Author Needs Information

Sharon Wildwind

Most people love to talk about what they do, which is a good thing because, as authors, we’re likely to need information all the way through the alphabet from archeologists to zoo keepers, with a heavy emphasis on first responders—police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians—and people throughout the justice system.

E-mail Requests

It’s a Google/e-mail/linked world out there. I’m a big fan of using e-mail exchanges in place of in-person interviews. Having an e-mail conversation gives the person being interviewed more freedom as to when and how to answer questions.

Often reaching an expert is as simple as looking up contact information on their web site and sending an e-mail. The subject line I use is Writer Needs Information. I send a short message saying that for my current work in progress I need information about raising ducks and geese, the prison system in Tennessee, how an arson investigation is conducted or whatever my particular bugbear is at the moment. Would they be willing to answer a few question via e-mail?

Under my signature I put my a link to my website. If they have any question that I’m on the up and up, they can always go to my website to check me out.

I’ve found university faculty to be wonderful, often overlooked, resources. Administrative Assistants are as helpful as resource librarians. I’ve written many e-mails to AAs, explaining what I need and asking them to forward the message to whomever in their department might be knowledgable in that area.

Sometimes nothing beats talking to people face-to-face.

In-Person Interviews

Save time by going to the right person. Call or e-mail first to find out the name and address of the best person to contact to request an interview.

Write them a letter or e-mail asking three to five specific questions. Avoid shotgun phrases like “I don’t know anything about archeology, and I’m hoping you can tell me everything you know.”

At the end of the letter, ask for an 30-minute interview. Some interviews pan out, some don’t. You’ll know in 30 minutes if you’ve found a gold mine or not. If you’ve hit the mother load, ask for a second, longer interview. Keep in mind that many of the people you interview get paid, sometimes big bucks, for sharing their time, so even a 30-minute interview is a gift.

Establish a clear understanding of protocol. At the beginning of the interview, ask if it is all right to record the conversation. Ask if you need to get permission from anyone to use the material that will be discussed; and, if you do, how do you get that permission?

Avoid giving your interviewee a plot summary or a lengthy discussion about the characters you love. They are technical consultants, not editors. It’s okay to lay out a simple overview, such as, “An FBI agent is found dead in a downtown hotel. The office he works out of is in another state; he was on vacation at the time he died. Whose responsibility is it to investigate his death, the local police or the FBI?”

Avoid putting the person on the spot with questions like, “Do you think my plot will work?” You’re the author, you’ll make it work. What you really want to know is “If this happened in real life, what would your response be?”

When you’re fortunate enough to find an interested person, build on the relationship. What can they do for you? More interviews. A tour of where they work. Opening doors for you, like arranging for you to see something the public usually doesn’t see. E-mail correspondence. Reading some chapters for accuracy. Recommending books, journals, web sites that might be helpful. A good contact can do this and more.

What can you do for them? Give them a chance to explain how challenging and interesting their work is. Let them tell their stories. Value their contributions.

After the interviews

Send a thank-you note. As the book progresses, send an occasional a follow-up note or e-mail to let the person know how the writing is going. If you decide to not go ahead with the book, let them know this, too, and thank them for what they contributed to the project.

Include them in the book’s acknowledgments. Ask if they wish to be mentioned by name or not. If they made a significant contribution, send them a copy of the book when it come out.

Above all, keep a grateful heart. One of the perks of writing is the wonderful people who help us along the way.

Quote for the week

The way I work, the interview never becomes larger than the person being interviewed.

~Ken Burns, American director and documentary film producer

This just in: the Edgar Allen Poe Cake

For more literary theme cakes, click here.

The Story Behind Clark Rockefeller

an interview with Julia Buckley

Since the now-notorious "Clark Rockefeller," aka Christian Gerhartsreiter, has begun to serve his life sentence in an American jail, I thought it might be timely to share and interview I did with his biographer Mark Seal, in 2011:

From the interview:

Mark Seal was kind enough to answer some of my questions about his new book, THE MAN IN THE ROCKEFELLER SUIT.

Your publisher compares Clark Rockefeller to Patricia Highsmith’s Mr. Ripley, and a person in the book compares him to Swift’s Tom Jones, but he reminded me of another fictional character: F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Jay Gatsby, who changed his name (from James Gatz) as a mere boy:

“I suppose he’d had the name ready for a long time . . . His parents were shiftless and unsuccessful farm people—his imagination had never really accepted them as his parents at all . . . . So he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen-year-old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end,” in pursuit of “a vast, vulgar, and meretricious beauty.”

