I know, but it hurt my dad that they never sent for him. I think he would quite like to have been a New Yorker. Anything was better than being Scottish in the 1930s.

JKP: You’re a prominent author now, but that hasn’t always been your career direction. You enrolled at the University of Birmingham in 1974 and graduated in 1980 with a Master’s degree in Law. How did this interest in being a lawyer begin, and why did you not pursue it further?

PK: I had no interest in Law and detest lawyers. My father persuaded me that being a lawyer was better than being an undertaker or being unemployed. He was a very bourgeois man. It was him who wanted to be a lawyer, not me. I did a Master’s degree because I felt that as an undergraduate lawyer, I had received no education at all. The Master’s was an excuse to read German philosophy. And to put off the evil day of having to find a job. And to sleep with even more female students, several of them I tutored in jurisprudence for a term when my tutor died.

Writing was always my career direction. But any Mister Hyde needs his respectable Doctor Jekyll job. I read for the Law just to keep my father happy. But I hated it. Hated them [lawyers]. I never had any intention of becoming a lawyer, and as soon as my father was dead, I jacked it in for good.

JKP: In what year did your father pass away?

PK: 1978. He was 46. Religion didn’t do him any favors. God wasn’t listening to him. He doesn’t listen to me, either. But then I don’t listen to him. We’re not on speaking terms. Too much water under the bridge, I suppose. Anyway, who wants to go to Heaven when all the bad girls are in Hell?

JKP: In the 1980s you went to work as an advertising copywriter. For those who’ve never held such a job, what precisely does it entail?

PK: Being a copywriter is about taking seriously that which should never be taken seriously. It’s about staring out of windows, and in mirrors. It’s about talking bullshit, which I had been trained for, as a lawyer. It’s a job for the young and the inane. Don’t buy into [the American TV series] Mad Men. True ad men aren’t mad, [they’re] just prats with large glasses and loud suits. Tragically, many of them think they are involved in creating some kind of art, but they are unaware of the difference between “art” and “artistic.” [Advertising] is a career for juveniles, but it’s useful to a novelist, because you can often work on your novel while you’re supposed to be writing crap about coffee and cigarettes.

JKP: During those copywriting years, did you work principally for Saatchi & Saatchi, or are there other, less-prestigious agency names also decorating your résumé?

PK: Mostly less prestigious. And I certainly never did any work at Saatchi. It wasn’t really required. I am proud to say I worked in … a very untrendy part of the agency where copy could be turned in without the least thought. No one ever spoke to me; no one was interested in my ideas; no one paid the slightest attention to any kind of advertising I ever wrote. Really, it was the most extraordinary good luck on my part. As a result I can never be haunted by a campaign I wrote, like poor Fay [Weldon] and poor Salman [Rushdie]. … It’s never a good idea to fess up on the shit you do as a copywriter. It’s like naming people you’ve slept with. Best to draw a veil.

[When I worked for Saatchi & Saatchi] the agency was very near the British Library (the proper one, not the monstrosity near Euston Station); I used to slip out of the agency around 12 and come back around 4. No one noticed.

I [also] worked for another agency that was very convenient to the London Library. I did a lot of looking out of the window there, too. One day [in 1984] I was looking out of my window and saw WPC Yvonne Fletcher get shot by a Libyan from the next-door embassy. I think advertising was more interesting then.

JKP: What finally convinced you that becoming a novelist was the career path you really ought to take?

PK: I was always convinced of that. From the age of about 9, I think. I wrote several novels between the ages of 17 and 33. All of them were very bad, I think. But with each failure I learned a little more. Failure is very good for a novelist’s soul, assuming the existence of such a thing.

JKP: When you commenced work on March Violets, did you start with that story’s plot or with the character of Bernie Gunther?

PK: Can’t remember. What I do remember was that I wanted to write about Berlin, not about a detective, necessarily. But information on pre-war Berlin was rather hard to obtain in those days and I felt like I needed to be a detective to do it, which is what put it into my mind to write a detective story.

JKP: And how long did it take you to complete March Violets?

PK: Three years. But only because I was obliged to hold down a job at the time, writing about lavatory paper and cornflakes.

JKP: I read somewhere that your original inspiration for March Violets was Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel, Gorky Park, rather than any of Raymond Chandler’s handful of works. In what specific manner(s) did Gorky Park inspire you?

