Ghost Hero(ine)

Siisters in Crime was founded twenty-five years ago, to support and promote the under-reviewed work of women crime writers.  To celebrate the anniversary, SinC has asked bloggers to post review of books by women authors.  This is the first of my reviews.

I’ll start the Blogging Challenge with the fabulous new Ghost Hero by S. J. Rozan (who is a friend, though I’d love this book even if I’d never met her).  SJ writes a PI series that alternates narrators, between Anglo Bill Smith and Chinese-American Lydia Chin.  This is a Lydia book, and it’s a zinger.

One of the things I admire most about SJ’s writing is her dialogue, scalpel-sharp and always—always—serving multiple purposes: furthering the plot, giving insight into character, throwing in touches of humor, slipping in a few red herrings, and keeping the pace at breakneck speed.  You could teach a writing class out of a Rozan novel, and this one is among her best, weaving together the world of modern Chinese art with the complexities of international politics and a native’s understanding of, and appreciation for, the streets of New York, enlivening the mix with the delicious Unresolved (so far!) Sexual Tension that crackles between Lydia and Bill.

And as I said, humor: Sj writes funny really, really well.  Like the quick throwaway reference to Bill, disguised as a gold-draped Russian gangster, as Lord of the Blings.

There is an excerpt from Ghost Hero, info about Chinese art with a bajillion links on it, and other stuff on SJ’s web page, here.

Now we are six

I’m not a big one for anniversaries and birthdays (sorry, kids) but it occurred to me this morning that I started this blog in February, and indeed, when I went looking, I found that last Thursday, Mutterings turned six.  Interestingly, my first post (here) was about the lack of women in book awards (based on an Edgars committee I had chaired, that came up with male nominees.  Sigh.)  By coincidence, I posted this past Friday on Facebook about a Sisters in Crime study concerning, yes, the lack of women in book awards, and reviews.

Sigh.  Will I be writing the same post when the blog turns ten?

Studies in Sherlock!

In my new-found identity as an official Sherlockian (BSI investiture: “The Red Circle”) I’ve been talking to über-Sherlockian Les Klinger about a couple of projects.  One of them is a touch specialized, although I’ll be posting about it closer to its pub date.  But the other is going to be such a blast, I have to shout about it now.

Question: What do these people have in common? (other than being great writers)—

Alan Bradley

Tony Broadbent

Jan Burke

Lionel Chetwynd

Lee Child

Colin Cotterill

Michael Dirda

Neil Gaiman

Laura Lippman

Gayle Lynds

Philip Margolin

Margaret Maron

T. Jefferson Parker

Thomas Perry

S. J. Rozan

Dana Stabenow

Charles Todd

Answer: They’ve all agreed to write a story for Studies in Sherlock, edited by Les Klinger and Laurie R. King:

In 19th century England, a new kind of hero—a consulting detective—blossomed in the mind of an underemployed doctor and ignited the world’s imagination.  In the thirteen decades since the Sherlock Holmes archetype appeared, countless variations on that theme have been played, everything from Mary Russell to Greg House, from ‘Basil of Baker Street’ to the new BBC Holmes in the Internet age.

Now, writers like the above don’t usually “do” Sherlock Holmes.  Which is precisely why we asked them, because we suspected that they had, lurking in the backs of their minds, stories that play variations on the Holmes theme.

All we’ve asked is that they let the Holmes stories inspire them.  We might get a straight Holmes pastiche, or a story about Mycroft or Mrs Hudson or Billy the page.  The story might take place in Victorian Baker Street or Mughal India or on the first manned flight to Mars.  We may get one or two graphic tales.

Oh, this is going to be such fun!

Studies in Sherlock.  Look for it from Random House books, Christmas 2011.

Books that nag

A salon.com article by Emma Silvers (26, whose age enters into the point of the article) talks about her dislike of ebooks,a despite being of the gadget generation.  And she brings up an interesting point:

Out of every argument I’ve heard in favor of e-readers — no dead trees, portable research, “it’s the future,” etc. — my least favorite might be the central point of the thing: the fact that it allows you to choose from thousands of books at any given time. I simply don’t want that kind of potential for distraction. Would I have ever made it through any book by Herman Hesse if I’d had the choice, with a press of a button, to lighten the mood with a little Tom Robbins? Will anyone ever finish “Infinite Jest” on a device that constantly presents other options?