I thought of this every time I read accounts of people who felt Rockefeller was an egotist, or that he seemed desperate to appear not just like them, but better than them. Did the parallel ever occur to you in the years that you did this research?

Yes, you are absolutely on target. Gatsby, like Rockefeller, is about a man nobody truly knew, who hid behind façade of wealth and taste that really wasn’t really real. As you note, Gatsby was a boy named Jimmy Gatz from North Dakota without connections, money, or education. He invented himself as Gatsby, much the way Christian Gerhartsreiter did as Clark Rockefeller.

Throughout all of his identities, “Rockefeller” never seemed to do actual work, other than the task of manipulating other people, their homes and their money. So where did he get his impressive art collection—or, if it was fake, how did the art itself fool so many people?

It’s one of the big mysteries of the book, and everyone seems to have a different answer. Some say the art was loaned to him by a friend, others insist that he had the copies done by some unidentified copyist somewhere, someone else insisted that he possibly painted them himself (which I found difficult to believe, considering the quality of the paintings). His attorney told me the paintings were derivatives, worthless, really. But they were indeed done so well they fooled artists, art experts and galley owners.

How do you account for the fact that some very smart people were utterly bamboozled by Rockefeller, while others (including one notable woman who compared the story to “The Emperor’s New Clothes”) said they never for a moment believed in him or his ridiculous persona. What might have accounted for the difference?

Of course, many who say that they knew now may not have been as vocal back then. So it’s difficult to say who really knew and who didn’t. He was extremely believable, at least in the beginning, and people are willing to believe things when they are said by some one who is seemingly educated, erudite and, most importantly, has a famous name.

To a certain extent, Rockefeller’s wife seemed to buy into his fiction because he filled a requirement in terms of her own aspirations. Do you think her ambition was the major reason that she never seemed to question all of the inconsistencies in her husband’s life?

She is a very smart, educated woman. I believe she was taken in for the same reasons as everyone else, and she insisted in the trial that she didn’t use his name for career advancement.

You met Clark Rockefeller. What was your own feeling after your meetings? Did you feel his charisma, or did he seem pathetic?

I was not able to interview him. The book is built on interviews I conducted with those who knew him, police reports, court transcripts, television and other media documents. And, of course, I was able to observe him day after day in the month-long trial.

Ah. If we viewed Rockefeller in terms of the Tragic Greek Hero, what do you think would have been the primary flaw that led to his downfall? After all, he managed to live his false lives for a very long time. Was it Clark Rockefeller who brought down Clark Rockefeller?

The flaw that led to his downfall is that he wanted it all: the $800,000 divorce settlement from his ex-wife and his daughter, even though his ex-wife was granted custody. He brought himself down by kidnapping his daughter.

Does Rockefeller embody a twisted version of The American Dream?

Yes, in the sense that he was like so many immigrants who came to this country: reinventing himself for the new world. However, in Clark’s case, somewhere along the line he forgot about facts and embraced a life of fiction.

Do any of Rockefeller’s friends visit him in prison?

Yes, several of them have said they visited him in prison.

Interesting! Were there people who testified on his behalf in court?

There were psychologists and psychiatrists who testified on his behalf.

Now that Christian Gerhartsreiter has been charged with murder, do you anticipate that he will be in jail for life, or do you think that he might charm a jury into acquitting him?

I wouldn’t want to second-guess a jury. But like everything about this case, I will be riveted to the trial and its outcome.

Mark Seal, thanks so much for letting me read this fascinating book and for answering some of my burning questions.

A journalist for thirty-five years, Mark Seal is a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and the author of THE MAN IN THE ROCKEFELLER SUIT: THE ASTONISHING RISE AND SPECTACULAR FALL OF A SERIAL IMPOSTOR, now on sale. Seal was a 2010 National Magazine Award finalist for his Vanity Fair profile of Clark Rockefeller.

He lives in Aspen, Colorado. View Seal's website at www.markseal.com

Hiding in Plain Sight

by John Foxjohn
Author of Killer Nurse

I got involved in the Kimberly Clark Saenz (pronounced Signs) case in early 2008 when the Angelina County, Texas, district attorney charged her with capital murder and sought the death penalty. As a former homicide detective, I recognized the magnitude and scope of what would take place. Never in our history had anyone been accused, charged, and convicted of murder with bleach as the weapon.

But that wasn’t the only huge circumstance involved with Saenz. If convicted, she would be a serial killer. This is a rare distinction for a woman, but serial killers don’t happen in East Texas—male or female.

