Posted in News on February 24, 2013
Happy to see the Kindle edition of Shock Totem #6 is out. Paperback will be following shortly and as soon as I get my copies I’ll mail copies to winners of the recent giveaway. This issue is special because it has an interview with me and I’m an egotistical asshole. So check it out!
Also happy to hear that the first novel I’ve written as Thomas Morgan (THE LESSER PEOPLE) is, or will be soon, out for perusal to publishers via that fantastic cat and super agent Chip MacGregor. The Lesser People is probably my favorite novel so far. I like the real-life novels because I get to pour so much of my life and the lives of people I love and hate into the stories. I also talked to Chip on the phone about the next two Thomas Morgan novels (A Savage Autumn, and Broken Boy Soldiers). It was a lot of fun to run the opening ideas, and what each novel will be about, by him. As soon as I finish this novel I’m working on now I’ll hit A Savage Autumn while I do the research I need for Broken Boy Soldiers. Fun times. Meanwhile I’m excited that he’s pitching The Lesser People to publishers. Thanks Chip!
I also got to talk about THE LESSER PEOPLE in that Shock Totem #6 interview so if you want an inside scoop, go snag a copy.
This past week I’ve submitted the novel GOSSAMER: A STORY OF LOVE AND TRAGEDY to Darkfuse. It was fun to write and I think the whole point of it (and I should know since I wrote it) is to make mothers think of their daughters and to make daughters think of their mothers. Everything boils down to relationships with ourselves and those in our lives. Usually when I read book that I think sucks it’s because there is barely any journey at all for the characters. It’s all flash and no substance. I might be a little pretentious to think that a story should matter at least on one level, and if so, I’m pretentious.
Speaking of that which I’ve been reading…
Here are some of the best novels I’ve read the past week or two:
The End of Everything by Megan Abbott
A Morning for Flamingos by James Lee Burke
Just Like That by Les Edgerton
The Cypress House by Michael Koryta.
And now I’m hard at work on the first novel I’ll write as Julian Vaughn, roughly 20,000 words into it. I’m setting it where I grew up, which dredges up a lot of memories I’d rather forget, but hey, it’s good for the fiction. I’m eager to make this novel remarkable.
What good things are happening in your life?
Posted in News on January 6, 2013
Super pleased to have Les Edgerton on here today. I met him at Bouchercon (The World Mystery Convention) last October and we sat drinking and discussing tons of stuff I’m not going to share with you. He’s wise, witty, talented and fun. I recently read (and gave my first blurb on) his novella THE RAPIST. I can’t wait until it comes out to see how people react to it. I like edgy crime fiction with depth. Les is the real deal and I look forward to when we can hang out and have some drinks again.
He also read my novella WHEN WE JOIN JESUS IN HELL and gave me a referral to his agent Chip MacGregor, who read one of my pen-named novels (The Lesser People) over the holidays, and… I’ll be talking to Chip on the phone next week. Yay!
Feel free to share the interview and check out Les’s work! Thanks!
Q. Thanks for joining us, Les! When did you first know you wanted to be a writer?
A. When I was five and read my first book. I knew instantly that was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. To create universes that were, if not better than the one I found myself in, at least as interesting. I knew immediately that the world of the mind had far fewer parameters and more freedom than the world I was physically in. I’ve never wavered for a second from my choice.
Q. Why do you write what you write? How much does your life experience play into your creative process?
A. I write what interests me. I create the worlds I want to inhabit. Many of those worlds are worlds I used to inhabit and miss and others are worlds I wish I was in so I invent them and get to live in them. Most of all, I want to create truth on the page. Not a convenient truth, but the truth that we all try to hide from, that is hidden deep within us without the societal camouflage we’ve all learned to put on. Anything that is persecuted by PC idiots is what I want to write about. My life experiences accounts for almost 100% of what I write about. I can only write about the people I know, experientially.
Q. Great stuff! Who are your biggest influences?
A. In terms of other writers there are a great many that have had some influence and a handful that have had a more profound impact upon me. I include people like Albert Camus, Harry Crews, Ray Carver, Celine, Flannery O’Connor, and Charles Bukowski in the latter group. In terms of thinkers, Marshall McLuhan and Jung are the ones who made me stretch my own imagination the most in terms of psychology and philosophy. In terms of personal influences in the world of letters, Cort McMeel has made a significant difference in my writing life and choices—he has the clearest mind for what’s good in literature than anyone I’ve ever known. Jon Bassoff, Brian Lindenmuth and Allan Guthrie have provided models of what I consider excellence in literature by their choices in authors they publish.
