Politics and Paper

A point of artistic responsibility for me is to create stories with a moral center.

The sticking point here is that people have different concepts of what's moral, and then we dress our respective senses of morality in different political clothing. To a great degree, the political discourse in our country has lost the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. Instead, we've come to relish zapping the other side.

That's what made an email I received the other day all the more remarkable. A reader named David let me know how much he enjoyed reading The Last Ballot Cast — despite the fact that his politics were considerably different than those espoused in my novel. That all but took my breath away.

If you'd care to search the reader reviews of my work on Amazon — and elsewhere, I presume — you'll find one-star reviews and accompanying diatribes that mock my work precisely because of my political views. Some people feel that the only good political thrillers are the ones that reinforce their views.

In the interest of letting you know how I feel about things, about the ideas that underlie any inspiration that might come my way, about who this guy Joseph Flynn is, here's a little bit about me.

All four of my grandparents immigrated to the United States in the early years of the 20th century. None of them came with a bankroll to get him or her off to a flying start. All four of them worked at the kinds of jobs young newcomers could find: a doorman, a streetcar conductor, a nanny, a hotel housekeeper.

They set up their households, raised and educated their children, sent their sons off to World War Two and were lucky enough to get all of them back. Their children married and set out to make their way in a country that offered more opportunities than my grandparents had been given.

My family was middle class because my dad worked sixty hours a week, and with union benefits got paid for seventy hours. His job in a steel-making plant was tiring and dangerous. He took public transportation to and from work. But even after a very long day he was so eager to see his wife and kids he would run the last half-mile home from the bus stop.

I was the first person in my immediate family to go to college. My dad wanted me to be a dentist. I thought I would become a lawyer. But on my way to my first day of college, on public transportation, I got the idea for my first short story. It came out of the blue. My first gift from the greater storyteller. After that, there was no question what I was going to do. In order to actually make money as a writer, I became a copywriter at the Foote, Cone & Belding advertising agency. I was able to apply for that job because I had a college degree.

My wife and I were blessed with the arrival of our daughter, a child whose gifts make mine look pale. She became the first person in our family to go to an Ivy League college. She's fluent in French and Russian and was selected for an internship with the U.S. State Department. She also, God love her, is a fantastic writer.

The progress our family has made through a span of three generations has been matched or far exceeded by innumerable other American families. The opportunities for people of humble origins to succeed is what has made the United States great.

So, from my point of view, the most important responsibility our government has is to build, sustain and protect the broadest, deepest, most secure and most accessible middle class possible. Make it entirely possible for anyone who is not yet in the middle class or who wants to get back into the middle class to rise. Make it doable for anyone in the middle class with vision, passion and drive to rise even farther.

With that point of view, the first question that should be asked of any bill that comes before Congress is: Will this be good for the middle class?

Right now, all the Republicans and far too many Democrats place their first concern with the rich. If you have any question about that, look at the figures for increases in income over the past 30+ years and see who's done well, who's stagnated and who's falling behind.

I think the rise of the Tea Party was the first sign that the duopoly of the Democrats and the Republicans is about to yield to new parties. Occupy Wall Street was the first sign of a countervailing movement on the left, but it was too incoherent — by design apparently — to survive. But another iteration on the left will emerge. That will leave room for a centrist party or coalition to fill the middle. Then it will be up to the right or the left to see whose ideas will prove more compelling in attracting the moderate middle.

Anyway, that's how I look at politics, in part, and those will be the views reflected in my writing.

Again, I'd like to thank David for thinking well of my writing even though our political views differ.


***

Now, on to the matter of paper. A relatively small number of readers are waiting patiently, I hope, for the trade paperback edition of The Last Ballot Cast to hit the online booksellers. We plan to have this edition available by mid-September.

Let me say that I love printed books. Always have. Lately, though, I've come to love ebooks, too. When it comes to making a living as a writer, ebooks are my first love. They pay the freight. If it weren't for ebooks, there never would have been more than one Jim McGill novel.

As things stand today, the company my wife and I started, Stray Dog Press, Inc., publishes trade paperbacks as a courtesy, but we don't do it for all of our titles. It's not too hard to imagine a day arriving when only a small percentage of all titles on the market are printed.