It would take three years for the case to come to trial, and in many ways, my hands were tied beforehand. I was able to talk to a lot of fringe people who knew Saenz. I even interviewed the judge who would oversee the case, but the interview consisted of background information on him—nothing to do with the case. I even interviewed one of the assistant DA’s, but he wasn’t involved in the case. He gave me some really good information on the death penalty and all aspects of it. These were issues that I would need to know for the book but weren’t part of the case.

However, I wasn’t able to speak to anyone directly involved. First, the judge imposed a gag order until the trial was over, and of course the defense attorney was advising everyone not to talk.

During the three weeks of voir dire (jury selection) and the four weeks of trial I spoke to Kimberly Clark Saenz and her family several times—not about the case, just regular talk. The only thing I did was mention that I would like to interview them when the trial was over—either way.

They asked me what I was going to write and I told them I didn’t know—which was the truth—I couldn’t know without a trial and a verdict. I was actually one of the few unbiased people that watched the trial.

Things really heated up after the trial and her conviction. I had a contract with Berkley/Penguin—now Penguin/Random House, and I had to have the completed manuscript in on August 1, 2012. Along with that, I had to send in between 12-20 pictures and all the permission forms to go with them.

The trial ended in May, and of course I had not interviewed a single person who was vital to the case.

Although I had never written a true crime, as a homicide detective I had interviewed thousands of people. Veteran cops learn early on that timing and setup of an interview is important. I began working on this in voir dire. First I knew that they couldn’t talk to me, so when I first met them, I said, “I know you can’t talk to me now and I won’t even try, but I would love to interview you when it is over.”

They respected this—especially as the process continued, and I lived up to my word. They also saw that I went the extra mile to find out the truth—something a lot of the journalists that covered the trial didn’t do.

In the end, I had incredible cooperation from a majority of the people involved. The prosecution was made up of two other attorneys besides the DA. I interviewed the DA four times as well as the others. Everyone in the police department cooperated and one of the defense attorneys sat down and talked to me for hours with the recorder rolling.

Everyone cooperated except the Saenz family. They refused to talk to me because they decided that I would not write the truth—that being that she was innocent and the court and jury had got it wrong. They never asked—just assumed that I wouldn’t do this—but I have to say that this was a correct assumption.

In many ways I respected their decision and even expected it. Their wife, daughter, mother, niece, or cousin was just convicted of five murders and three attempts. What I didn’t expect was them, especially the husband, using Facebook and other venues to discourage people from talking to me.

Obviously, this got the hackles rising on the back of my neck. It was almost as if they were afraid I would find out something. 

One of the most important facts I eventually found out was the husband was an ex-con. He’d been arrested in Houston for two different felonies: one for theft greater than $750.00 but less than $20,000, and the other for felony possession of five pounds of marijuana. If you don’t know how much that is, it is enough to fill a metal office waste can to overflowing.

Now why would they not want this information to get out? Maybe it had to do with the fact that the husband worked for the Angelina County appraisal district as an appraiser.

This is the type of information that is only found if someone is motivated to look. He went from not being a real part of the book to his mug shot being featured in the photo section in the book.

If they’d have just left it alone I would never have delved as deep as I did. Now the entire world knows that Angelina County has an ex-con evaluating their property.

*******************
Best-selling author John Foxjohn epitomizes the phrase "been there—done that." Born and raised in the rural East Texas town of Nacogdoches, he quit high school and joined the Army at seventeen. Viet Nam veteran, Army Airborne Ranger, policeman and homicide detective, retired teacher and coach, now he is a multi-published author.
Website:http://www.johnfoxjohnhome.com
Facebook author page link: https://www.facebook.com/john.foxjohn
Twitter link: https://twitter.com/johnfoxjohn
Killer Nurse: http://amzn.to/151K0Qd

Meg Interviews Bree

by Kate George


As some of you may know, I’ve been on the California Schemin’ Blast-Off Blog Tour since the beginning of February. This means I’ve been writing about random subjects for several weeks now. I’m getting a little tired of listening to my own voice and it raises the concern that others might be getting tired of me too. Not the effect I wanted. So I came up with this brilliant idea! Why not have my characters do some talking? Why not have Meg interview Bree?

Bree is the protagonist of Moonlighting in Vermont and California Schemin’ and Meg is Bree’s best friend. I think it’s the perfect solution – Meg will interview Bree, which will get you more acquainted with the two of them, and I’ll get to take a break. Genius. Take it away, Meg!

Meg:  Really? I get to interview Bree? Fabulous. Can I ask anything I want to? Yes!