PK: I don’t like the word inspiration. There never was such a thing for me. … I have never felt inspired by any book I have ever read. And certainly not Gorky Park. I enjoyed the book, but that’s it. I thought it worked well and I felt sort of vindicated in the idea that you didn’t need to be from somewhere to write about it. When I was a kid, my teachers--small minds--used to say “write about what you know”; and they thought I was being a clever little sod when I suggested that Shakespeare never wrote about what he knew. For example, he never went to Denmark. Ergo, he did not write about what he knew. My advice to people is never to write about [what] they know. Because who would want to read that?

JKP: Were there other novelists who helped point the way for you in terms of what you wanted to do with crime/detective fiction?

PK: Never knew any. Never met any. It wouldn’t have mattered. I doubt any of them could have told me anything. You teach yourself how to write, and if you’re sensible, you pay attention in your own classroom. Nobody knows how to write a novel; at least nobody can tell anyone else how to do it. You have to find it out for yourself.

My favorite novel was and always has been 1984. But it’s hard to see this has anything to do with what I do now. I quite liked Patricia Highsmith, I suppose. I always felt quite a lot in common with [Tom] Ripley. I’ve always seen myself as more of a perp than a victim.

JKP: What was your original conception of Bernie Gunther, and how do you think he’s evolved since that point? Is he still the man you imagined him to be in 1989?

PK: I wanted a German Everyman figure. That’s what I wanted him to be. That’s what he still is. … He’s a vehicle for political insight and philosophical conjecture. And for my own black sense of humor. ... I think of him as a little like Christian in The Pilgrim’s Progress. He’s weighed down by a great burden called sin; he’s looking for the shining light; he mounts the hill of difficulty; and along the way he meets Apollyon.

JKP: Would he be somebody you’d like to know as a friend?

PK: Lord, no. Bernie is like me in that he doesn’t have any friends. … I don’t feel the lack of friends, you understand. What I do doesn’t really encourage friendship. My only real friend is my wife. I seem quite friendly, however. I smile and chatter away and can work a room. Anyway, Bernie is an extension of my own inadequate personality, so I can’t imagine being friends with myself.

JKP: At what point did you realize you were writing a crime-fiction series? And were you hesitant about taking on such a project?

PK: I’m writing a series of political/historical novels that masquerade as crime novels. I would hesitate to write a crime series, yes. … I walked away from [the Gunther series] after three books. I suppose I walked away from it because everyone seemed to expect me to just keep on doing the same thing, again and again. And I thought this isn’t what I signed on for. I wanted to try other things. Something more ambitious, perhaps. ...

Policemen don’t interest me at all. To me a copper is someone to be avoided. I hate The Bill; I despise CSI; the only good cop series I ever saw was The Wire. That was honest at least. Policemen are even less interesting than lawyers.

JKP: Martin Cruz Smith, as I recall, hadn’t yet visited Moscow when he wrote Gorky Park. Had you at least visited Berlin before you started writing about that city?

PK: Yes, of course I’d been there. I can’t imagine writing about Germany without going there. I can imagine writing about a lot of places without going. But not Germany. I like Germany a lot.

JKP: Have you grown to appreciate Berlin more since you began writing about that city?

PK: Yes, very much so. Berliners are often rude and unhelpful. I like people who are rude and unhelpful as a race. By which I mean they don’t give a damn what people think about them. I’m afraid we in Britain care rather too much about giving offense. We creep around the sensibilities of others. Hitler didn’t like Berlin at all. That’s good enough for me. … I’d like to live [in Berlin], but I don’t think my wife would care for it. Berlin is wonderful. It’s very clean.

Last time I was there I went into a bookshop and saw my books on a Berlin table featuring [Christopher] Isherwood and [John] Le Carré. Just the three of us. That was a big deal for me.

JKP: How conscientious are you about getting the details of Berlin right? Or do you look to capture the general feeling of the city’s history, rather than its details?

PK: I try to be very conscientious. I take enormous troubles to get things right. But one always has to remember that the best research you can do is the research you do in your own head. Imagination is all.

JKP: Could you imagine yourself living in Berlin during World War II? And if so, what might you have thought the things going on there?

PK: Yes, I could have imagined it. That is what I’ve been doing for quite a while now. This act of imagining is necessary in order to write a book about the period. I think I’d have been trying my best to stay out of the way of trouble. I’ve never seen myself as the heroic type. For example, whenever I watch [the old Second World War sitcom] Dad’s Army, my favorite character was always Private Walker. And in The Great Escape I liked the James Garner character best. I think I would have been heavily involved with the black market--during and after the war.