There is a physicality to a book that both contributes to the reading experience (studies are indicating that sensory stimulation–sound, touch–make the brain remember better, even in non-ADD readers: there’s a reason why teenagers listen to music while they do their homework) and  that demands attention.  An actual, physical to-be-read pile is present in a way ebooks are not.  If you don’t want to think about all those ebooks you paid $10 for and haven’t read, you just don’t look at your list.  To do that with real books would require a room with a perennially closed door, and even then, it would nag every time the homeowner cracked the door to toss in another purchase.

I don’t know about you, but I rarely give away books that I haven’t read at least a little of.  They sit on the shelf and glower at me from under their dust until I am finally driven by guilt, a year or two (or six) after I’d bought the thing (having read a review or met the author or loved the cover or…), and I snap ” Oh all right, then!” and take it down and open it.  More often than not, to discover that I was right to buy it in the first place.

Books on my bedside table get read, sooner or later.  Books in my e- reader?  Probably not.

Really, the Pope and Jewish mothers everywhere ought to come out against e- readers.  Guilt can be a powerful force for good.

No Great Women Artists?

A part of the Twenty Weeks of Buzz will be a retrospective of the LRK oeuvre—a fancy way of saying that I’ll be looking at each of my twenty books, a week at a time.  We begin with A Grave Talent, the first Kate Martinelli novel, published January 1993 (Edgar and Creasey awards for Best First Novel.)

Why have there been no great women artists?

A Grave Talent was not the first book I wrote, it was the third.  However, it was the first one that the publishing world decided to nibble at, five years after I’d begun to write novels more or less full time.

The book had its beginning with two ideas: Can I write a novel in which the protagonist does nothing? And, What would Rembrandt look like if he were a woman?  The question of women in what are generally assumed to be men’s roles was one I had been poking around for years, although for the most part in the world of theology rather than crime fiction—in 1984 I wrote a MA thesis exploring the feminine aspects of the God of the Old Testament, and during my time as a graduate student had co-led a seminar in Women in the New Testament.  First-century women rabbis, the influence Moses’ wife had on the future of Judaism, God as Mother, were all topics I had explored.  To say nothing of the practical applications of The Feminine, since I also had small children at the time.

So, the seed: Artists are people possessed by their vision of the world and their need to give it expression.  And it often seems that the greater the artist, the more possessed by their art, the more impossible they are as human beings: egomaniacal, manipulative, and devouring every scrap of energy in their vicinity.

And mostly male.

Whether by nature or by upbringing, women are less likely to be possessed by this near-pathological sense of self-importance making it impossible to see the world except as a resource.  But if a woman were to be of this sort, and if she were to possess the inborn talent that goes far to justifying the artist’s egomania, what would she look like, and how would it shape the world around her?

Or as the question is often put: Why have there been no great woman artists? The question put in A Grave Talent is rather, If there were a truly great woman artist, how would the world react?

And because I appreciated the formal aspects of crime fiction, the bones on which a story can be hung, I shaped the story of Vaun Adams, my female Rembrandt, as a mystery: Unthinkable crimes occur in her vicinity, yet she goes on with her work.  Is that because she has committed them?

Into her orbit swings a young homicide inspector from San Francisco, who has a good few secrets of her own in the background.  As she and her (older, male) partner begin to peel away the layers of the artist’s life, layers of their own are tugged away: At the center of any good crime novel is not the crime’s solution, but its effect.

Vaun Adams is a force of nature.  Her raw and uncontrollable talent, her utter fixation on the canvas at hand and the resultant blindness to those around her, changes everything she comes near: Like a black hole, the intensity of her presence tugs everyone else out of their given orbits.

As such, Vaun is both the book’s central character and a character totally apart from the action.  She—her talent—forms the central axle of the story, and all the other characters—neighbors, lovers, the police, the murderer—spin madly around the solidity of her presence.  Yet she does act, at the very end: She abandons her aloofness, comes out of her extreme retreat, and plays a role.