Bree, you are in so much trouble.

Before we get started I want to say that I’ve been friends with Bree for fifteen years. I deserve a medal for that. Bree, put that frying pan down. If you can’t be civil we’ll have to do this over the phone.

First Question: What did your brothers say when they found out you had inherited your grandmother’s farmhouse and acreage? Did it create a rift in the family?

Bree:  Just you wait, Meg Maverick. I bet you anything I’ll get the chance to interview you too. And don’t expect me to fight fair.

What was the question? Oh yeah. No, no rift. Actually my brothers did a happy dance when they found out I had inherited the farm. I love the farm but it would have been a lead weight around the neck for either of them. Believe me, it was not a problem. Anyway, they got the bulk of the money. So it was fair.

Meg: So I hear you met a hunky federal agent on your trip to California. I’d hate to think you would drop Beau just because some guy in a uniform came sniffing around. I know how you love the men in uniform.

Bree:  First of all, he didn’t come sniffing around. He abducted me. Second of all, he’s undercover. He doesn’t wear a uniform. I’m not even sure what kind of agent he is. Third, I may flirt but I never cheat. If I’m with a guy, I’m with a guy. I did not dump Beau.

Why are you being so mean?

Meg:  I’m mad because you get all the adventures while I’m stuck at home with my kids and the newspaper.

Bree: Oh pooh. Deirdre can publish the paper, and Tom can watch the kids. If you want an adventure you should go have one. And what about when we took Gunner to the barracks? Wasn’t that enough of an adventure for you?

Meg: That was too much of an adventure.

Hang on. I’m supposed to be asking the questions here. Last one: Do you have any plans for this summer?

Bree: No! This summer I’m going to putter around the farm, swim in the river and hang out with you and the kids. I’ve had enough excitement.
 
Meg: That sounds like wishful thinking to me. You know – famous last words.

Bree: Oh, shut up. Let’s go feed the ducks.

Meg: So you can push me in the pond? I don’t think so.

Kate George is the award-winning author of Moonlighting in Vermont and California Schemin’. She lives in Vermont with dogs, kids, and currently, snow. You can reach her at www.kategeorge.com. Her books are available at www.mainlymurderpress.com, amazon.com or can be ordered from any bookstore.

The Day My Characters Started Talking to Me

By Brad Parks, guest blogger

Once upon a time, when I was a newspaper reporter living a just-the-facts-ma’am kind of writing existence, I would happen across an interview with an author. Since I harbored this wild dream of someday becoming an author, I would always stop and listen (or read) to see if I could learn anything.

Usually, there was a point in the interview where the esteemed author would be asked how she figured out what happened next in her books, and she would say something along the lines of: “Well, my characters talk to me. They tell me where the story ought to go.”

And I’d always think to myself, “Yeah, lady? Do your characters also tell you you’re a nut bag? Because that’s what you sound like right now.”

I mean, what an absurd idea. Characters – fictional creations – dictating the direction of a story? As if they had some kind of free will? Ridiculous.

Then I started writing fiction.

And suddenly one day my characters… they, uh… they started talking to me.

It didn’t happen during my first manuscript. (Then again, that manuscript is still sitting in a drawer somewhere – and maybe now I know why.)

No, it happened while I was writing Faces of the Gone, my debut novel from St. Martin’s/Minotaur. The protagonist is this investigative newspaper reporter named Carter Ross. Part of his deal is that while he works in Newark, New Jersey – a gritty city which is approximately 95 percent
minority – Carter is this clean-cut WASP from the white bread suburbs.

And while I enjoyed the juxtaposition of character and setting for the first two chapters, Carter didn’t start talking to me – really talking to me – until the beginning of Chapter 3. In this scene, Carter has scored an interview with members of the Brick City Browns, a Newark street gang who might have information about a quadruple homicide Carter is covering. But first, Carter has to prove to them he’s not a cop – by smoking marijuana with them.

So there I had Carter in this room with these gang members, and they’re passing the joint, having a good old time. And I figured everyone would get mellow enough that the Brick City Browns would eventually spill what they knew, and Carter would go on his merry way.

But then Carter started talking to me.

“Psst, Brad, I can’t handle my weed,” he said.

“You can’t?” I asked (in my head).

“Not even a little,” he replied. “C’mon, I’m the whitest man in Newark. I wear pleated pants and drive a Chevy Malibu. Look at how I cut my hair, for God’s sake! I tried pot once or twice in college – just to say I’d done it – and haven’t touched the stuff since.”

“So… uh, what do I do now?” I asked.

