Working Hours

by Sheila Connolly

Like many areas of the country, Massachusetts is digging out from another blizzard or nor'easter or whatever we're calling it this week, the second within a month. Save your pity for all those other states which are totally unprepared to deal with more than an inch of snow. We Yankees are used to it.

Cats nap, er...cat naps?

But blizzards make me glad I'm a writer. I can sit at home in my grubbies and labor over the Work in Progress (or these days, more often two WIPs). If the power goes out? I've got edits to do–on paper. I can outline the next book–on paper. Or (gasp!) I could read a book. I have plenty of flashlights, plus a 1900 oil lamp that works, so I won't be left in the dark, and there are plenty of books waiting for me.

But... Over the past few years, when my days have been my own, my daily activities not dictated by bosses or train schedules, I have learned a lot about how my brain works–or doesn't work.

My father was a morning person, up early and out of the house by the time I got up (and I finished his pot of tea and read the paper he left). My mother? No way. She was a night owl, and prying her out of bed in the morning was a monumental effort, one which I often abandoned as hopeless. I ended up walking to school in the rain a lot.

My mother's mother was a morning person. She would be up, showered, fully dressed and sitting in the kitchen with a cup of tea before anyone else in the household stumbled down the stairs. My mother's second husband was also a morning person. He was involved in building power plants for a time, so he followed construction schedules (and he also liked to go out for breakfast and hang out with the other morning people, while my mother slept on...).

All in all, I was very aware of diurnal or circadian rhythms from an early age. If there's a genetic component to daily patterns, the odds were good that I would be a morning person, and so it happened. Once I wake up (thank you, hungry cats), my brain starts churning, and I write mental lists of all the things I'm supposed to be doing during the day, and all the things I've put off, and all the things that will need to be done in the next week or month or year. Forget about going back to sleep–it's not happening.

But over the last few years, I've learned more about how my brain works. First and foremost, I know I'm most creative in the morning, so that's when I write (after I've cleared emails and read my favorite blogs and all that stuff). Ideas comes, details click, words flow. I take a short lunch break, then I'm back at it, until...sometime in the afternoon something shuts down. My brain turns to sludge, the flow dries up. Nothing is happening upstairs.

It's like a mini-episode of Seasonal Affective Disorder. Decreased energy and concentration; carbohydrate cravings (those cookies are calling to me); increased sleep (I've started taking naps, which I never used to do). But it's gone the next morning. Maybe I need a new word for it, like ADD (Afternoon Affective Disorder).

Of course, sometimes the outside world doesn't allow me the luxury of slipping into a zombie state. There are edits and copyedits, and they come with deadlines. The publisher wants that manuscript by a fixed date, because there's this whole production queue waiting for it, even if the pub date is still over a year away. As a result, I jealously hoard that precious early-day time, saving it for the new book, the short story, the emails about important details for which I have to communicate coherently to other people. By late afternoon, I read the incoming emails but usually put them aside for more intelligent thought. And I read.

I know there are writers who are reluctant to read other people's work while they're working on something of their own, for fear that their style will be compromised. Not me. There are writers whose work I love, and I dearly wish some of their style would rub off on me, but so far no luck. There are other books that I read and say, I'd never do that. But maybe I need to clear my head of my own words in order to focus on someone else's, because late afternoon is my best reading time. Maybe I'm less analytical then, and more easily drawn into a story.

What about you? When do you work best? When can't you string together a coherent sentence for love or money?

Best Reads of 2010

Elizabeth Zelvin

This is the time when we get to tally up and share with others our favorite reads of the preceding year. This year, I started making my list way back in January 2010, when I was still reading a few of the highly praised mysteries of 2009. I’ve been adding to it and winnowing it throughout 2010, and I think I’ve distilled it to the handful of books I absolutely loved reading. In one case, I got the hardcover by a favorite author the day it was published, read it straight through, then turned back to the beginning and read the whole thing again with equal relish. In another, a book and author I came upon by chance, I thought it was so exceptional that I devoted a whole blog to it.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about readers in my years in the mystery community, it’s that every individual’s taste is different. You may hate the books I love, and vice versa. My own husband and I are yin and yang in this regard. Even with the narrow range of books that we may both pick up—a certain kind of high-quality historical and fantasy fiction—I get bored if the battles go on too long, while he gets bored if the relationships and feelings go on too long. (Same with movies, but that’s another story.) But my list is my list, and I want to write about why I think these particular books are so wonderful.