And when she does, the shock of her motion throws those spinning around her to the four winds.

Turkeys and writers

Happy Christmas, everyone.
And as you’re sitting at your table tomorrow, bloated and dyspeptic and stunned by the tryptophan in your roasted meleagris, you may find yourself wondering, How did Laurie King come to be a writer? Well, if you are able to stagger as far as your computer screen, you can have your answer, a step by step account of the building of The Beekeeper’s Apprentice.
Or, you could just go take a nap.
**
See you Sunday, when exciting things launch chez Laurie.

Children’s horror

It isn’t often I laugh aloud in a silent house, but I challenge you to read this review without snorking your tea out across the keyboard.

goodnightmoon.JPG

The world-wide convention

Yesterday all over the world, people went to a conference. I took place on two panels, one with Lee Child and our editor Kate Miciak (who were in New Jersey and Long Island, respectively,) the other with Nevada Barr (in New Orleans.)  Since then I’ve listened to various other panels, including a conversation between the Poisoned Pen bookstore’s Barbara Peters in Scottsdale and author Dana Stabenow in Alaska (who, as with pretty much everyone in this paragraph, is a friend of mine.)

I was extremely pleased not only with the technology (although the “chat” function wouldn’t appear on my screen during the Barr talk, I don’t know why) but with the content as well:  Lee’s remarks during our talk should be transcribed and emblazoned on all crime fiction web sites, particularly his assertion that crime fiction is the boat, and literary writers are but the barnacles on the boat’s sides, along for the ride.  Jack Reacher couldn’t have said it better.

And although I’ve known Lee for a while and have heard him speak any number of times, I still found it fascinating that two writers could have such wildly different approaches to the job.  Even more amazing is how one poor editor can handle the two of us–I who send her multiple drafts and beg for feedback, Lee who greets any editorial suggestions with “incandescent rage”–without going absolutely bonkers.

Listen to the archived talks here (scroll down to find the programs.)  And then thank Rob and Barbara of the Poisoned Pen for sweating it to conclusion.

And yes, they’re planning on another WebCon next year.

Mr Bradley and the murderous book club

If you happen to be in the LA sprawl this weekend, come on out to West Hollywood for the WeHo book festival.  I’m doing two events on Sunday, an interview at 1:15 and a panel on spirituality and fiction at 3:45.

**

We’ve started a new feature over at the LRK online book club this month, “the Writer as Reader” when I—the writer side of the equation—get to wallow in self-importance and talk about a book I’ve loved.  And because I am a writer, and a moderately well-known one at that, if I ask the author of that book to join in the discussion, there’s a chance he or she will say yes.

book1cAs Alan Bradley did.  This month the VBC has been reading his fabulous novel, The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie.  Because I was occupied with my trip to England, we’re only now getting into the end-of-month discussion with Alan, but it’s been worth the wait:

I have to admit that I, too, prefer the ambiguous ending, or at least an ending that leaves something to the reader’s capable imagination. Storytelling, I think, works best when it’s a 50/50 proposition; when the reader brings as much to the undertaking (especially in a murder mystery) as does the author.

I’ve sometimes cited as an example, the ending of “The Remains of the Day”, in which two aging characters, each filled with unexpressed love for the other, go their separate ways in the rain. The scene seems filled with despair and hopelessness – or with joy and promise. But which is it to be?

Only the reader can decide. And if the reader cannot, or will not, then the story must be left forever unresolved. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

If you’ve fallen for the charms of the novel, or if you’re concerned with the safety of those in Flavia de Luce’s small English village, please drop in and see what the VBC members have been saying, and what Alan Bradley has to say in response.

Sweetness? Sweet!

sweetnessThe Virtual Book Club, which I started in early 2007, has now worked its way through all the books in the LRK canon and a number of related novels and non-fiction works. So in September, we begin anew, only with a difference: We’ll do the occasional month of “The Writer as Reader” where I choose a book, give a copy away, and hold an interview or online chat with the author towards the end of that month.

Our first book? The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie, by Alan Bradley, a book I adored, blurbed, and have pushed into every empty hand I see. Sign up below for a chance to win an autographed copy of the book (the drawing will be on September 4th) and come here on September 1st to start the talk.