But, by far the biggest influence on my writing life was a hulking mouth-breather I only remember as “Waldo” in the fourth grade in Freeport, Texas, who used to viciously bully my skinny scared butt in front of other kids, at one point pulling a pocket knife on me and holding me down and putting it to my neck. I responded to this misery in two ways. First, I began writing little humorous vignettes about Waldo (he may not have found them humorous…) and passing them around to my schoolmates, and that had two major effects on my life. Waldo quit bullying me because of the resultant public derision and I found out the truly awesome power of the written word and firmly became a writer.
Second, I kicked his ass.
So, wherever Waldo is today (prison, I hope, or in a leprosy ward) I say, “Thanks, creep.” I think he learned that old nursery rhyme about sticks and stones just isn’t true. Words can hurt you.
They can also help.
So can a good right uppercut and a jab to the throat.
Just ask Waldo.
Q. What novel or novella of yours would you recommend to a newcomer? Why?
A. That’s a tough question. It would depend on the person. I know I should list the name of a current book that’s out there—part of this deal is to create sales, right—and I think my last two books in particular—THE BITCH and THE RAPIST—are the best I’ve ever written, but the book I usually recommend is my first collection of stories, MONDAY’S MEAL, published by the University of North Texas Press. I think it best shows my range. It also includes a story I wrote in the eighth grade as well as stories written before prison and after. It got a great review from the NY Times, comparing me to Ray Carver, and that’s my proudest moment. I reread it often and in my mind it stands the test of time well.
Q. I can’t wait to check out Monday’s Meal. I can see how the NY Times review comparing you to Raymond Carver would be something to savor, and revisit, from time to time. What are you working on now?
A. Uh… this interview? Oh, you mean book-wise. My bad. A few things. I usually keep several balls in the air at once. Among those projects are a follow-up novel to my unpublished black comedy crime thriller, THE GENUINE, IMITATION, PLASTIC KIDNAPPING, a new novel along the lines of THE BITCH, a new writer’s craft book using film to inform fiction techniques, rewriting my memoir, ADRENALINE JUNKIE… just a lot of different stuff. I’m also working at the moment on a bottle of the best whiskey I’ve ever drunk, Midleton Very Rare Irish Whiskey, which was sent to me by my writer friend Gerald O’Connor from London, who wanted to show me why I should quit drinking Jack Daniels. Gerald, I can’t quit J.D. (price, mate!), but at least I know what great whiskey tastes like now.
Q. What do you wish you knew now that you’ve had to learn through experience?
A. This could take more than a ream of paper… First, to never date a girl named after a day of the week or play poker with a dude named after a city. (And to totally avoid a girl who ends her name with an “i” and dots it with a heart…) Second, I would have moved to New York City in my twenties and found out where editors drink and begun hanging out there. Too late, I discovered the value of networking for a writer’s financial success. I know I’ve had a measure of success living in The Great Flyover and so have lots and lots of others, but it would have hastened everything if I’d just known the value of meeting and becoming friends with gatekeepers. The main thing I learned later in life than I would have liked to though, is that you can write anything and if it’s good it can become published. Because of the many censors in my life—from librarians and schoolteachers to parents to the reviewers’ choices at mainstream publications—I had no idea I could write the things guys like Bukowski and Everson and Selby wrote… because I hadn’t ever read their books or been aware of them. I wish I’d had teachers and librarians in my life who are like me as a parent—I’ve just never practiced much (read: not any) censorship with my kids and I’m very proud that I’ve respected their intelligence. One of the best things I’ve ever had said to me was by my son Mike, who turned to me one day when he was about six or seven, and said, with a dead-serious look on his kisser, “Dad, I like to go to your readings ‘cause I get to hear the word ‘fuck’ legally.” I imagine the PC twits would recoil in horror at that, but for me it was a truly proud moment.
I wish I’d known that all I had to do to avoid prison was to get a good lawyer.
Q. Great stuff. It seemed to me there were drastically different voices in THE BITCH and THE RAPIST. I really liked the differences. That’s not really a question but feel free to talk about them.