As I said, I wrote a whole blog about Michael Gruber’s The Book of Air and Shadows (2007), so I’ll repeat here only that it had all three elements of great novel writing: storytelling, writing, and characterization.

The same can be said of Lois McMaster Bujold’s Cryoburn (2010), the long-awaited new volume of the Vorkosigan saga, which I insist in including on my mystery list because one aspect of Bujold’s genius is the deft mixing of genres. Cryoburn is science fiction, mystery, galactic political thriller, and immensely satisfying character-driven novel all at once. Miles Vorkosigan and his family and friends are the kind of people readers like me fall in love with, wish they could meet and befriend, and hunger to hear more about. They are endearing, smart, and funny—intensely real, achingly delicious. I can read about characters like these till the cows come home, over and over.

Margaret Maron’s Christmas Mourning (2010), and her Judge Deborah Knott series in general, shares that characteristic, at a less intense and charismatic level, of endearing characters, of a world of family and friends that the reader would be delighted to belong to. Every time the Knotts sit around playing music, I wish I had been born into a family that did that. In this one, the mystery is neatly done and the personal elements enough to satisfy someone like me who (dare I admit this?) is really reading the book primarily for the relationships.

Also on my list is Sara Paretsky’s latest, Body Work (2010). Paretsky, just named a Grand Master of Mystery Writers of America and the chief founding mother of Sisters in Crime, writes a protagonist, V.I. Warshawski, who is a different kind of smart from either Miles Vorkosigan or Judge Deborah and a more abrasive kind of endearing. I have to reread Paretsky’s books just to make sure I can follow the more brainy aspects of the plot, which often have to do with business or politics. I don’t exactly long to know V.I. personally, but I care about her and the circle of friends and supporters she’s gathered around herself. I admire her doggedness—she’s as persistent as, hmm, Rocky, in coming back after a knockout—I like the way she cares about her mother’s memory (and those last ruby glasses, or are we down to one?), and I adore her overt feminism. In the case of this new book, after reading the beginning, I settled into this meaty read with a sigh of satisfaction. Yes! Paretsky is still at the height of her powers; neither the tight plotting nor the development of this installment of the series character arc is going to let me down.

That’s not the whole list—more another time. What’s on your Best of 2010 list, and why?

What makes you a "real" writer?

Sandra Parshall

This is a dangerous period, when I’ve just finished and turned in one novel, haven’t started another yet, and have far too much time to think.

One thought is inevitable: Do I really want to do this again? Do I want to spend another year of my life with people who exist only in my head?

And that leads to: Is this work, or just an extraordinarily time-consuming hobby? There’s no shortage of people who will say that because I don’t make enough money to fully support myself by writing, it’s a hobby, not a career. Never mind the starred reviews. Never mind the Agatha Award. Never mind the books on library shelves. To some people, only money counts, and I don’t make enough money from writing to be considered a real writer. I’m not working; I’m just amusing myself.

The thing is, when I’m sitting here tearing my hair out because I can’t get a scene to go the way I want it, or writing madly to meet a deadline, it sure does feel like work.

The knowledge that I won’t make a ton of money and see my name on the New York Times bestseller list doesn’t lessen my desire to write the absolute best book I can. I’ve published three books that received fabulous reviews I will always treasure, and I don’t want to produce one that will be dismissed as weak and boring. The relatively few people who buy my books, and the far greater number who borrow them from libraries, deserve the best I can give them.

I’m hardly alone. Only a small percentage of writers earn enough to live on. Those with families to support often work at other jobs and write in their off-hours. It’s a foolish writer who quits his day job when his first book sells reasonably well. The second book might tank, and it’s best to hold on to a steady source of non-writing income. Midlist writers are losing their contracts and moving to small presses or being offered far smaller advances than they’ve received in the past. Is writing no more than a hobby to these people?

