Receive the print version of the MCW Newsletter! Just send your address to minnesotacrimewave@yahoo.com.
Read back issues
![[IMAGE]](images/newsltr5.jpg) Spring, 2003 - Vol. 2, Number 2
ALL POINTS BULLETIN
By Ellen Hart
The publication of this newsletter marks the beginning of the third year that The Minnesota Crime Wave has been together. Anniversaries are cool stuff. Since we're all Minnesotans, either by choice or by birth, we don't like to toot our own horns... Excessive emotion draws attention to oneself, and that is decidedly, well, un-Minnesotan... But horn tooting, otherwise known as promotion, is what this newsletter is about.
A few weeks ago, I ran into a fairly well-known author at a local bookstore. She proclaimed quite proudly that she didn't like to pal around with other writers, "because all they ever talk about are their book deals." That hasn't been my experience. One of the greatest gifts becoming a mystery writer has given to me is the friendship of other crime writers. Far from being tediously self-consumed, the writers I'm privileged to call friends are all trying to negotiate the ups and downs of the writing life, of being part of the crazy publishing biz, with equal amounts of dismay and elation—and a modicum of grace. Traveling the highways and byways with The Minnesota Crime Wave is much like any employee standing around the water cooler—except our editors don't come and glare at us and make us rush back to our computers.
But back to our idiosyncratically bland Minnesota heritage. I must tell you that I've spent my entire life envying my Italian, Jewish, Irish, and other ethnic friends because of the richness of their cultural backgrounds. They receive such amazing advice from their parents, both dark and profound. The two pieces of advice I got from my Scandinavian mom were:
- Save your money.
- Don't get the big head.
I try to be good... But pushing boundaries, living on the edge, is what writing is all about, and that means we, the members of the Crime Wave, should throw caution to the wind and treat ourselves to warm yet-restrained handshakes all around. Here's to the Minnesota Crime Wave's Third Year Together!
THE FICTION WRITER AS SOCIOPATH?: K.J. ERICKSON
In 2001, with her debut novel Third Person Singular, Minneapolis author K.J. Erickson knocked the socks off critics and readers across the country and gave Minnesotans another reason to be proud of the state's ability to produce great heartland artists. With her next novel, The Dead Survivors, K.J. solidified her reputation as a writer to read and a career to watch. Just recently, she published The Last Witness, the third book in her series featuring Minneapolis police investigator Mars Bahr.
We asked K.J. to give us some insight into her creativity. We should have known that she'd offer us something completely unexpected. Here's what happens when you ask her the old question: "Where do you get your ideas?"
![[cover]](images/kj.jpg) K.J.: That's the question every writer gets when meeting readers. Fiction writer Reynolds Price had a great answer to the question. "Math didn't happen to me," Price said. "Ideas do." I think Price's answer is spot on—as far as it goes. The question that follows Price's answer is, Why is it some people sprout ideas like crab grass?
Let me posit a theory to answer the deeper question. It's in the genes. To add a perverse twist to my theory, let me say that I think it comes from a bad seed within the genes. Read the psychiatric diagnosis manual on the definition of a sociopath and you'll find words like compulsive lying, manipulation, amorality, indifference to consequences.
Lousy qualities in a human being, but qualities that also describe the work of fiction writers. Is it possible that some writers have in their genetic lineage a sociopath or two? And that their bad seed impulses have been mercifully transformed from wrong-doing to tale-telling?
I'll offer three examples that support my theory. Crime writer Anne Perry famously was involved in the murder of a friend's mother during Perry's adolescence. It is impossible to read an account of the planning that led to the murder or to see the movie ("Heavenly Creatures") based on the murder without being struck by how Perry seemed to be motivated by a hyperactive imagination. Did Perry have a sociopath in her family background? That possibility has not been explored, but clearly she has put her imagination to benign and productive purposes in the aftermath of the murder.
Tobias Wolff is a renowned memoirist and fiction writer who has written extensively about his sociopathic father. This Boy's Life by Wolff provides a thorough and fascinating examination of the effect of a sociopath on the development of a writer.
John LeCarre (David Cornwall) recently wrote an article in The New Yorker about his sociopathic father and LeCarre's assessment that his own character bears the burden of his father's genetic gift. A recent Ovation Channel program on LeCarre also focused on the influence LeCarre's father had on the developing writer.
Thin proof to support my perverse theory? Let me add a mea culpa. I have a sociopath in my genetic lineage, and I have long recognized that my bad seed has given root to the pleasure of telling stories. Are there others among us tale-tellers who have a sociopath in their bloodlines?
Ellen? Kent? Carl? Deborah?...
K.J. Erickson writes the Mars Bahr series. The third title the series, The Last Witness, was published by St. Martin's Press in April 2003.
IS A WRITERS' GROUP FOR YOU?