So, dear readers, take a chance with ebooks, if you haven't already. They're really quite likable. They're becoming ever more affordable. They'll give you the opportunity to find new authors that you wouldn't have otherwise.

Please take the leap. When it comes to reading, there's no need to be monogamous. You can play the field and your literary soul will be unsullied.

One final small note: Stray Dog Press, Inc. is looking into the possibility of doing audio books. What do you think of audio books? If this turns out to be a good business idea, we'll let you know.

A Quarter-Million Words Later

I started to write The Last Ballot Cast in mid-February and finished writing it in mid-July. It came in at 942 manuscript pages. I cut that down to 912 pages. Took me five months. Didn't take a day off. I'm still tired, but I'm happy. Except for the damn typos that sharp-eyed readers find after three proofreaders missed them.

To be fair, there are usually five proofreaders for my books, but surgery and summer school knocked two out of the box. C'est la vie.

For me, writing is a solo effort. I don't collaborate. Can't imagine sharing the creation and execution of story. That said, I have a whole lot of help. My wife, Catherine, is the first reader and editor of everything I write. It's my great good fortune that she likes my stuff. It would be awfully tough for her to put in all the hours she does to bring my work to the reading public if she didn't like the material.

Let that be a lesson to all young prospective writers: Make sure you marry someone who likes what you do. If your would-be spouse isn't a fan, you probably want to keep looking.

Other than marrying well, it also helps to cultivate interesting friendships. In the first Jim McGill book, The President's Henchman, I introduce a new martial art called Dark Alley. It's pretty much an anything goes form of fighting given structure and discipline. Not long after I came up with the idea, I met Jim Sullivan who teaches the near equivalent of Dark Alley. His discipline falls under the heading of Natural Spirit International. He's helped me to develop McGill's ongoing adventures in close-quarters combat. If you're looking for a highly functional form of self-defense, Google Jim's mentor, Datu Kelly Worden.

Susan McIntyre was my medical reference person for TLBC. She knows just about every awful thing that can afflict the human body. She probably has half the doctors in AMA in her database. If she doesn't know something off-hand, she can always make a call.

People like this are good to know when you're doing research. Their knowledge lends an air of plausibility to your writing. On the other hand, I'm not writing text books. So when the mood takes me I exercise the favorite device of all writers — literary license — and shamelessly ignore reality.

But back to McGill. TLBC, Parts 1&2, conclude the first term of the McGill series. Employing another literary technique, circularity, the villain from The President's Henchman, Dr. Damon Todd, returns to threaten McGill again. This raises the question: What do you do with an SOB who didn't learn his lesson the first time? McGill is a character with a moral center. Shedding blood unnecessarily is not his thing. But neither is letting some jerk kill him or someone he loves. Forcing a character to make a tough choice is the best way to show who he is.

In order not to fall into a formulaic rut with McGill or any other recurring character I write, I have to make sure they grow, age, evolve. McGill, facing the near loss of his son, changes his ways and decides to teach all his children the vicious art of Dark Alley. Patti not only changes political parties, she makes a daring choice of a new vice president. Sweetie, after decades of celibacy, gets married. Welborn and Kira become new parents. Leo and Deke leave government service to join McGill in the private sector. As all that happens, a new face takes over the Secret Service's White House detail.

Readers don't want to see any of their favorite characters disappear, much less die, but it would be an awful mistake for a writer simply to leave them marching in place. So be forewarned, there will be more changes in future McGill books.

Regarding politics: These are political thrillers. Inevitably, they will reflect my political views. Some reader-reviewers have taken me to task for expressing liberal views. They seem to think the genre is the exclusive property of the far right. Guess again. My political views are eclectic. I'm liberal on social issues; I'm conservative on balancing the budget and paying down the national debt — but I believe the best way to do those things is to tax the rich and end welfare for the wealthy.

It's like Willie Sutton said about robbing banks: "That's where the money is."