“I don’t care what you do,” Carter explained. “I’m baked out of my mind. Just let me chill out for a while.”

But, of course, I couldn’t – the scene would get way too dull. So I had him stand up, and, sure enough, he went toppling over into a wall full of boxes, spilling their contents all over him – to the amusement of the gang members smoking with him. Then I had Carter go back to the newsroom, still stoned, bumping into his executive editor, who gets suspicious when one of his reporters smells like he just came from a Grateful Dead concert. Then Carter bumps into his sometime love interest.

The result is that I got some of the more amusing scenes in my book, scenes I never planned but happened more or less spontaneously simply because I was listening to what my characters had to say. Do your characters talk to you? Come on, don’t be shy. I promise I won’t call you a nut bag.

To learn more about Brad Parks or Faces of the Gone, visit www.BradParksBooks.com. To be pelted with monthly fits of nonsense from his small army of underpaid interns, sign up for his newsletter. To be subjected to such drivel on a more regular basis, become a fan of the Brad Parks Books on Facebook or follow him on Twitter (www.twitter.com/Brad_Parks).

Behind the Scenes at Spinetingler

Sandra Parshall

Online review sites and ezines are increasingly influential with readers -- especially mystery readers -- and Spinetingler has rapidly become one of the most popular. Sandra Ruttan, a Canadian mystery writer who started Spinetingler with her husband, Kevin, answered my questions about what’s involved in creating an ezine and building readership.

SP: Why did you decide to start an ezine devoted to mysteries? Did you see a gap you wanted to fill or were you following a personal dream?

SR: It was Kevin’s idea. I was reluctant, because I didn’t think we knew enough to make it work. I was right about that. Part of the first year was about trial and error. We did no real investigation of the other ezines operating. At the time, I had no idea how to find them. This was before I even knew what a blog was, and the forums and lists I had joined at that point weren’t talking about ezines. In the past three years there’s been a lot of growth.

Oddly enough, this was always something I was interested in doing. In grade school I used to make up class newspapers and write stories about people. I have a background in journalism and had my first newspaper column at the age of 13. My husband had the web skills. Our backgrounds and interest contributed to the success of the site, as well as the fact that we focused on producing what we wanted to see. I was tired of reading so many interviews that left questions unanswered. Ten questions that barely scratched the surface. I’ll interrogate people for three hours if they let me, but the result is that readers get something different.
When we talked about starting Spinetingler, I was worried it would take up a lot of time, and I was right.

SP: What’s involved in creating an ezine? Did the process turn out to be more difficult or time-consuming than you expected?

SR: Register a domain name, after Googling to see that it isn’t already in use for something prominent. Once you have your web hosting lined up, you need to build the site. Of course, you also need to get word out there, somehow, to get submissions. Starting off is always tough, which is part of the reason we try to talk about new ezines and I’m glad we’ve started Crime Zine Report. Hopefully, it will help new ezines grow faster, connecting writers with new markets.

In the beginning I was also trying to figure out how to approach authors for interviews. I usually don’t interview anyone unless I’ve read all or a fair bit of their work, and some other interviews with them. I like to do my background research. At the same time, we were dealing with implementing policies. You have to have submission guidelines in place, or you can’t be upset with anything people do. And believe me, people do some weird things with their submissions.

We decided to do this in December 2004, and we launched in March 2005. It wasn’t until the Fall 2005 issue that we started to get things together, and that was also when people really started discovering us, thanks to Stuart MacBride. I met him at Harrogate and after a bizarre conversation in the bar he agreed to an interview. He gave us a huge plug on his blog when the issue came out, and when I started blogging he was one of the first people to drop by and comment. He raised our profile, and when I approached authors for interviews they’d often heard of us as a result.

SP: Are any operating costs involved other than fees for web hosting?

SR: We ran some contests to get submissions, so we had contest prize money to give out. We also pay for stories now.

SP: Do you sell advertising to bring in money?

SR: We do have the option of selling advertising, and sell a bit. We don’t sell enough to break even on the basic expenses of paying for the site and submissions, though. One thing Kevin and I both want is to have the liberty to promote books we’re genuinely enthusiastic about, so we put in personal picks, and sometimes authors do interviews or donate books for contests for us and we run an ad as a thank you. Kevin designs most of the ads himself.

SP: About how many regular reviewers does Spinetingler have? Do they receive any payment?

SR: We have myself, Kevin and Tracy Sharp. None of us receives payment, for anything, and we’re all editors as well. We’re adding a few more reviewers, but there is no pressure, no commitment. They’re volunteers so I leave them to work at their schedule. If they take a review copy they get to keep it. We don’t sell review copies.