By Deborah Woodworth
Writers' groups aren't for everyone, but when they work, they are great. Three-fourths of us in the Minnesota Crime Wave are writers' group members. Kent and Carl belong to the same group, and I'd like to take this opportunity to tell them that Ellen and I are tired of the in-jokes and knowing looks they exchange. Also, the secret language has to go. I belong to a group that has been together for somewhere between eleven and fourteen years. Our memories don't go back that far. I can't say enough good things about my group. Over the years they have taught me so much, tolerated my need to learn, and given support and friendship. The group has changed over the years, as more of us have gone through all the stages of the publishing saga, but we have endured.
Writers' groups come in all shapes and sizes, from highly structured to laissez-faire (that's laissez, not lazy). They might focus on one type of writing (suspense, poetry, etc.) or just be a place where writers can get together and, well, write. For a writers' group beginner, I'd recommend a group with similar interests, goals, and levels of commitment. If you'd like to write crime fiction, try taking a suspense-writing class and see if you find like-minded (and tolerable) compatriots. That's where my group came from—a class at the Loft taught by Mary Logue. You might advertise in your local newspaper or online, or join an organization such as Sisters in Crime. Don't despair if the first group doesn't take—you might have to try a group or five before the chemistry works.
Give a group some time to gel; it's worth the effort. At its best, a writers' group offers an informed sounding board for your work, knowledge and information to help you grow as a writer, and encouragement to keep going when staying in bed for the rest of your life is looking good. A group can give you a place to fumble, get discouraged, and celebrate those all-too-rare moments of triumph with a bottle of the bubbly.
However, here's what a writers' group can't do: it can't tell you what or how to write. You'll have to learn all that the hard way, by writing and writing and writing some more. It can't guarantee you'll be published; nothing can. A group can react thoughtfully to your writing but can't tell you exactly how to fix it. Heck, sometimes my group can't agree if something even needs fixing. A writers' group can't work magic. But it sure is nice to share the ups, downs, and in-betweens of the writing life with a group of friends who know all too well what it feels like.
MUSINGS: BITS AND PIECES
By Carl Brookins
One of the more intriguing aspects of this business is why books get published in the first place. The practical structure of publishing requires authors and editors to consider the tastes and desires of the buying public—if they can figure out what those are. When editors consider manuscripts, they look at the reality of the time. Assume an acceptable quality of writing, pace, characterization, story, etc. The editor sees dozens, perhaps hundreds of such publishable manuscripts every month. Why is one chosen over another equally acceptable novel? Practical business decisions play a part. How do you determine what will sell in sufficient numbers to make even a small profit? Altruism aside, if a publisher isn't profitable, it can't bring to the reading public books they, the publisher, cares about and thinks important. Hard choices must be made. History is important, the track record of the author, perceived trends, as in what's selling, what's enduring, who's hot. We've all heard these tales. One wonders how much research is focused on the potential buyer. Do bookstores keep track of requests? Would that information, if collected in a multiplicity of places across the country, be of value to acquisition editors?
Judging books, which is what a reviewer does, is an odd craft. We make hundreds of decisions which may influence readers. How much influence a review, positive or negative has is questionable. Positive reviews have been shown to increase sales. So have negative reviews. Reviewing when one is also an author is another odd aspect of publishing. I suppose, if one wrote in a different genre from that in which one reviewed, questions of fairness and bias wouldn't arise. An author of mainstream fiction who reviews true crime—two very different genres—might not have a problem. Some difficulties come from the intense understanding any author has regarding the effort it takes to produce the novel. Does one really want to write a review which is critical? One can avoid that issue by simply telling what the book is about, but that doesn't seem adequate, nor fair to the reader of the review.
On the other hand, writing reviews of good books is a joy. Reviewers want to tell people about good books, they want to support the book, the author, the genre. Reviewers would also like to steer readers away from bad books. Don't waste your money. I overheard a bookseller urging a buyer to purchase A instead of B. Both mysteries were similar in nature. In the opinion of the bookseller, A was a good book and B was really bad. After the buyer left I asked the seller why they even carried B, if it was not a good book. The answer was, because it sells. As consumers of books, or any other art form, we all need guidance. The best solution, in my opinion, is to find reviewers who are consistent in their opinions. They don't have to have opinions you agree with, just consistency you can count on.
Read back issues:
Winter, 2002 - Vol. 1, Number 1
Spring, 2002 - Vol. 1, Number 2
Fall, 2002 - Vol. 1, Number 3
Winter, 2003 - Vol. 2, Number 1
Spring, 2003 - Vol. 2, Number 2
Fall, 2003 - Vol. 2, Number 3
Spring, 2004 - Vol. 3, Number 1
Fall, 2004 - Vol. 3, Number 2
Spring, 2005 - Vol. 3, Number 3
Fall, 2005 - Vol. 3, Number 4
Spring, 2006 - Vol. 4, Number 1
Fall, 2006 - Vol. 4, Number 2
Spring, 2007 - Vol. 5, Number 1
Spring, 2008 - Vol. 6, Number 1
Fall, 2008 - Vol. 6, Number 2 |
![[space]](images/space.gif){kind=small}