A. I hope there are different voices! These are two very different people. Jake, in THE BITCH is an ex-con doing his best to get his life in order. He’s above-average in intelligence and has just figured out that crime doesn’t pay—at least it doesn’t pay enough to warrant the risks involved. But, in most ways, he’s Everyman. Truman, in THE RAPIST, on the other hand, is a far different creature. He’s extremely well-read, albeit without a rigid canon in his education which is possessed of both an Ivy League outlook as well as borrowing part of his education from archaic notions even for Princeton, and adheres to a classical view of the universe; “classical” in the 18th century view as opposed to the 20th or 21st century definition. While Jake is very bright with an I.Q. probably in the 130+ range and is street-smart, Truman is in the true genius range with a measured I.Q. of at least 165, but from a very cloistered background. He’s in the wrong century whereas Jake is perfectly contemporary. Jake’s bought into the American Dream, whereas Truman abhors the idea of living a life for cars, clothes, houses, and a platinum card. He views money and wealth as security and not as an ends unto itself.
I presume the question behind your question is how can a writer write with different voices. The answer was furnished by Walt Whitman, who said we “all contain multitudes.” And we do. Some more than others.
We all have many voices within us that are very “natural” to us. For instance, I can (and have) attended a governor’s inauguration ball and met the guv and other dignitaries and talked to them in one way. A way that was very natural to me. I’ve also been in more than one biker bar and met other bikers and talked to them in a very different way. A way that was just as natural to me. We all do that in real life. It shouldn’t be that difficult to do in fiction, right? Writing a character is like playing an acting role. Actors play different characters all the time, so why shouldn’t writers?
Commercially, of course, it’s best to stick with one voice as a writer. Witness someone like John Grisham or any number of best-selling writers. Most employ the same voice in all of their work and that leads to a large audience who enjoy that voice and simply want to keep reading the same thing, over and over. Usually with the same plot over and over as well, just with slightly different characters with different names plugged in. If they encounter a book by such a writer that isn’t close to the previous one, in all likelihood they’re going to be pissed and will move on to… James Patterson or (plug in the name of any writer who is consistently on the best-seller lists).
Personally, if my aim was to become a bestselling author or create a huge platform (I hate that word and that concept—just another example of group-speak, New-Agey language that’s deteriorating the language and intelligent thought), then I would be well-advised to stick to one voice in each book. But, if I did that, I might as well sell life-insurance. It would become all about the money and nothing about the art. I’d become Miles Davis practicing the scales all day long. Miles wouldn’t do that and I wouldn’t either. I’d become Sha-Na-Na. Good money in that, but money’s not my god.
Q. Agreed. Writing the same book over and over would bore the hell out of me. What’s your typical writing day like?
A. I get up at around 4:30-5:00, take a pill, go back to sleep for an hour (I have to because of the pill), get up, grab coffee and sit on the shitter, drink coffee, read the newspapers, take other pills. Then, I go into my writing room, turn on the ‘puter and begin to write. I’ll stay at my desk all day and write. I don’t eat breakfast or lunch (it wastes time I’d rather spend writing). I take bathroom breaks where I read novels in 15-minute bursts. I smoke all day long and drink one cup of coffee after another. Around two in the afternoon, I’ll draw a hot, hot bath and soak in it and read for 30-45 minutes, and then go back and write some more. Depending on the day of the week, my wife gets home around 6 or 7 and we eat dinner (during which I read). After we eat, I’ll go back upstairs and write until around 8:30 and then go read more and then in bed by 9. I have to have the TV on and I’ll watch TV until around midnight or so, fall asleep and that’s my normal day. I’m a fast reader and usually read from 3-5 novels per week. That’s seven days a week. I do the same on weekends. The only TV I watch is when I go to bed and for a handful of sports teams when they play. I have to have the TV on at night or I’ll never get to sleep. That comes from when I was in the joint. There’s never a time when there isn’t noise and light. If it becomes quiet that means someone’s getting jacked and everybody wakes up when it gets quiet. Fortunately, my wife is understanding and allows this.
Q. Thanks! I’m sure you’ve heard this a million times, right after the “Where do you get your ideas?” But, how do you create your characters?