Publishing is a scary world these days. The profession of gentlemen has become the enterprise of cutthroats. If you’re published by a major imprint and don’t sell as many copies as they expect, you’ll be dumped long before you have a chance to build an audience. If you’re with a small press, you’ll have much more security because small publishers, while they want and need to make money, aren’t driven by the quest for blockbusters. They want to publish good books that will earn some money for both author and publisher. But it will never be a lot. You may have to cope with people (including other writers) who don’t consider you a “real” author because your big advance wasn’t announced in the press.

And you may reach the point I reach after finishing a book, the “Is this work, or just a hobby?” point. Knowing the mental labor that’s involved, knowing how little respect some people have for your efforts, you may ask yourself if it’s worthwhile to do it all again.

You might feel a bit like Tinkerbell, losing your sparkle as you fade away. I hope you – and I – will find people willing to clap if they believe in us, and keep on clapping until we’re swinging through the air again, high above the doubts and fears.

Stand Up and Pay Attention

Sharon Wildwind

Here’s a short quiz for you.

Thirty minutes of vigorous physical activity offsets the effects of how many minutes sitting at a computer?
A. Five minutes
B. Thirty minutes
C. One hour
D. None at all

Which is healthier?
A. Watching a movie on DVD
B. Watching the same movie on commercial television
C. There is no difference

Allowing for an 8-hour sleep at night (a lot of people get lots less), how much of the remaining 16 hours out of each 24 does the average North Americans spend sitting?
A. 70%
B. 50%
C. 30%
D. 25%

Taking a lazy afternoon to lie down and read a book has what affect on health?
A. None at all
B. Contributes to worse health
C. Contributes to better health
D. Is so individual that no general statement can be made

I didn’t like the answers. You may not either. The bottom line: sitting kills.

Studies done both in Canada and Australia and summarized in a recent Scientific American showed a link between sitting and increased death rate. Even when factors such as age, gender, smoking, physical activity, alcohol intake, waist circumference, and body weight were taken into consideration, sitting raised the death rate in each category by somewhere between 11 and 50%. If you are sitting for long periods every day, being physically active for the recommended 60 minutes a day may do other good things for your body, but it does not reverse the effects of sitting. So the answer to the first question is D, no amount of physical activity offsets the effects of sitting.

You think sitting it bad? Try sitting and food, and I’m not talking about having a bag of chips during the football game or a bowl of ice cream while watching a movie. One of the unhealthiest activities appears to be watching food commercials. Six hours a day of commercial television (with commercials) increased children's calorie intake almost 200 calories a day. Children who watched the same amount of television, but all of it non-commercial stations or DVDs did not have the increased calorie intake. So the answer to the second question is that watching a DVD is apparently healthier than commercial television.

The answer to the third question is a walloping 50%. Eight hours allotted out of every twenty-four for sleep, eight hours spent sitting, and eight hours for everything else in life. I don’t suspect, I know that I spend more than eight hours most days sitting, mostly at the computer, but also in my car, or at a desk. And what about those nice relaxing afternoons when I take a book to bed and read? It’s research after all; I’m learning how other authors write.

Six hours of sedentary behavior (one day at the computer or one afternoon in bed), in both lean and not-so-lean individuals, increases blood triglycerides, decreases healthy cholesterol, and increases insulin resistance, even if you’re getting that recommended 60 minutes of physical exercise a day. So taking a lazy afternoon to read a book might be great for the mind, but it’s lousy for the body.

There is some good news in all of this. Undoing the negative effects of sitting or lying down can be reversed by walking for a few minutes at a leisurely pace, as long as you take frequent, short breaks, say 5 to 10 minutes out of each hour. And no, it’s not cumulative. Working for 4 hours and then taking a 20 minute break doesn’t produce the same benefits as working for 55 minutes, taking a five-minute break, and repeating this pattern three more times.

As writers, we are world-class sitters. We owe it to ourselves to set a timer and get up for 5 or 10 minutes every hour. And we owe it to other writers to make sure that every time we teach, we give people 5 or 10 minutes per hour to get up and move around. Starting tomorrow morning, I’m setting my timer.

---------
Quote for the week
Keep on going, and the chances are that you will stumble on something, perhaps when you are least expecting it. I never heard of anyone ever stumbling on something sitting down.
~Charles F. Kettering (1876-1958), American engineer

Oh, What Kindle Can Do!

by Julia Buckley
Kindle reads a lively David Copperfield to my cat.