JKP: It seems to me it would have been a challenge to write about Nazis and their assumption of power in Germany, without painting them in black-and-white terms. Yet your stories, while clearly damning of Hitler’s regime, are more nuanced than one might expect. You manage to separate the German people from their government--not wholly (the responsibility for Hitler’s rise was partly their’s, of course), but enough to make clear that Germans were not all bad, even if their leaders looked to be. Has that been a difficult balance to maintain?

PK: Not difficult, no. I think very few Germans were bad, as you put it. Just their leaders. What you have to remember was that in the last months of [the] Weimar [Republic], Germans were at a very low ebb--after the depression, and the inflation, and the Great War, and the failure of one government after another; and there was a big problem with law and order on the streets. People were scared of the Communists. I’d have been scared of them, too, after what happened in Russia. People just wanted a stable government and to feel good about themselves again. It’s easy to feel sympathy with people under those circumstances. Yes, the Nazis were bastards. But in the beginning I don’t think they seemed like worse bastards than any of the other bastards. If the Nazis hadn’t got elected, then maybe the Communists would have got elected. [Joseph] Stalin’s record doesn’t encourage one to believe that the Reds would have behaved any better than the fascists.

JKP: I remember reading your first three Gunther novels as they were published, and loving every one of them. But then suddenly, you stopped writing the series. What in the hell happened?

PK: I wrote other books. I never signed on to be a writer just to do a series. Je ne regrette rien. Besides, it’s not always a good idea to give people what they want until they want it more. When I finished Book 3 (German Requiem) of the original trilogy, I didn’t have the impression that I was putting aside anything important. I think it has only been the act of putting aside the character and then coming back to him after an absence of 15 years that there has come to be a greater interest in this character.

JKP: If I’m not mistaken, you wrote nine novels between German Requiem and Bernie Gunther’s comeback in The One from the Other. The first of those was called A Philosophical Investigation, a serial-killer thriller set in London in the second decade of the 21st century. How did writing that book help clear your mind and ready you to tackle different sorts of fiction, after three Gunther novels?

PK: [A Philosophical Investigation] was the best crime novel I’ve ever written and was probably way ahead of its time. As someone who had read philosophy as a post-graduate, I wanted to deal with the crime novel from a philosophical POV. I wanted to understand the reading public’s obsession with crime-writing and murder. I also wanted to pay homage to [George] Orwell, I guess, by inhabiting similar territory for a while.

JKP: My two favorite works of yours during that interim period are 1993’s Dead Meat (which has to do with the murder of a journalist in post-Soviet St. Petersburg, Russia, and the rivalry between police and a rising tide of mobsters/scam artists) and 2002’s Dark Matter (which places scientist Sir Isaac Newton in the role of detective, hired by the Royal Mint in the late 17th century to expose and perhaps apprehend currency counterfeiters). Can you say a little bit about the inspiration of those two books, and your work on them?

PK: Too long ago. Ancient history. I can’t really remember. I’m story led, I’ll say that much. I get an idea for a book and then if it starts to obsess me, the only way to exorcise it is to write it.

JKP: I found it interesting when your 2005 novel, Hitler’s Peace, saw print. The work is set in the waning days of World War II, and has to do with plots against Stalin, President Franklin Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, all of whom are headed for a conference in Tehran in 1943. The book seemed to signal your interest in returning to Bernie Gunther’s world. Was that just hopeful thinking on my part, or did you see Hitler’s Peace as a transition back into the Gunther series?

PK: No. That seemed like another good story idea. Only when I was finished did it occur to me to go back to Gunther. I realized there were lots of things I could do with him that I hadn’t thought of before. I got older, I guess. And I figured that this new perspective might well affect Gunther II for the best.

JKP: From the standpoint of a writer, do you think you got everything you could out of your years of not writing about Bernie?

PK: Oh, yes. I think it was the best thing that could have happened to me. I can’t think of anyone who has had the luxury of leaving a character behind for 15 years and then coming back to him. In that interim period I think the first three books achieved a kind of critical mass. Lots of people read them and liked them, and so when I came back to writing about [Gunther] they were waiting for me. Lucky.

JKP: What finally made you ready to return to writing Gunther books?