A. Not sure how to answer this. They just kind of come with the story I want to write. When I write a novel, for instance, I’ve been “writing” it for about 7-8 years. At any given time, I’m thinking about a future novel or three. It takes years of it rambling around inside my skull, rounding off the rough edges, etc., before I take pen to paper and write it. By that time, it’s been with me for a long, long time and the characters are already in place. The three novels I’m writing now have been percolating inside for anywhere from twenty to five years, depending on the novel. I have new novel ideas right now that I won’t even think about writing for a long, long time. But, I always have a bunch of novels inside that just haven’t gestated enough yet.
Q. Same here. I have to wait on a story until it’s peculated enough. What are some writing myths you wish weren’t passed around as gospel?
A. Personally, I don’t care if they are passed around. The more people who buy into some of these myths the easier it is for me to get my own stuff published. That was a flip answer, but it’s probably half true… There is a whole school of writer’s advice that’s bullshit. Usually, it’s the body of advice I call the “Bumper sticker school of writing.” Those pithy sayings that could fit on a bumper sticker and fit the attention span of many of today’s writers. Crap like “Write what you know.” That’s insane. If all writers wrote what they knew we’d have a lot less murders, less stories set in the future or distant past, less characters written by a person of the opposite sex, etc., etc. The proper advice is “Write what you can convince the reader you know,” but that doesn’t fit neatly on a bumper sticker. Or, “show, don’t tell.” Well, there is a place for telling in fiction. If you didn’t use telling in a story, you’d end up with a… screenplay. There are a ton of these idiotic sayings. And, people keep accepting them without question.
One big writing myth is that anyone can learn to write well. I think that’s true to some extent, but there are some levels of writing the vast majority will never be able to reach, no matter how many classes they take, how many books they read, how much they practice. The baseball legend, Barry Bonds, explains why this is so in referring to his skills in hitting. The same applies writing. The following article explains why some writers can achieve a tour de force and others… just ain’t got it nor ever will.
(From an unknown reporter) ON AUG. 18, 2001, after it became a foregone conclusion that Bonds would make a run at McGwire’s single-season home run record, he hit a pitch from Jason Marquis — 94 mph, chest-high, on the fists — for his 54th homer. It wasn’t his most memorable homer, but the physics of it were astounding.
About two weeks later, I interviewed him for a story in The Magazine. I asked him to take me through that 2-2 pitch: what he was thinking, what he was looking for, how he refined his swing to be short and quick enough to get the barrel to it. He refused. He wasn’t nasty; he just felt it was a senseless exercise.
“I just have it,” he said. “I can’t explain it. You either have it or you don’t, and I do. People always think there’s an answer to everything, but there isn’t. How can you do that? I don’t know. I just can. When people see something they’ve never seen before, the first thing they say is, ‘How did you do that?’ The next thing is, ‘Can you teach me?’ The answer is no because you don’t have it.” (Bolding mine)
That quote, and the laugh that followed, is the essence of Bonds. His career was played to the backdrop of four words: You can’t do this. Equal parts arrogance and truth, it became an unspoken mantra. It’s the same mentality he used to separate himself from the game’s pedestrian details. He routinely refused to show up for team photos during his years with the Giants. He stretched with his own stretching coach in the clubhouse rather than with his teammates on the field. He was notoriously stingy in providing assistance to teammates, acting as if their mundane talents were contagious. His knowledge would remain the property of the one person who could use it best: Bonds himself.
His grandiosity knew few bounds. He arrived at his first spring training with the Giants with a chauffeur. Replete with black suit and tie, Dennis drove Bonds to and from the ballpark for six weeks in February and March of 1993. It was Barry being Barry, but within the clubhouse it was seen as a brazen act of hubris.
And the crazy thing was: He knew better. It wasn’t an inability to read the room or a mistaken belief that teammates would understand how a man of his stature might need to display the gilded trappings of his success. It was a calculated effort to separate himself from the rank and file. You either have it or you don’t, and I do.
The same principle operates in writing or any other skill or art form. A very few have it and the rest don’t nor ever will. Nobody wants to say this because they’re then seen as not being “democratic” or some such bullshit thing or they won’t be “liked” by their peers. And, that’s true. That’s exactly what will happen. It’s why Bonds was reviled by many other players. It wasn’t that he was using steroids—hell, lots of players used steroids—it was because he was a genius with the bat and most ballplayers aren’t, even All-Stars. And, people resent that. They want people who are smarter and more talented than they are to at least appear to be humble.