There’s been some debate in mystery circles lately about online books versus paper books. I am in the group of people who believe that there is room in the world for books in any form, and that the important thing is that people are reading and processing text, a complex activity that is good for the brain.

I am currently reading paper books and Kindle books. Yes, I got a Kindle for Christmas—the cheapest kind, yet a miracle in its own right. Every book is a wonder, when you think about it, no matter what the format—-birthed by the creative efforts of many people, but first by an author with a grand idea.

I am reading two print books now. Ian McEwan’s Saturday and Bradford Morrow’s The Diviner’s Tale, the latter of which reminds me why print books can be such a joy—the book is beautiful, with glowing title letters and artistic papers that are a feast for the eyes before one even begins reading. (I also recently finished the new Elly Griffiths book, The Janus Stone, which was wonderful. I was sad to see it end).

On Kindle, I had to first download my own book, Madeline Mann, just to check out how it looks. :) But then I got Great Expectations and David Copperfield, which were free and 95 cents, respectively. I got a Dave Barry book called The Complete Guide to Guys, which I found extremely funny, living as I do in a house full of men. I read the first Dexter novel to see what everyone’s been raving about.

The result: look how much I’ve read since Christmas!

So why, exactly, are some people so resistant to Kindle? It’s just another way of processing words, and a fun way, at that. But its uses are endless. Here are some of the Kindle’s amazing powers:

Recently the Kindle saved my dinner party by standing up and reciting a poem by Dylan Thomas. It energized the crowd and brought a literary sensibility to my gathering.

My cat has been sort of depressed in the winter weather; the Kindle has been talking to him about fun options for indoor play. It seems to have made a difference (see photo at top).

The Kindle babysat for my grade-school aged son on Saturday, during which time the Kindle modestly encouraged my son to read a traditionally-printed book above his reading level; my son claims to have understood it quite well.








This afternoon while I was working, the Kindle made sandwiches.











The Kindle has been encouraging me to work out by hanging around near my walking shoes. A subtle yet realistic indictment of my sloth: well-played, Kindle!



I'm looking forward to learning more about all the things the Kindle can do--it really is a versatile machine. So open your minds! We can all get along in book world; and if moderation is needed, I recently found out that the Kindle is a licensed therapist.

Can Murder Be Funny?

by Lois Winston (Guest Blogger)

The winners of Lois's romantic suspense novel, "Love, Lies, and A Double Shot of Deception" OR a craft how-to book--winners' choice--are
Barb L. in Florida, Lil Gluckstern, and Linda Leszczuk. Winners, please email Lois directly at lois@loiswinston.com to give her your mailing address and tell her which book you would like.

People are very opinionated. It’s the nature of the beast, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I happen to prefer people with strong opinions, even though they may differ considerably from my own. One of my best friends is my polar opposite when it comes to politics. We simply agree to disagree on certain topics.

I came to the mystery genre via romance, where I’d previously published two books. Romance authors can be very opinionated about their genre. One ongoing argument is whether authors of chick lit and women’s fiction should be considered published in romance. I witnessed heated rhetoric from both sides that eventually tore apart a local writing organization.

Now I’m writing mysteries, and once again I find myself plopped down into the middle of what apparently is an old argument. You see, I write humorous mysteries. Some people have very strong opinions against this particular sub-genre. They find nothing humorous about murder. Actually, neither do I. However, I do find that it usually helps to have a sense of humor to get through much of what life throws at you, and I try to convey that in the way my characters approach life. (I also prefer to read books that make me laugh, rather than have me constantly checking the locks on all my windows and doors!)

So when I began writing mysteries, I knew I wanted to write humorous amateur sleuth mysteries, not police procedurals or dark, gritty serial killer fare. I get enough of that reading my daily newspaper and watching the evening news.

However, I firmly believe that there’s a place and a readership for all sub-genres of mystery. Taste is very subjective, and I respect whatever someone else’s particular taste in mysteries is. If someone likes to read or write stories that scare the stuffing out of people, good for them.

Me? I like to make my readers laugh, even if they’re reading about a murder investigation. That’s why when I killed off the fashion editor in ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY GLUE GUN, I did it with (duh!) a hot glue gun. After all, anyone can kill off a victim with a Glock or a kitchen knife, but how many killers use a glue gun?