Meeting reader expectations: Intentionally leaving a number of things hanging at the end of The K Street Killer, I felt a certain sense of obligation to resolve those situations without delay in TLBC. So I worked harder than I ever have before — and harder than I ever intend to work again. It's very flattering to have readers want your next book as soon as they finish the previous one, but after a while it gets trying. "Are we there yet, are we there?"

Patience, dear reader. All things in good time.

Regarding writing and making money: I write to honor my muse and serve the story. If I do my best, I trust that my work will find a paying audience. So it really irks me when some nitwit thinks I make a writing choice simply to serve financial purposes. That's not to say that I don't want to make money from my novels. Of course, I do. The more money I make, the more novels I must be selling. The more novels I sell, the more people must be having a good time reading them. It's a virtuous circle.

But so many writers work so hard for so long with so little reward, that it honestly pisses me off when some jerk thinks I'm trying to screw him out of a lousy $3.99. I mention that only because it happened to me recently. What a dick that guy was.

To end (almost) on a brighter note, nothing makes me happier in my professional life than to know I've made a reader happy. If you noticed the dedication to Part 1: TLBC, you saw that I acknowledged those of you who've read my books and written to me to share your feelings. Thank you.

Oh, yeah. The Friends of Jim McGill Facebook page can use more friends. Get some conversations going there with your fellow readers, will you?  Here's the link for The Friends of Jim McGill. http://www.facebook.com/TheFriendsofJimMcGill

Serial characters, cliffhanger endings and other odds and ends

Once upon a time I got a two-book deal with a major New York publisher. The advances on the two books were such that if offered to a new writer today, that writer would swoon. Money, though, was just the start. My agent of the time told me the publisher wanted to make me their next best-selling writer. It was enough to make an impressionable fellow giddy. And in the fashion of a game show, that wasn't the end of the goodies. The publisher gave me separate contracts to reprint an earlier novel, the rights to which I'd regained, and more money for the audio rights to the two books they would publish.

It was the kind of bonanza that seemed appropriate for all the years I'd toiled without making a cent from writing fiction. Then, as fairy tales must, the happy story came to an abrupt end.

A very important person at the publishing house had told me that if there was any part of the first novel — the basis of the deal and all its treasure — that I wanted to keep intact I could. Silly me, I took this promise seriously, and then I did the unthinkable. I insisted on keeping the ending of the novel as I originally wrote it.

That was a terrible mistake from the standpoint of my writing career. My relationship with the publisher was all downhill from there. Any chance of future contract, big money and more books with the publisher went right out the window.

Now, here's the thing about the ending and why the publisher wanted me to change it: I killed off the book's hero. That was a creative choice that in my opinion best served the story. It also gave my writing an edge most authors in the mystery/thriller field lacked. You'd have a harder time guessing the ending of one of my stories because I was crazy enough to kill my leading man. All that was academic to the publisher. Killing that character meant there would never be a series featuring him.

Well, hell, I thought of the book as a stand-alone novel. I never would have killed that character if I'd had more stories in mind for him. But I didn't.

Jim McGill, on the other hand, was conceived from the start as a series character. His stories would not have conclusive ends. The stories would flow from one to the next and there would always be some ambiguity to them. In The President's Henchman, the novel that introduces McGill, there's a murder that's left unresolved, and the fates of several characters, e.g. Erna Godfrey, remain to be seen. I could have had Erna executed, but that would have ended her creative possibilities.

In The K Street Killer, the fates of two of the more important characters in the series are left in doubt. This has raised the ire of some readers. In a way, that's flattering to me. I created characters who have engaged the reader emotionally to such a point that a delay in knowing what happens to them next is frustrating. Damnit, where's the resolution? It's on a notepad in my office. Not even in my computer where it might be hacked.

I need to say at this point that I'm not simply being mean. Creating suspense is part and parcel of my job. If I don't keep the reader clicking along (digital-speak for turning pages) from one chapter to the next I'm out of work. Keeping the reader moving from one book in the series to the next is simply the same process on a larger scale.

As a writer, it's also part of what makes storytelling fun for me — and, believe me, if I'm not having any fun doing the writing, you're not going to have any fun doing the reading.