Some things folks can learn and become half-decent writers, and even become bestselling writers. Some things are beyond all but a very miniscule few and can’t be learned. Camus can write things most others can’t. Celine is the Barry Bonds of literature.
One more writing myth that exists is that there are “rules” that everyone must follow to be published. For most writers, that’s true. For the few that are blessed, those rules don’t apply. For just a few quick examples, think about this.
1. The “rule” for many, many years was that no one could write a book for teenaged boys that was over say 95 pages and that length was pushing it. Boys just wouldn’t read a longer book. J.K. Rowling didn’t pay much attention to the rule that everyone else followed.
2. The “rule” that you couldn’t publish a novel written in second person. A short story, perhaps, but in a longer work, that was just too many “you’s” for the reader to go through without wearying. Jay McInerney didn’t pay much attention to that rule when he wrote BRIGHT LIGHTS, BIG CITY.
There are other examples, but these two come to mind immediately. The thing that often happens however, is that there are a ton of writers who think they’re Barry Bonds, or Camus, or Celine or Bukowski… who ain’t and who never can be and they’re the ones breaking rules they never understood in the first place and without the writing chops to succeed without following those rules. They either have it or they don’t and if there’s a question in their mind… they probably don’t.
Q. Yeah, that answer is probably going to piss some people off. But it’s so true. Some people have it and some don’t, and deep down, I think we do know if we stand apart.What part of the creative process do you enjoy most? Which part do you dread?
A. I enjoy every single part, including selling the work. I can’t think of anything that I dread. It’s all fun. Writing isn’t my job—it’s my avocation.
Q. Right on. Do you write mostly from the cuff or is there some type of outlining you use either pre-book, or during composition?
A. I wouldn’t drive to Adak, Alaska without a roadmap and I wouldn’t write a novel without the same. However, I don’t use an outlining as is commonly defined. I use a brief outline of 15-20 words. It contains five statements. The first is a brief description of the inciting incident—whatever happened to the protagonist that created the story problem. The next three statements are the result of the three major turns that almost every novel contains as he/she struggles to resolve the problem. The fifth is the resolution, which represents a win and a loss for the protagonist. I don’t write those Comp I kinds of outlines with the Roman numerals and all that. The outline I write reflects the broad strokes of the novel and it’s up to me how I get there, providing immense freedom in doing so, but still keeping me on the proper highway. I kind of have to chuckle at some folks who claim they’re “pantsers” and never outline, like that’s some kind of restriction on their creativity. For instance, Hemingway swore he never outlined. But… he did. The difference was his outlines were 100,000 words long instead of 20 words long. He just wrote draft after draft and that’s what he called them—Draft #1, Draft #2, Draft #8 and so on–but in reality they were just long outlines. Really long outlines! And, that’s what I suspect a lot of the pantsers do—they don’t write outlines—they just keep writing draft after draft, not realizing that’s what they’re doing—creating humongous outlines each time.
#
Thanks Les! I always figure out what I call “the pivotal moments” before I start a project, too. And that’s a wrap! Thanks so much to Les for the interview and everything else. Visit his website here!
You can also find him on Goodreads and check out his books. Thanks to everybody for reading and to those who share!
Posted in News on December 1, 2012
Michael Stanley is the writing team of Michael Sears and Stanley Trollip. I met these wonderful and talented gents briefly at Bouchercon 2012 in Cleveland where they won the Barry Award for Best Paperback with the third novel in the Detective Kubu series.
Once I returned home I bought the first Detective Kubu novel—A CARRION DEATH—liking the sound of the premise, and a promising, unique story. I read it quickly, enjoying the characters, loving the setting and atmosphere, gripped by the intricate plot, and by the time I finished the first novel I was ready for more.
While they were working on this interview I read the second novel THE SECOND DEATH OF GOODLUCK TINUBU (2009), which was excellent! Today (yesterday now) I ordered the third in the series: DEATH OF THE MANTIS (2011). Really looking forward to diving into it as soon as it gets here! They write intricately, beautifully and savagely, and Kubu and the supporting cast are such wonderful characters.
A big thanks to Michael and Stanley for their kindness at Bouchercon and for taking the time to answer some questions. Enjoy!
Lee: Welcome gents! What first inspired each of you to write fiction?