My mystery series is also populated with a cast of zany characters. I love taking polar opposites and throwing them together to create conflict. In the Anastasia Pollack Crafting Mysteries, my protagonist has a mother who believes she descends from Russian royalty and a mother-in-law who’s a staunch communist. Not only are they both living under Anastasia’s roof, they’re forced to share a bedroom. Zany characters + conflict = humor. Even though it’s in the confines of a murder mystery.

The problem with writing humor, though, is that you never know if your readership will “get it.” For me, writing humor is the second hardest part of writing a mystery. The first part is creating a story where you keep your reader guessing as to the identity of the killer. As the author, I have to know who the killer is. So it’s difficult for me to be objective. Did I leave too many clues? Not enough? The worst thing in the world is to have your readers figure out whodunit by the third or fourth chapter into the book.

Humor is very subjective, though. I’ve written scenes where I’ve laughed out loud as I’ve typed, then again each time I reread the scene. However, I never know if others will find those scenes funny. So I always hold my breath, fingers crossed, waiting to hear from first my agent, then my editor, then reviewers, and finally readers. Some will laugh; some won’t. All I can hope for is that more laugh than don’t. So I was absolutely thrilled when a major reviewer called my new book a "hilarious, laugh-until-your-sides-hurt tale" with "oddball characters [and] uproariously funny situations."

By George, they got it!

Now I keep my fingers crossed, hoping others do, too.

Lois Winston is an award-winning author and designer as well as an agent with the Ashley Grayson Literary Agency. Her latest book, ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY GLUE GUN, the first book in her Anastasia Pollack Crafting Mysteries series, was recently released from Midnight Ink. Visit Lois at http://www.loiswinston.com and Anastasia at http://www.anastasiapollack.blogspot.com.

SWEET PEACE

by Sheila Connolly

Last month scientists announced that they believe they have found a link between sugar and aggression in humans. One of the co-authors of the study, Ohio State University Professor Brad Bushman, said that "avoiding aggressive impulses takes self-control, and self-control takes a lot of energy. Glucose provides that energy in the brain."

He and his colleagues have also shown that people who have trouble metabolizing glucose (including those with diabetes) show more aggression and are less willing to forgive others. This may become a societal problem, as the number of people who have diabetes in the United States has more than tripled over the past thirty years. Using 2001 data they found that in each state, diabetes rates were linked to violent crime rates. States with higher diabetes rates also tended to have more murders, assaults, rapes and robberies.

I think women have always known this.When welcoming a stranger into their home, what's the first thing a "good hostess" does? Offers the visitor something to eat and something to drink. We call it "being polite," and it's not unique to American culture. But what if it's more than that? What if this is a way of disarming the stranger? Hand him a plateful of cookies and he won't attack you?

Or take a broader view. Our country is obsessed by sugary foods (hence the growing diabetes problem), and we even sneak sugar into the most unlikely places. Read the label on any processed food product you pull off your pantry shelf, and odds are good that you'll find some form of corn syrup–another form of sugar. I won't get into the Michael Pollan lecture on how corn syrup is the linear result of excess armaments left over from World War Two.

I did a highly scientific study of my own food supplies (i.e., I opened the pantry door and grabbed some cans and jars). Did you know there is sugar in bread crumbs and mayonnaise? In my beef bouillon cubes, sugar was the second ingredient. Where's the beef? And forget about all those cereals and juices–they're loaded. Suffice it to say that we Americans love our sugar.

There are a lot of current mystery writers who write about food, and I'd hazard a guess that most of these focus on sweet foods. Off the top of my head I can think of writers whose protagonists are bakers (pastry and cupcake), chocolate makers, even a bee keeper. Step back a bit and you get a few healthier themes: I write about apples, and I know others who focus on blueberries or even a whole farmers market. Two of the current doyennes of traditional mysteries, Katherine Hall Page and Diane Mott Davidson, write about caterers, and Davidson's protagonist makes some dynamite desserts (I know–I've tried the recipes!).

When you start thinking about this, you may begin to recognize patterns. Say you're reading dark procedurals or tense suspense–what do the characters eat? Do they remember to eat at all? Or do they grab a cup of black coffee and a stale bagel on the way out the door? Or they duck into a grubby diner and eat fatty foods. In contrast, in women's fiction many characters bare their souls over cups of sweet tea and pastries. Maybe that's why all the classic English mysteries are so calm and rational: all the characters are wallowing in tea and crumpets (with dollops of strawberry jam).