SP: Do you recruit reviewers or do most of them approach you? If someone wants to review for Spinetingler, what qualifications must they have?

SR: Most reviewers approach us now. On occasion I’ve posted on lists that we’re looking for reviewers. Sometimes people come forward. We don’t have qualifications, exactly. We explain what we want in the review. Our only real rule is that it not read like a personal attack on the author. When new reviewers join, we read what they send carefully and make sure it fits the ezine.

SP: Have you ever dropped a reviewer?

SR: No, we’ve never had a problem. Some people get too busy, and aren’t available anymore, but we haven’t had to get rid of anyone.

SP: About how many books does Spinetingler review each year? How do you decide what to review?

SR: It varies, and in part, it depends on my schedule. I’m a slow reader, and if I’m busy with other things it hinders me from reviewing as much. Heaven help you if you’re on my TBR pile. I expect the number of reviews we run to increase now that Kevin is also reviewing. He reads fast, and he takes books to work. He also listens to audio books when he commutes.

We ask that people send a brief description of the book they’d like reviewed, and I send it to available reviewers and see if any of them are interested. This gives people the flexibility to consider their schedules and their interests. It also means it’s less likely the author is wasting a review copy, sending it to someone who won’t like it and ultimately won’t review it.

Sometimes I review books I’ve purchased. We rarely approach people for review copies. I’ve done this a few times, when a reviewer who’s contributed a lot to the ezine has asked for a specific book, but usually I don’t. I still believe in supporting authors, and there are some books that, even if I did have a review copy, I’d still buy. I wouldn’t want to mess up my Rankin or Bruen or Val McDermid collections, for example, so even if we were offered review copies I’d still buy a hard copy.

SP: Do you receive ARCs from publishers?

SR: I think a lot of US publicists don’t realize we’re web based (as well as having most issues available for print purchase) and when authors ask them to send us review copies, most don’t. This has been an issue with ARCs coming from the US, mainly. We never have problems with Harcourt, because I know their rep in Canada quite well. And we’re on the mailer for Bitter Lemon Press and Serpent’s Tail now.

When independent publicists (those who don’t work for publishers) contact us, 90% of the time we get the book if we okay it. When the request comes from an author who then asks their publicist to send it to us it’s more like 40% of the time that we actually receive it. I try to follow up with authors, at least to say, “We never got the review copy” but that’s time-consuming.

If a reviewer has expressed interest, we ask for the review copy to be sent straight to them. It typically takes three weeks for books sent media mail from the US to reach us, and then we’d have to send them back across the border. That delays the review about five weeks.

SP: As a Canadian writer yourself, do you make a conscious effort to give Canadian crime novels ample attention in Spinetingler?

SR: Well...

We tried to do the Canadian issues the first two years. They were like pulling teeth. I spent more time working on them than any other issue, and always got less material. And despite doing those issues we still get referred to as an American ezine. Ultimately, I think our focus isn’t where the bulk of Canadian crime fiction is centered. Cozies and amateur sleuth stories are dominant here, and Kevin and I lean into the hardboiled/noir camp. I’m a police procedural junkie. When we do find Canadians we’re excited about, we’re very excited, but I guess I’m too much of a pessimist for most of what we’re publishing this side of the border.

Spinetingler’s focus is more international than anything. If stories are submitted in American English, they run in American English. If they’re submitted in British English, they run in British English. We try to retain the flavour of the writer’s work. We give no preference when selecting books for review unless we’re doing a Canadian issue.

SP: Do you feel that U.S.-based publications overlook many Canadian writers?

SR: I would like to think that the success of authors such as Giles Blunt and Louise Penny proves there’s an appetite for Canadian-based crime fiction outside our borders. Rick Mofina is another fantastic Canadian author. Vicki Delany has a US publisher. John McFetridge, who is doing hardboiled Canadian crime fiction, has been picked up by Harcourt for paperback release next year. The Canadian industry has problems that complicate the issue. The publishing industry here relies on government grant money to stay alive. Without it, the publishers would die. The result is that publishers aren’t always as focused on selling work to balance the books. We seem to have a lot of niche publishers.

But when you look at what sells, the tone of the work is quite different from what a lot of the publishers here seem to be looking for. Ian Rankin is one of the top sellers in Canada, but many of the Canadian publishers have been focused on the cozy/amateur sleuth subgenres. Last summer I had a chat with Ian about who was writing Canadian noir and it was a pretty short list.