There have been a few uncharitable souls who have accused me of using the cliffhanging ending in TKSK strictly for monetary reasons. Hah! If money was what moved me most, I would have knuckled under to the publisher I mentioned above and likely be a rich man now.

That is, if my muse hadn't deserted me. Which she'd have every right to do if I became a hack.

Now, let me riff a bit about series characters. I grew up reading John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee novels, absolutely loved them. I also devoured Gregory Mcdonald's Fletch novels. The dialogue Mcdonald wrote absolutely knocked me out and influenced my own work. But both authors wrote books in which McGee and Fletch came off flat as steamrolled pancakes.

It's simply what happens if you let your series character follow a formula you've developed for him. In TKSK, I decided before I wrote a word that there would be changes from certain patterns I followed in TPH and THC. McGill has to face the terrifying prospect of losing two of the people he loves most, not to any hokey villains but to terrors that might afflict any of us: illness and cruel twists of fate.

As he confronts his terrible choice, he doesn't know how things will turn out. (Poor guy, his fate is in my hands.) So I thought the best way to end the book would be to put the reader in the same boat as the hero. Only seemed fair.

Rest assured, all questions will be answered in The Last Ballot Cast. Well, all but one.

So, one of the ways I'm keeping McGill fresh is to throw a few change-up pitches at him, but another way to do it is by not writing his stories exclusively.

My next novel will be called Tall Man in Ray-Bans. It will feature John Tall Wolf, a special agent for the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs). The novel is a murder mystery set in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Austin, Texas, Los Angeles, California, Vancouver, British Columbia, Boston, Massachusetts, and Banff, Alberta.

John Tall Wolf will be a meta-character for me. He will have his own novels, he will be a major character in the sequel to Nailed, which I hope to publish in the second half 0f 2012 and will also figure prominently in a trilogy featuring yet another new character.

If you like my writing, despite the occasional moments of frustration, of which there are likely to be more, you're likely to have a lot more good stuff to read — God willing.

Rallying 'Round "Round Robin"

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to engage in a bit of hard sell here. I've written a book I think is absolutely wonderful. I'm not the only one who holds it in high regard. The book has twenty reader reviews on Amazon; sixteen are five-star reviews, four are four-star reviews. They range from enthusiastic to gushing approval. Problem is, this book isn't close to being part of the mystery/thriller genre in which I usually work.

"Round Robin" is described on its cover as an epic love story. If it were a movie, it would be a romantic comedy. Compared to the stories I usually write, it's a book without a body count. What it has in common with my other books is a large cast of interesting characters, smart dialogue and more than a few laughs — way more than a few laughs. It also has heart, by the ton.

The two principal characters are Robin Phinney and Manfred Welk. Robin is described as 230 pounds of bad attitude. Manfred is as big as an NFL lineman, and stronger to boot. You'll love both of them; you won't be able to help yourself.

I want to sell a lot more copies of "Round Robin" than I've been selling so far, and then I want the new readers to tell everyone they know. Then I want those people to tell everyone they know. Get the idea? The book is that good.

Don't take my word for it, though. Below are the headlines from the reader reviews on "Round Robin" and a link to its Amazon Kindle page, its B&N Nook page and its iTunes page too. Check it out. You thank me later.

A romance with comedy and depth.
Loved this book!!!!!!
Romantic, comical and heart-tugging.
Pushing Past her Self-Imposed Limits.
Plus sized Entertainment.
Fun read.
Fun Summer Read.
Fun and Entertaining.
Thoroughly enjoyable.
Cute story.
Sweet, heartwarming story.
Heartwarming!
Where's the apple strudel recipe?
A wonderfully poignant and humorous novel!
Super Sized Adventure.
Thoroughly enjoyable read.
Another winner.
A sweet, fun read.
Great Read!!

Getting High from Writing

Last weekend, I posted a question at The Writers' Cafe, one of the discussion boards under The Kindle Boards umbrella. This is a place where indie writers gather to ask questions, post news, do a little bragging, complain about this, that or the other. I asked: Do you ever get "high" from writing? I explained that I didn't mean do you ever get high in order to write? That's something else entirely.

