Crime Fiction Dossier (Old)

ThrillerFest -- panel suggestions?

In case you haven't heard the news yet, ThrillerFest, the inaugural convention sponsored by the International Thriller Writers, is scheduled for next June in Phoenix.

Many of the big name thriller writers (Lee Child, David Morrell, Gayle Lynds, Barry Eisler, Tess Gerritsen, P.J. Parrish, Steve Berry, M. Diane Vogt, etc.) are going to be there.

Somehow, I fell asleep at a meeting and when I woke up, I was in charge of panel creations and assignments. (Still not sure how that happened.)

My burden is your opportunity, though, as I want your help! If you have any suggestions for a panel you'd like to see, please add a comment to this post or email me. Even if you're not planning to attend, if you have any interesting ideas, I want to hear them.

I'm especially interested in hearing from fans. If you were to attend a panel with 4 or 5 writers on it, what would you like to hear them talk about? What are the topics or subjects that you as a reader are interested in?

I'm determined that ThrillerFest is going to have the most kick ass panels ever, so please feel free to pitch in and pass along your suggestions.

Ask the Critic - Round Five

Devon Ellington, who's done the reviewing thing himself, asks two questions:

Have you ever been assigned a book to review written by someone you loathed, and what did you do about it?

What do you do if you read a book by someone you know and genuinely like as a person, but the book is just awful?

The first thing has never happened to me. I don't review that many books on assignment, and I don't loathe that many people, so the two have never come together. Obviously, I would turn down the assignment, though, if the situation ever came up. It's unethical to review a book by someone towards whom you have a strong personal animosity.

The second is tougher, as I have been there. I know a lot of writers and occasionally they write lousy books. That definitely puts me in an awkward position. I don't like to write negative reviews in the first place, and I would be reluctant to pan the book of someone whom I know or like.

Still, if you can't be at least reasonably objective about the books you're reviewing, you shouldn't be doing it. Despite whatever personal feelings I might have, I would treat the work of the author I know the same way as that of any author. I would write a fair and honest appraisal of the book, mentioning both its positive and negative qualities as I saw them.

Granted, it's a little harder to do if you're friendly with the author, and it risks hurting their feelings. If I can't tell a friend that their book had some problems, though, they aren't much of a friend.

I very seldom write wholly negative reviews anyway. Generally speaking, if I don't like a book to at least some extent, I don't review it. Mixed reviews, sure, but rarely outright pans. If the book truly were awful, I probably wouldn't write about it.

ITW Thriller Awards - Seeking Submissions

Public service announcement time...

If you're an author (or publicist or publisher) with a thriller novel released in 2005, you need to be aware that the International Thriller Writers are currently seeking submissions for their inaugural awards, which will be handed out next year at ThrillerFest.

Categories are Best Novel, Best First Novel and Best Paperback Original. Submissions so far have been few, so the chances of you winning are that much higher.

For more information, visit the ITW's website or contact Jim Rollins.

Deciding what to review

How do you decide what to read/review?

This question comes up a lot (in fact, it could be an Ask the Critic entry), so I answered it for M.J. Rose's excellent blog, Buzz, Balls & Hype:

Deciding which book to review, or even which book to read next, is one of the hardest parts of a critic's job. I receive somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 books every month. I try to read 12-15 and review 6 or 7.

On rare occasions, the selection is made for me, as when I'm reviewing something on assignment or writing a piece on someone and need to read their book first. Usually, though, the decision is up to me, and it's a tough one to make. I want to read as many different types of books (all within the crime fiction genre) as I can, and don't want to miss anything important, but I also want to be entertained.

The choice can be daunting, given the sheer numbers involved. Due to the constant inundation of books, I often feel overwhelmed with the possibilities. (I have read that many shoppers feel the same way when walking into bookstores. I sympathize.) Forget reading for pleasure; I'm just trying to make a small dent in the huge stacks that line the walls of my office.

On a good day, the choice is obvious. If a new book by someone whose work I love (like Laura Lippman, Barry Eisler or Robert Ferrigno, for example) comes in, I will usually read it as soon as I can. I'm not very good at delaying gratification. (Christmas mornings were always a bitch for me.)

Most of the time, though, it's harder than that.

Continue reading "David Montgomery on What to Review" over at Buzz, Balls & Hype.

Slightly Sarcastic Rules for Writers

Over on the Lipstick Chronicles, author Susan McBride offers her Slightly Sarcastic Rules for Writers, which include some light-hearted tips on word counts and margins, but also some gospel truth about not paying to be published and never paying an agent reading fees.

This is advice that a lot of aspiring writers don't want to hear, but McBride is right on. There is no substitute for the traditional way of doing things, and no shortcut to getting it done.

Publishing can be an awful, frustrating business, but talent, persistence and a little bit of luck can still bring success. You can't get around that by writing a check.

(Thanks to Lee for the tip.)