PK: It wasn’t that I never thought I would write about BG again. It was just that I had other stuff to do. I wanted to write about BG, however, in a way that made it seem fresh; thus Bernie's travels from Austria to Argentina, to Cuba and on from there. He’s become a modern Flying Dutchman.

JKP: While I enjoyed Gunther’s comeback in The One from the Other, I think you really hit the ball out of the park (to use one of those notorious American clichés) with A Quiet Flame. It’s definitely one of my favorite entries in this series, partly because it makes such excellent use of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Or at least I thought it did, until I read somewhere that you didn’t actually visit the Argentine capital before writing about it. Is that true?

PK: Each time I get this question I give a different answer, because I don’t think it really matters whether I went there or not. ... What’s important is how it feels in a novel. Did I go to Cuba? Yes and no. These are kind of private things. It’s like Penn and Teller showing you how a trick is done. I prefer not to discuss things, because I don’t usually want to be drawn in to having to comment on something I only know a little about. I get asked to talk about Berlin, that’s fine. The cat’s out of the bag on that. But I don’t ever want to talk about Argentina or Cuba because I don’t really know these places well.

JKP: Another quality I appreciated in A Quiet Flame was your sense of humor. How important is humor in the fiction-writing you do?

PK: Very, very important. The humor is the driving force of the books. The humor is what stops the books from being very depressing. Bernie’s humor is his own act of true resistance.

JKP: Real-life personalities often appear in your Gunther stories, whether it be Juan Perón or Adolf Eichmann or Hermann Goering. What challenges do you see in incorporating authentic characters into your fiction? And are there real-life players you have avoided using, because you’re not sure you could do them justice?

PK: Nope. Haven’t avoided anyone except Hitler. It’s useful to bring on a real-life villain, because they’re always more villainous than any villain I could invent myself. Chandler talks about having a guy come through a door with a gun in his hand when he didn’t know what to do next; me, I prefer to have a real-life Nazi come through the door. The trick is to get in touch with their humanity. To understand them as people. When you can do that, they come alive. I don’t believe, as Spinoza says, that to understand all is to forgive all. Actually, I think to understand all is to forgive less. Anyway, using real-life characters is one of the great pleasures I have in writing these books.

JKP: Before I leave the subject of A Quiet Flame, I must put in a word for the enchanting and resourceful Anna Yagubsky, with whom Bernie gets more than a little comfortable in that story. You’ve linked Gunther with many fair young women, but Anna--at least in my opinion--is your finest, fullest female creation yet. Can we ever expect to make her acquaintance again? And do you base your female characters on women you know?

PK: Yes. But that’s my secret. I love women. I’m a sad old romantic at heart, you see. I like love stories.

JKP: Is there a woman in the Gunther stories whom you would like to have known in real life?

PK: Yes, Noreen Charalambides [from If the Dead Rise Not]. Although she’s based on Lillian Hellman.

JKP: In both A Quiet Flame and your latest book, Bernie is drawn into cases that relate to events or investigations from his past. Is that a story structure that appeals particularly to you, and that you intend to use more as Bernie gets older, and his past slowly catches up to him?

PK: Yes, that’s how it’s going to work.

JKP: What were your intentions with If the Dead Rise Not, and how far do you think you went in satisfying your expectations?

PK: I intended to write my best novel to date, and that’s what I think I did.

JKP: It was for The Dead Rise Not that you finally won the Ellis Peters Historical Award last year, after being nominated for that same commendation one or two times before. How did that win feel, and do you think it can have any impact on your career?

PK: You live long enough and stay in print long enough, they give you an award eventually. It’s a Mexican stand-off. I’m not sure it has much of en effect except that people find something to hang on you. A validation perhaps. I’m happy to get as many awards as possible. I like making speeches. ... Can I have an Edgar now please?

JKP: I find it interesting that, in addition to your composing adult novels, you have also penned a small series of children’s books under the name P.B. Kerr. What motivated you to try your hand at fiction for younger readers?

PK: To connect with my own children. I love writing for kids. I like to get in touch with my inner 12-year-old.

JKP: How many children do you and your wife have?

PK: Three children. Various ages. Various sexes. They don’t like me mentioning their names.

JKP: What satisfactions do you get from writing books for young people that you don’t receive from writing books for adults?