I for one say we seize this discovery of the positive impact of sugar and take advantage of it. If world powers are sitting down to negotiate critical treaties involving millions of lives–give them cookies! If someone's finger is hovering over that red button that can blow up the world, hand them a cup of sweet tea. If enemies have invaded your land, open the door and invite them in for cake. It can't hurt, can it?

And I'll be happy to forgive you for anything as long as you'll share your brownies with me.

Building Suspense

Elizabeth Zelvin

I handed a manuscript I loved to my agent not long ago, hoping the hard part was over now and I could forget it and move on to the next project while she sent it out. Nope. Although my agent, unlike some, does not consider herself an editor, she put an unerring finger on the element that still needed beefing up. Add more suspense! she said. This interlude slows down the narrative. That crucial request gets granted too easily. After my habitual preliminaries (which consist of me whining, I can’t!), I buckled down to work. As it became clear to me how I could fix the sections she’d indicated, I realized that in the course not only of writing mystery fiction but also reading tons of it and discussing it ad infinitum with other writers and readers over the past few years, I’ve been assimilating some useful knowledge about generating suspense that I was able to apply.

The manuscript in question is Voyage of Strangers, my so far unpublished Young Adult novel about Diego, a young Marrano who sails with Columbus. Two published short stories deal with the first voyage in 1492. This novel is the story of the second voyage, but it starts in Spain, where Diego has to get his young sister away from the Inquisition. In the first draft, she is living in the home of a stuffy aunt, having left the convent where she was at school. In the revision, the story starts in the convent, where Diego is visiting when the aunt arrives to announce they must leave immediately, because it isn’t safe there any more. It seems so obvious, in retrospect, that the second version is more suspenseful.

Rachel, Diego’s young sister, wants to dress as a boy and sail with Columbus. Of course, Diego says no. It’s impossible—but in the end, it’s their only option. In the first draft, when they finally ask Columbus if she can go, he says yes. Why didn’t it occur to me that he has to say no? My agent saw it, and so did I, once she pointed out that I could build tension that way. In the second version, Columbus says no; Diego finds a solution that he thinks settles the matter; he sees her off, boards his own ship—and finds out too late to turn back that the plan has fallen through and Rachel is on her way to the Indies (not yet called the New World in 1493) with him and Columbus.

In the second half of the book, what happened historically is so dramatic that I wasn’t under the same pressure to beef it up. But once I started thinking about building suspense as a technique of fiction writing, I could see ways to improve on my narrative. In one scene, Diego and his Taino friend are fishing when they hear Spanish soldiers coming to attack the village. The Indian says he’ll circle around and try to distract them while Diego runs to warn the villagers. In draft one, in the next scene, Diego has reached the village and is delivering his warning. What was I thinking? It was so easy to make the soldiers’ arrival into a cliffhanger by writing an intervening scene from the young Taino’s point of view, as he tries to lead them away from the village. It’s more suspenseful if the reader has to find out what happens in that scene before learning whether Diego gets to the village and warns the villagers in time.

All this sounds elementary, except that I’m struck by how none of it occurred to me as I told the story for the first time, and how obvious the need for such devices became once I started working on the revision with the deliberate agenda of increasing the suspense. In the first draft, I was telling myself the story. I’m an into-the-mist writer, so I didn’t have an outline except for the framework of historical events on which I built the adventures of my fictional characters. In this case, the story came easily. In fact, it seemed to me that Diego and Rachel were dictating it to me as fast as I could type. It was a wonderful experience, and the narrative as I first set it down had the ring of authenticity. But applying suspense-building techniques made the story even stronger.

Talking with Libby Fischer Hellmann

by Sandra Parshall

Libby Fischer Hellmann is a woman of many talents who has published seven crime novels and numerous short stories, served as national president of Sisters in Crime, and pursued a career in broadcast news before founding Fischer Hellman Communications, to provide speaking, presentation, and media training. She also writes and produces video. A transplant from Washington, DC, she lives and works in Chicago and sets most of her fiction there.