Michael: We had the idea for the start of the first book watching hyenas on a Wildebeest kill in the Savuti area of Botswana. They consumed basically everything over a period of hours. It struck us as a great way to get rid of a body! The perfect murder. No body, no case. Then we spent the next thirty years talking about writing a mystery around that premise!
Stanley: Michael’s response above shows the wonderful benefits of collaboration. What he wrote is correct – at least nearly! We only spent twenty years talking about writing a mystery. Without my input, your readers would have thought that we took a really long time to get organized – as some would say is the habit of academics. Now your readers know we only took a long time.
Lee: That’s great. How has your friendship influenced writing the series? Do you draw out the best in each other?
Michael: I think we bring different things to the table and that does generate a better result. But the main thing is that we have great fun doing it together. We’ve both enjoyed collaboration a great deal, and this project gives us an opportunity to work with each other.
Stanley: We certainly enjoy the process of writing together a great deal, but being friends brings other things to play as well. Because I have such respect for Michael, I listen very carefully to what he says about pieces I have written. If he were just another collaborator, I may be more inclined to blow some of his criticisms off. Being friends, I think we are more open to compromise than we may be if we weren’t.
Lee: Well put! Where did the idea for Detective Kubu originate? Even in the first novel he seems very fleshed out.
Michael: It’s strange. Kubu wasn’t even meant to be the protagonist. We meant the smart ecologist, Bongani, to solve the mystery. Since we have both been academics, we thought we should have someone in a lifestyle we understand as the hero. But clearly we needed a policeman to investigate the murder. So Kubu climbed into his Land Rover with his sandwiches and his music and took off into the bush. By the time he reached the crime scene, he was in charge of the book!
As to being fleshed out, I think you must thank his eating habits for that!
Stanley: What more can I add? Perhaps to say that Kubu’s take-over of the book was my first experience in realizing that the author is often not in charge of what happens.
Lee: I suspect that most readers have no idea how easily that can happen! But thank the gods for it. Has your love for creating new adventures for Detective Kubu only grown stronger with each project?
Michael: I think so. We feel that each book is a bit better than the previous one. (Well, we would, wouldn’t we?) And we’ve tried to use a different backstory for each one, which gives us an interesting canvas for each story. In A CARRION DEATH it was blood diamonds, THE SECOND DEATH OF GOODLUCK TINUBU deals with the decline of Zimbabwe after the vicious bush war, and DEATH OF THE MANTIS concerns the Bushman peoples of the Kalahari, their past and their future. Our new book – DEADLY HARVEST – has the use of body parts in black magic potions as its backstory. These are all real contemporary issues in Southern Africa.
Stanley: Not only has our love of creating new stories for Kubu grown with each story, but so has our attention to detail and our desire to tell a better story. We have learned a great deal from each book which, we hope, improves the subsequent one.
Lee: I’ve read the first two and think you’re hitting your goal. Can’t wait to read DEATH OF THE MANTIS and DEADLY HARVEST!
What challenges do you face writing a series character? Can you give us an example and what you did to overcome the challenge?
Michael: The books are stand alone, but, as you say, Kubu and his family and colleagues in the Criminal Investigation Department carry through the series. A challenge is that one needs to inform the new reader about Kubu, his name, family, and background, without irritating readers of the previous books. We try to do it quickly in a slightly different way in each book. That seems to work okay.
Stanley: A different issue in writing a series is keeping track of what has happened before. In each book, we add details, sometimes incidentally, about the main characters. Even though we may forget such detail, we have been amazed by how many readers let us know about even small anomalies. The readers keep us on our toes. We are thinking of hiring a student somewhere to write a biography of the main characters so we know their birthdays, their habits, their ages, their looks, etc. Having such a biography would be a great help.
Lee: I can see how both of those difficulties would take time to master. I felt you handled the backstory between the first and second novels very well. And I’m sure no matter how much you learn there will always be those sharp readers who still catch things from time to time. What do each of you bring to the collaboration table?
Michael: We do have different areas of expertise. I know remote sensing and did work for De Beers at some point; Stan is a pilot and studies human factor issues. But I think it is the combination of the two of us through brain storming and the like which is the major advantage of a collaboration.
Stanley: Another difference between us is that I have now lived in the USA for more time than I did in South Africa. So I have good insights into American ways, traditions, and most importantly, language. We write our books first in American English, which I know better than Michael, then translate them into English English for our UK publisher. Michael knows that language better than I do.