PK: They write and tell me that they like my books. Which is nice. They don’t bother writing unless they have something nice to say. Adults are rather more mealy-mouthed with their praise. They might say they like your books, but feel obliged to let you know that there was a spelling mistake on page 300. Gee, thanks. But there are satisfactions that are only peculiar to writing for children. This is mainly the experience of trusting one’s imagination completely. Of giving yourself up to it in a way that doesn’t attend writing for adults.

JKP: And I just have to ask this question: In the byline P.B. Kerr, what does the “B” stand for? Can you tell us what is your middle name is?

PK: Secret.

JKP: You’ve composed five “Children of the Lamp” books thus far. Are you planning to continue that series? Do you have other children’s books on the drawing board?

PK: I’ve written six. Number six will be published in the autumn. I wrote another children’s book a while back that was called One Small Step [2008]. And I have others on the drawing board, yes.

JKP: And what of your man Bernie Gunther? Are you currently working on another novel about him? What location is he off to next?

PK: Yes, I’m working on another at the moment. I can’t tell you too much about it except that there’s quite a bit of it set in a Soviet POW camp.

JKP: How many Gunther books would you like to produce before turning to something else again?

PK: I don’t know how many I can write without repeating myself. I want to grow the character in different places and in different time periods. I don’t want to be a bore.

JKP: How many hours a day do you spend writing?

PK: [John] Updike speaks of a writer keeping surgery hours. I like that. I go in my office between 8 and 6. I’m there for most of the time, and quite a bit of it is spent writing.

JKP: What sorts of books do you read nowadays? And have you read any crime/mystery/thriller fiction that you’d like to recommend?

PK: I don’t read much that isn’t something to do with what I’m writing. I certainly don’t read crime and mystery while I’m doing it. I wouldn’t want to get any ideas from anyone else. I’m never happy to recommend books by anyone really. Why should my opinion matter?

JKP: What is the one thing you now wish you’d known about the life of a novelist before you embarked on this career?

PK: Hmm. I guess that it’s harder to lose weight when you’re older. Sitting at a desk all day, it’s easy to get fat. I wish I’d eaten less at the beginning. Trained myself to live on less food.

JKP: What single thing do you find most interesting about yourself or your personal history?

PK: I don't find myself in the last bit interesting. Increasingly, the difference between being a writer and writing is troublesome. I spend my whole life not talking, just scribbling; and then I have to go to a literary festival and be Mr. Saturday Night. That’s tough. It’s like being two people. I’ve sometimes thought I should employ someone to be me. Ideally, he would speak several languages, and be universally charming.

JKP: Finally, if you could have written any other novel that currently appears under somebody else’s byline, what would it have been?

PK: The Bible. I’d love to have written that. I might have changed the last chapter, however. I’m not very keen on the end.

Sorry, Charlie

I am sorry to hear that television, film, and stage actor John Forsythe died yesterday at age 92. The suave, silver-haired Forsythe is probably best remembered for his starring roles in Bachelor Father and Dynasty. But as many Rap Sheet readers would undoubtedly note, Forsythe also provided the voice of unseen private-eye agency chief Charlie Townsend on the 1970s series Charlie’s Angels. You can hear his voice in the introduction to that show, available here.

READ MORE:John Forsythe, 1918-2010” (Television Obscurities); “John Forsythe,” by Tony Figueroa (TV Confidential); “John Forsythe’s (and Hitchcock’s) Foray Into 1960s Spy Entertainment” (The HMSS Weblog).

Oh No, Not Another One!

From Declan Burke’s blog comes this sad news:
Murder Ink, the crime fiction bookstore on Dawson Street in Dublin, is closing its doors. Run for the last 12 years by Michael Gallagher ..., Murder Ink was always hugely supportive of Irish crime writers, and rarely failed to put a new Irish release front and centre in its windows--at no cost to the writer or publisher, I hasten to add. A combination of the economic downturn and Michael’s failing health contributed to the decision, although the fact that Dawson Street also hosts a Waterstones and a Hodges Figgis meant that it was never easy for Murder Ink to capitalise on its niche appeal. An unfailingly warm and welcoming proprietor, and hugely informative about crime fiction domestic and international, Michael Gallagher will be sorely missed as a supporter of Irish crime writing.
This Murder Ink closing is not to be confused with the shuttering in 2006 of another bookstore of the same name in New York City.

Flying Stone’s Colors

It looks as if the rumors are true: renowned director Oliver Stone is going to develop a film from John D. MacDonald’s first Travis McGee novel, The Deep Blue Good-by (1964), with Leonardo DiCaprio starring as the “salvage expert”-cum-sleuth.