Crime fiction readers know Libby as the author of the Ellie Forman mysteries and two novels featuring Georgia Davis, a hardboiled female PI in Chicago. She has also edited an acclaimed crime fiction anthology, Chicago Blues, and published an e-collection of her own short stories called Nice Girl Does Noir. Her seventh novel, Set the Night on Fire (December, 2010), is a standalone thriller that goes back, in part, to the late Sixties in Chicago. Publishers Weekly describes it as “top-rate” and says, “A jazzy fusion of past and present, Hellman's insightful, politically charged whodunit explores a fascinating period in American history.”

Q. Please tell us a little about Set the Night on Fire.

A. Set the Night on Fire is my first stand-alone novel. I wanted to write something different; namely, an adrenaline-fueled thriller with a female protagonist. The final product is a three-part story that takes place mostly in the present, except for the middle, which goes back to 1968-1970.
It begins with the premise of the most frightening thing that could happen to a woman. Barring anything that involves children, I decided that being targeted for murder by someone you don’t know, for a reason you don’t understand is the most frightening. So that’s exactly what happens to my 30-something protagonist, Lila Hilliard.

Q. You've said this is a story you've wanted to write for a long time. What do you find compelling about the Vietnam era and the people whose lives were changed by it?

A. I’ve always had unresolved feelings about the ‘60s. 1968 was the turning point in my political  “coming of age,” and while the ensuing years were ones of passion, commitment, and energy, we didn’t change the world. It changed us. I’ve often wondered why, whether it was destined to happen, or whether we could have done anything differently. Why were the institutions of our politics and society so resilient? Was that a good thing or not? And so I decided to explore the era again, from the perspective of six young people who lived through it as I did.

Q. Where did Dar come from? Is he based on a real person?

A. Not really. The thought occurred that he might be a young Tom Hayden when I started, but he turned out to be his own person.

Q. How involved were you in the youth protest movement of the late 60s?

A. I worked for an underground newspaper, Quicksilver Times, in Washington, DC for a few months, and I took part in a number of anti-war activities in college.

Q. You move between past and present in the book, and the contrast in attitudes of young people is striking. Was it easy or difficult to make the mental switch as you wrote the different sections?

A. It was easy. It just seemed to flow. The attitudes of the characters came from people that I met and interacted with during those times. Some were “straights”; others were “freaks”; and some defied any categorization. The characters in the present were shaped by their experiences as well, which made them all very different people. At least to me.

Q. With all that you've lived through since then, and the changes you've seen in society, did you have any trouble putting yourself into the mindset of the anti-war protesters who thought they were going to bring about a social revolution? Looking back on that era, do they seem naive or misguided to you now? 

A. Naïve, certainly. And arrogant, to a degree. But not misguided. I still believe in most of the ideas I did back then: Stop war. Fix the culture. Bring true equality to society. Let the earth sustain us rather than exploiting it. We really did think we could change the world, and not to be trite, we were convinced “The Whole World Was Watching.” The problems resulted when the world didn’t respond the way we thought they should. Eventually, that conflict turned into violence, which, after a time, gave way to apathy.

Q. In the course of your research, did you talk to any of the people involved in the late 60s protests, or read what they've written about their pasts?

A. I didn’t have to. I was there, and I’m aware of the evolution that I’ve gone through. I’ve also had lots of time to mull over the changes that other people, who didn’t share my beliefs and philosophies, went through as well.  I did read the Port Huron statement all the way through, and I read most of the transcript of the Chicago 7 trial. Given a 40 year perspective, they were fascinating. 

Q. Do you believe young readers today will understand your characters?

A. Absolutely. Young people haven’t changed. Neither have the issues. Most of them still plague our planet. Some of the philosophies of the Sixties are now embedded in the Progressive movement; others are part of the so-called Tea Party, although I’m skeptical that those folks are a true grass-roots organization. Nonetheless, the conflict between the political parties today isn’t all that different from the conflict between the activists and people who thought government should get out of their lives.

Q. Does this book mark a departure for you, a new direction in your writing? Will you go back to series mysteries, or would you like to continue writing stand-alones?

A. I left Georgia Davis on page 60 of her third outing, so I will be going back to her. However, I do admit to being “seduced” by the concept of stand-alone thrillers with a historical component. So I’ve written another, and am part way through a third. But I have every intention of going back to Georgia. She’s just too good a character to leave in the dust. Ellie Foreman, too. I actually miss her sometimes.