The responses were gratifying to me, as I definitely get high from writing. Here are a few comments from other writers.

"I LOVE it when I get lost in that "zone" of the world I am creating. Sometimes I have a hard time coming back."

'Yes, definitely! … It can be quite a rush and sometimes I can feel my heart thumping along with my characters'.

"I always seem to buzz after a writing session."

"Yes, yes, yes! It's so awesome when that happens."

"Definitely, it can be quite a rush when the story is flowing."

So much for the idea of the writer toiling away in solitude, often blocked, the work torturous. Okay, it might be that way for "serious" writers who produce "literary" fiction. But if you're looking for that stuff you've come to the wrong place.

I think of what I do as writing smart entertainment, equal emphasis on each half of the equation. Most popular fiction writers, I think, are also entertainers. They want to give their readers a good time, have them laugh and cry in all the right places. Given the state of the world, now and pretty much always, that's a worthwhile thing to do.

If we can make a living from our writing and get the occasional word of encouragement, we're happy.

So my advice to readers is: Remember that emotions are contagious. If you're looking for a good book, see if it seems like the author had a high old time writing it.

(If you'd like to read the whole thread on The Writers' Cafe, here's the link: http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php/topic,93140.0.html)

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. I look at it as a communal birthday party, a celebration that all the people I love who started out the year together are still with me and for the most part doing fine. There have been years, of course, where not everybody made it to Thanksgiving, but the spirit of the day still made me grateful for having known them, having been the beneficiary of their love and generosity, having the opportunity to raise a glass to their memories and toast them for making my life richer in every sense.

I hope that the work I do, my writing, contributes moments of enjoyment to the people who read my books. I know that hope is at least partially validated by the fan letters I get and the reviews my books receive. I'm thankful for that, too.

I'm thankful to my family and friends for their support in helping me to work at a profession that is pretty much a crapshoot when it comes to making a living. But with the emergence of e-books, Kindles and other e-readers we're making a go of it.

I'm thankful that my muse continues to be generous and I'll have stories to write for years to come. I'm thankful that, with all the people who haven't read my work yet, I'll have all sorts of opportunities to build my audience.

I'm thankful that right now I can get back to work on a new novel.

I thank God, my family, my friends and my readers for all of the above.

The perils of cliff-hanging

Al Capp, the famous cartoonist who created Li'l Abner, said that more people bought newspapers if they were worried by a comic strip than if they were merely amused by one. Capp pointed out that if you read Dick Tracy, you didn't laugh when you got to the last panel. You gasped or moaned when a gun was fired at the famed detective. There was no peace for the reader until he or she found out what happened.

The above bit of folk wisdom comes from the book The Art of the Funnies by Robert C. Harvey.

It applies perfectly, however, to the novelist who employs cliff-hanger endings, as I do in my Jim McGill series: The President's Henchman, The Hangman's Companion and now The K Street Killer. In all three books in the series, I end the story with a character placed in sudden jeopardy.

In the new McGill novel, which I abbreviate TKSK, there is a crucial difference. I raise the stakes big time. In The President's Henchman and The Hangman's Companion, the characters who find themselves in danger are important but supporting figures. In TKSK, there are two characters placed at risk: one a principal character, the other someone guaranteed to tug at heartstrings.

The early reactions to the book have been: Loved the story, hated being left in suspense. "I'll have to wait months to find out what happened."

At this point, I need to say that nothing in my professional life makes me happier than making my readers happy. That reaction tells me I have not labored in vain. It also says I'll be able to support myself long enough to write again.

Nonetheless, I have to follow where my muse leads me. If I don't, my source of inspiration might take a powder. Then all I'd be is a guy with a good vocabulary and nowhere to put it.

So I ask you, dear reader, please indulge me my creative choices. They're what give me satisfaction and bring you the stories you, more often than not, find so winning. And bear in mind I'm not only honoring my muse, I'm also following the dictum of one of the greats of modern popular culture.

"Always leave 'em wanting more." Walt Disney

(Please let me know what you think about cliffhangers, characters in jeopardy, and writers listening to their muse.)