More on the project here and here.

A Little Dusty But Still Commendable

There are plenty of excellent reading opportunities contained in today’s Web-wide selection of “forgotten books.” In addition to David Thayer’s endorsement on this page of Pete Dexter’s Train, the crime-fiction-related works include: Mum’s the Word for Murder, by Brett Halliday; The Wave Hangs Dark, by Alan Dipper; The Judas Window, by Carter Dickson; The Long Shadow, by Celia Fremlin; The Mouse in the Mountain, by Norbert Davis; Gold Mine, by Wilbur Smith; The Falcon Strikes, by Mark Ramsay; a look back at Paul Savoy’s Blackie Savoy adventures; and a work of crime-related criticism, Deadlier Than the Male, by Jessica Mann.

Series organizer Patti Abbott has a full roster of this Friday’s participants in her own blog, plus a few additional must-reads, such as Sleep with Slander, by Dolores Hitchens.

The Book You Have to Read: “Train,”
by Pete Dexter

(Editor’s note: This is the 88th installment of our ongoing Friday blog series highlighting great but forgotten books. Today’s selection comes from infrequent Rap Sheet contributor David Thayer, who is also the author of his own blog. Thayer is represented by Stacia Decker at the Donald Maass Literary Agency for a novel called Black Forest.)

Since this is a part of a series about forgotten novels, you can assume a few things from the start. I liked this Pete Dexter book, and though it was published fairly recently (back in 2003) I thought it was worthy of a second glance.

Train received a lot of coverage after its publication, with major reviews appearing in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Boston Herald, and USA Today. The critiques were generally positive, although the Times reviewer found one of this story’s principal characters, police sergeant Miller Packard, to be rather clichéd as “The Mile Away Man.” Most reviewers mentioned the grim worldview Dexter puts forth and several complained about subplots that go nowhere. My thought is, Dexter spends the entire novel telling us that most plots go nowhere or end badly. That’s why this is such a great example of noir fiction.

The setting is Los Angeles in 1953. A couple of black men, caddies at the private Brookline Country Club, board a yacht, kill the owner, and rape his wife. Packard is the officer who responds, arriving on the scene just in time to put both criminals in handcuffs. Instead of carting them off to jail, though, he executes them and throws their bodies into the harbor. This excerpt shapes the scene:
A moment passed, and then the sergeant sighed and picked up the shotgun. He broke the breach to check the load, then closed it again. Arthur’s eyes opened at the sound. He began to sit up, and the shot tore away his shoulder and the side of his neck. He was strangely still for a moment. A pink mist floated out behind him, and then gravity took his head sideways and down, in the direction of the missing part of his neck. There were tiny noises as bits and pieces fell into the water.
The dead men had recognized Packard from the country club as a golfer who always specifies the caddy he wants, Lionel Walk, a teenager whose nickname is Train. After Packard disposes of those yacht killers, the novel sheds most of the conventions of the crime genre--likable protagonist, good versus evil--to explore an amoral man’s enthusiasms.

Norah Rose, the surviving victim of the recent yacht attack, seems content to drift into Packard’s orbit. Her claim to fame is that she lives in a house that once survived the crash of a Howard Hughes aircraft--a cunning metaphor for the battle-damaged enclave of West Los Angeles. Norah’s life is a construct of careful liberalism (she supports America’s nascent civil-rights movement) and blinding fear. When Train eventually moves onto her property with his deranged friend, Nora’s abstract racial tolerance falls victim to her fantasy fear obsession, triggered by this new proximity to black strangers.

Miller Packard takes Train under his wing, turns him into his prodigy, and mounts a one-man Professional Golf Association tour. Train is a legendary talent on the golf course, a caddy who’s far more gifted at the game than the wealthy white men who bet money against him. Packard is Pete Dexter’s notion of a sophisticated racist, a man who sees things as they are and figures out how to play the angles for personal gain. There are subtleties in the relationship between Packard and Train that hint at caring, just as there are nuances of love between Packard and Norah. Ultimately, though, Packard’s sheer viciousness prohibits anything like happiness. He has a restless need for destruction and the novel’s conclusion stays true to Packard’s damaged character.

READ MORE:The Book You Have to Read: God’s Pocket, by Pete Dexter,” by David Corbett (The Rap Sheet).