In my opinion, the reason Canadian material hasn’t been picked up more internationally is because it isn’t in the mainstream. When people write something that has wide appeal, it will sell widely, regardless of the setting. I think Giles Blunt is the proof of that. There are some Canadian authors capable of selling internationally and doing very well, but it takes time to find the publishers who will give them the chance. My agent, a Canadian, suggested I move my current manuscript south of the border, so clearly some of that mindset that Canada can’t sell still exists. I understand moving the location might make a sale easier but I wouldn’t do it. We’re always reading about how people love books that use setting as a character. Part of the plot hangs on something very specific that isn’t true of even all Canadian cities, so I had to select the setting carefully. I picked a setting that worked that I know, and love, and want to explore in a series. Vancouver isn’t exactly unknown to the international audience, either. With the Olympics coming up I have great material for the subsequent books.

SP: Do you run reviews of self-published books?

SR: We’ll consider it. If the book isn’t good, a review probably won’t run, because few volunteers want to spend time finishing a book they don’t like. It doesn’t matter if the book is self-published or comes from a leading New York house. Most reviewers do not want to sign their names to a scathing review. Neither do I. I’ll make criticisms if I think they’re valid but there has to be enough merit to the book to make me want to finish it in order to get the review.

SP: Have you had any protests from authors about reviews of their work?

SR: We’ve had some issues. I have a very short list of authors whose books we won’t review. I will stop reviewing before I start engaging in arguments over the books. As an author, I understand you have to live with bad reviews sometimes. You can read a review and think it’s unfair, but it’s just one person’s opinion. You have to trust readers to have discernment. I agonize over any criticism I put in a review, because I understand it can come back on me, and I consider how the author will feel. But my obligation is to the readers who want enough information to decide if the book is for them. That’s one of the things I think some authors are exceptionally short-sighted about. You aren’t just selling one book. You’re selling your future books. I’m not trying to deceive anyone into buying a book they won’t like.

The main job of a reviewer is to identify the audience for the book and help the reader figure out if they fall into that category or not. And any issues a reviewer will have with a book are (unless they’re based on a personal attack) bound to come up on forums/listservs from readers sooner or later. I don’t see the point in arguing. Nobody’s wrong. It’s a taste issue, and not everyone likes the same things.

The primary reason we don’t run rebuttals is that it causes hurt feelings, and opens the doors to an argument. I also have no interest in turning Spinetingler into a trash and smear site. It would turn into an endless flame war, as we’ve seen on discussion lists. I can’t turn that stuff off, and it would consume me. I’d end up pulling the plug on the site, because I don’t do well when I feel friends are under attack. My instinct is to step up and defend them, and I feel very protective of my reviewers, because they are being so generous with their time to begin with.

Authors aren’t entitled to reviews, and they certainly aren’t entitled to good reviews. They should pay more attention to which reviewers like material similar to their own. It increases the likelihood they’ll get the positive reviews they’re after.

SP: Now that you’re a published mystery novelist, do you see reviews in a different light? Do you have more sympathy for writers whose books are reviewed negatively?

SR: Not really. I’ve always been a person who considers the feelings of others. I feel it every time I send out a rejection letter for a story submission. I feel it every time I abandon a book I don’t like and won’t review, or write a mixed review. But I know what the obligations of a reviewer are. In reality, it would feel horrid, but if all the reviews were polarized it would probably be the best thing. Strong opposing opinions make people curious and make them want to check out the book for themselves. The very worst thing is if a lot of reviews say, “It was okay.”

SP: Does Spinetingler impinge on your personal writing time and book promotion efforts, or do you hold yourself to a firm schedule?

SR: Spinetingler takes up a lot of my time. As I mentioned, I try to read all or most of the titles by authors I interview, and then the interviews take a fair chunk of time. If I do the interview in person or over the phone I transcribe it, which can take me as much as 10 hours. I go squirrelly transcribing. I need a lot of breaks.

The average interview probably takes 40 hours of my time, including reading one book at least and other interviews. I still love doing it. I try to capture the personality of the author, which is why some interviews are more serious and others are pretty wild.

SP: What’s next for you as a writer? Have you completed a second mystery, or are you working on one? Will the next book be a sequel to the first?

It is unlikely there will be a sequel to Suspicious Circumstances. The contract gives the publisher option on derivative works, and I’m looking to move to a different publisher.