Q. What kind of books do you read for pleasure? As a writer, do you find yourself learning from everything you read, even when you’re reading purely for recreation?

A. My reading is eclectic. I used to read crime fiction almost exclusively. That’s changed recently. I’m reading all sorts of fiction and, increasingly, non-fiction, which I used to do years ago. For example, I’m almost done with Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy, a wonderful account of the history and growth of corporate espionage. And I’m also reading The Heights, a novel about a family in New York, in which the wife goes back to work.

Q. Can you name authors who have had an impact on your writing – writers you've learned from – and tell us what you learned from reading their work?

A. That would take an entire blog post, Sandy. I’ve learned from every author I read. Sometimes it’s what not to do, but more often reading others helps me stretch as a writer. When I began to take writing seriously, I read widely in the genre, and learned the “structure” of a mystery. I also read thrillers and was able to see the contrasts between the two. I also feel it’s important to read literary fiction, although I’m not reading as much as I’d like, because of time constraints. I would be very happy on a desert island, as long as I could have access to books.

Q. What are you working on now?

A. I’m working on a three-generational thriller that spans three continents. It’s probably my most ambitious work ever. So we’ll see if it pans out.

Q. Finally, what are your views on e-publishing? Would you advise unpublished writers to continue seeking traditional publication, or do you think e-book self-publishing is gaining a degree of respectability?

A. You want to put me on the spot, don’t you?

No, I don’t think unpublished writers should leap to e-books, and yes, I think  they should continue to seek traditional venues, simply because those venues are the filters we need, regardless of format or delivery system. Having said that, though, I am aware that publishers are much more cautious now than ever. (Would we be published today if we hadn’t been years ago?) So I’m willing to admit there are some authors and some books that have slipped through the cracks and deserve a wider readership.

What I’d like to see happen are more filters and/or guidance as we navigate through the sea of e-publishing. We need to know which books are worth it and which are not. It’s still the Wild West out there. 

For more information, visit Libby's website. She blogs with “The Outfit Collective” at www.theoutfitcollective.com. 

Slow Down

Sharon Wildwind

Hear that crunching, grinding, squealing noise?

That’s all of us trying to go from zero to sixty now that the holidays are over. The transition is especially bad this year because Christmas and New Years fell on Saturdays, extending the holiday period for some people from Christmas Eve until today. That’s ten days of down time. It’s like the Hollywood writers’ strike in 2007-2008.

Can anyone remember what we were working on three months ago?
~Hollywood writer, returning to work after the writers’ strike, February 2008

Here’s my advice for the next month: slow down instead of speeding up.

But first, germs and viruses are out there waiting. The former public health nurse in me feels a need to deliver my annual service announcement.

1. Wash your hands often and well.

2. Wear a hat when you go outside. Research has shown that your mother was right. People who go bareheaded in cold weather get colds more easily.

3. If you’ve a mind to do so, and haven’t done it already, get a flu shot.

4. Don’t fill your cup, tea kettle, or water bottle from any sink where people wash their hands. Washing hands creates splash exposure: tiny germ-filled droplets bounce off hands onto the bottom of the faucet and they wait there to float along with the water into someone’s cup. If you’ve only got one sink to choose from, scrub the end of the faucet, particularly the bottom (where that little screen is) with soap and water before you get your water.

5. Unless you are there when the plastic wrap comes off or the bag of chips, cookies, etc. is opened, think twice about helping yourself to communal food. There is a geometric growth of the chance of food being contaminated with germs and viruses for every hour that it sits in the break room.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled blog.

We are coming through the darkest time of the year. Every mammalian thing in our bodies wants us to curl up in a dark, warm place, ideally with a member of our preferred species, and wait for spring. Would that we could.

I think we owe it to ourselves to work ourselves up gradually, away from the holidays and back into whatever our favorite routines are. We need to take some deep breaths. Stretch like a cat. Drink lots of water. Get enough sleep. Cook some slow food. And approach our creativity, whatever it is, with some slow and gentle fingers exercises.

______
Quote for the week:

Happiness is not a matter of intensity but of balance, order, rhythm and harmony.
~Thomas Merton, (1915-1968), priest, poet, and social activist