Lee: That sounds like a wonderful combination. What advice can you offer to writers who are considering collaborating?
Michael: You have to be willing to take blunt criticism and have your favorite writing ripped apart! If you can’t face that, don’t collaborate. (But your editor will do it to you anyway!)
Stanley: I would recommend that everyone should try it, subject to what Michael wrote above. People ask us how we can write fiction with someone else. We retort that the question is wrong and should be rephrased as ‘How can people write fiction alone?’ It must be an incredibly lonely experience to be a solitary author, with no one to bounce ideas off, to share successes and have a great deal of fun with.
Lee: There is only one writer I’m close enough to who I can handle their blunt criticism, and a lot of that is due to an unwavering respect for each others work and as personalities. And I agree and think it is a lonely profession for a lot of writers despite the social media they use to stay connected. What are your favorite parts of the process?
Michael: Probably the actual writing.
Stanley: There are times I can write for hours on end. When I stop and read what I have written, I sometimes wonder who has written it – it often seems to come from a different part of me that I am not in conscious touch with.
Lee: Very interesting! What are the biggest rewards for you #1: during writing, #2: after the sale, and #3: after publication?
Michael: #1 is the brainstorming I’ve mentioned before. #2 is that we can work in tandem to produce corrections and modifications to match the editor’s input and ideas. #3 is that we have fun doing book tours together. Hopefully people enjoy our presentations more because there are two of us and we can add variety to the process.
Stanley: I agree with #1 and #2 above. An additional reward after publication is getting to meet many interesting people, both readers and other writers. The mystery/thriller community is wonderful, filled with laid-back and generous people. We feel very privileged to be a part of it.
Lee: I’m sure people love the two of you touring together. There’s a very warm dynamic you create. What do you wish you knew when you started that you’ve had to learn through experience?
Michael: Very interesting question. Of course, like most things, you really learn something by doing it. We started writing and then read books about writing and the like. We were quite ignorant about the process too. But if we had realized that writing fiction as a team was so unusual, we might never have started at all!
Stanley: Although I don’t think it would have stopped us from writing A CARRION DEATH, knowing how much authors have to do with respect to marketing would have at least prepared us for that enormous effort. It would be very foolish for a new author to think that being an author only involves writing. At least the same amount of time will be needed for helping build a readership.
Lee: I for one am glad you started! I was also ignorant about so many things when I started but learning is an everyday thing. Marketing takes so much time and effort. One of the things I found very interesting, and really liked about A CARRION DEATH, was the respect and dynamics in Kubu’s marriage. Is that based off your personal relationships with your wives, or is it typical in Botswana?
Michael: I think we’ve tried to show the traditional aspects of a Batswana marriage, but Joy is actually much less traditional than Kubu in many ways. One of the nice things about a series is that you can watch their relationship develop over time.
Stanley: One of the interesting aspects of writing this series has been the realization that as time passes for our characters, so must their relationships with each other evolve. In A CARRION DEATH, Kubu and Joy have an almost idyllic relationship, perhaps a bit over the top, which our readers have really liked. With each book, the relationship has had to endure different stresses and strains which, we hope, mirror, a typical marriage. In addition, Kubu’s relationship with his parents is also about to undergo some major stresses – as happens in real life when parents age.
Lee: Agreed! I was pleasantly surprised to see that upon reading the second novel. It adds extra depth and really mirrors a real relationship. Gentleman, thank you so much for taking the time to answer questions for us! I can’t recommend the Detective Kubu series highly enough, people. Give it a go!
Michael: Thanks very much for the opportunity to chat about our books!
Stanley: Thanks very much indeed. We would like to invite your readers to find out more about Detective Kubu by visiting his web site http://www.detectivekubu.com. You will have the opportunity there to join our mailing list – we send out three or four newsletters a year to apprise readers of what Kubu is up to.
We’re also doing a beautiful giveaway and everybody should enter!
All you have to do for a chance to win is leave a comment below. In a week I’ll snag three random winners and send them either a paperback or digital edition of the first Detective Kubu novel A CARRION DEATH. It’s good fun! Thanks again to Michael and Stanley for sharing about their characters, themselves and the creative process!
/pspan style=”color: #000000;”