The Moderator's Manifesto - How to Moderate a Great Panel

The Moderator's Manifesto is a guide for anyone chosen for the task of moderating a panel at a convention or conference. By following the basic principles outlined in this manifesto, anyone can learn to a good moderator and run an efficient and informative panel.

This document grew (and grew and grew) out of a series of sober discussions and drunken rants at Bouchercon 2005. Its authors are Donna Andrews, Robin Burcell, Dana Cameron, Judy Clemens, Reed Coleman, Barry Eisler, Bill Fitzhugh, Jon Jordan, Ruth Jordan, Laura Lippman, David Montgomery, and MJ Rose. Please post it, forward it, and otherwise disseminate it to anyone you think would benefit. Thank you.

THE MODERATOR’S MANIFESTO: HOW TO MODERATE A GREAT PANEL

WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT

Relax.  Being a good moderator is easy.  All you need to do is use a little common sense and avoid a few common mistakes.

Start by understanding your role.  Your job as moderator is to help the panelists entertain and inform the audience.  This document will teach you how.

Last word on Bouchercon; Latest column

For the final word on Bouchercon, from me anyway, I refer you to my round-up article in the Kansas City Star. This is the first time I've written for them and I think the piece came out nicely. (You have to register or else use bugmenot.) Getting newspapers to run coverage of book festivals and the like is extremely difficult, so hats off to KC!

Meanwhile, over at the Chicago Sun-Times, you can see my latest column, which includes books from David Morrell, Theresa Schwegel, Karen E. Olson, Jeff Abbott and Sean Rowe.

Happy reading!

Wallace Stroby

Wallace Stroby, one of the coolest guys I've never read, has a great new website. Go check it out.

(Yeah, I know his books are supposed to be awesome... I'm busy, okay?)

You too can write for free!

If you've ever wanted to join the big-time world of non-paid book reviewing, now’s your chance!

I’m looking for another reviewer to join the staff of Mystery Ink, the book review and author interview site that I run.

I haven’t been able to update the site as much as I’d like over the past year or two, but I’m hoping to change that in the future.

If you’re interested in possibly contributing, please send me a few of your reviews, or links to where I can read them. (It’s okay if you’ve never reviewed before, assuming you have talent.)

I have a preference for reviews that are around 400 words, are a reasonable mixture of summary and analysis, and are journalistic rather than personal. (Hint: the review is about the book; not about you.) I don’t like long quotes from the text or lots of “I, I, I.”

Ideally, I’m looking for someone who is strong on the cozier end of the genre, although a love of books and the ability to write about them intelligently is paramount.

Requirements: You should be willing to write one or two reviews per month. You should be reasonably tech-savvy so that you can post your reviews to the site, using TypePad’s interface (it’s easy). You should be passionate about reading and writing and willing to take advice.

What do you get out of it? No money. Did I mention that yet? You will, however, get a few free books, the chance to help decide the Gumshoe Awards, and the opportunity to be read by tens of people!

I look forward to hearing from you.

Behavior 101

Joe Konrath has a post over on his blog questioning his time at Bouchercon and the feedback he received about what went on there. (Some folks thought Joe was a little out of control and came on a little too strong.)

I’m not going to address his specific case, but I do think this is an interesting touching-off point for a more general discussion.

One piece of advice that I would give to any author is to remember that, when you’re at a conference like Bouchercon, a lot of people are watching you and how you behave, and that you should always be aware of how your behavior is influencing them.

Once you go beyond the point of being “John Doe” so that attendees might actually know who you are, you don’t have the freedom of behaving as carefree as perhaps you once did. You have to be conscious of what your “image” is and how you are affecting that with your actions.

I know that I now have to watch how I handle myself at conferences (be careful of what I say, don’t drink too much, etc.) because I have built up a certain amount of credibility as a critic and journalist and I don’t want to blow that.

The same is true for authors. When you’re at a conference, you’re interacting with a lot of people who can potentially impact your career one way or another: fans, reviewers, publicists, booksellers, other writers, etc.

It’s important to be aware of how acting in a particular fashion affects those groups. It’s one thing to consciously decide that you don’t care, for example, what fellow writers think. It’s quite another to alienate them without even knowing it. (And I would suggest that either one is a bad idea.)

None of this is to say that you can’t be yourself. But you need to be the appropriate version of yourself for the situation. We all act differently in different social and business situations, and it’s important to chose the right one for the given circumstance.

When you’re a writer and you go to Bouchercon, you’re at your place of business. That doesn’t mean you can’t have fun, but you always have to have an eye towards business while you’re there.

If, for example, you get drunk and make a fool of yourself, you’re going to risk alienating people, and they might just be people you can’t afford to lose. The same thing goes for being loud and obnoxious, delivering political diatribes, or otherwise behaving in such a way as to turn people off.

The mystery community is such that most people are genuinely friendly to each other and get along very well. But if you squander that reservoir of good feelings, you’re likely to do serious damage to your career.