My new manuscript, What Burns Within, is under consideration. I’m currently in that horrendous waiting phase. What Burns Within is a police procedural, set in the Greater Vancouver Area (GVA), where I used to live. The story follows three detectives, each working a different case. One is a serial rape case. Another is dealing with multiple abductions that have led to murder. The third detective is investigating a number of arsons. The cases collide, with deadly consequences. What works for the manuscript is that it’s an action-packed, intensely paced story, but that can also work against it. I wanted to use the style of narrative to convey a sense of what the police are facing – multiple cases where things are coming at them from all directions. When people are under pressure, lives are hanging in the balance, and then tragedy strikes your own police department, even experienced cops can make mistakes.

It’s an intricate plot that was inspired by something very real in my own life. I don’t want to say too much more, but my best friend’s husband is a professional firefighter in the GVA, and my husband is a firefighter and trained arson investigator. One night while he was on a call I was lying in bed, thinking I should really go back to sleep when I had this startling realization about the call. It haunted me until I wrote this manuscript.

Read Spinetingler at www.spinetinglermag.com. Visit Sandra Ruttan's web site at www.sandraruttan.com.

Interview with Libby Fischer Hellman

By Lonnie Cruse

Today's interview is with author Libby Fischer Hellmann. I hope you enjoy getting to know Libby better and that you will check out her books! Thanks for stopping by PDD.

LC: How would you characterize your writing? Cozy? Hard boiled? Somewhere between? And what led you to that style?

LFH: I would say I write medium-boiled with a decided bent toward suspense. In fact, the critics often call my books “mystery-thrillers.” I always knew suspense would be a hallmark of my writing because before I wrote, I read suspense. I started out reading Le Carre, Ludlum, Follett, Deighton (all of them men back then) before I read mysteries. It was only after a steady diet of thrillers that I backed into mystery. I still like a good thriller… in fact.. I’m just finishing up writing one.

LC: Hope it's a best seller for you! Do you still have a "day job" and if so, how in the world do you find time to write?

LFH: I have gone back and forth on the day job. Recently, I’ve started to kick it back up – (I need the money). I train people to be better speakers. I prepare them for speeches, presentations, and media interviews. I also write video scripts when I get the chance. I conduct seminars as well as group sessions, all of which are detailed on my website under Fischer Hellmann Communications (http://www.hellmann.com/)

LC: How did you get started writing Amazon Shorts, and is it a good market for short story writers?

LFH: I think I must have received a mailing from them about the program. I do remember discussing it with Joe Konrath who submitted a story package to them. I had a story (Josef’s Angel) that was originally written for a religious anthology that never was published, so I figured, why not? I’m glad I did – apparently it did well. I’ve since given them another story, “The Day Miriam Hirsch Disappeared” which is kind of neat because it’s the “prequel” to my Ellie Foreman series.

To answer your other question, yes, I think it’s a good market. I do think short stories, more than novels, are the perfect fiction medium to download, and I applaud Amazon for getting to the marketplace first. They’re not the only ones, however… Sony is… even as we speak… collecting short fiction that will be available to download. So I think we’re just seeing the beginning of what will is going to be a viable market. Not that anyone’s going to get rich from it… but it is a good way to extend an author’s visibility and work product.

LC: Strange coincidence, the first time I met you, we were on a panel about short stories at Love Is murder! Moving on, what, for you, is the best promotional strategy?

LFH: Oy… that’s the 64,000 dollar question, isn’t it? I have no idea, Lonnie. Everything is in such flux right now. I’ve tried so many different strategies. Some work, some don’t, but for the most part, I have no idea what works.

You’d think the book industry would be more sophisticated (ie like the audio industry) in terms of web marketing, but they’re not. At the same time, though, there have to be literally hundreds of websites and blogs that feature books, mysteries, crime fiction, etc. Most of them are still the equivalent of the “mom and pop” store… ie there’s not a lot of continuity or linkage between them. So I do wonder how that’s all going to ultimately play out.

I still think virtual signings are a fabulous idea, and I’d love to see the idea catch on. I don’t think it would work for bookstores... but libraries might be a great venue… and certainly book clubs, church groups, etc.. The technology is there with services like Skype… all you need is a camera on your computer and you can make yourself (and your book) available to people all over the world. If I had the time and the resources, I’d start a company that did that for writers.

LC: I'd love to participate in that! You use the largest city in Illinois as your setting, I use one of the smallest. Since setting becomes almost a character in books, how do you research it, and then how do you slide it smoothly into your story?

LFH: I am not a native Chicagoan.. I come from the East Coast.. so I love to explore my adopted city. I do field trips any time I’m thinking of a setting I don’t know first hand. I’ll take my digital camera, shoot lots of pictures, and then use them as a point of departure. It doesn’t take the place of interviews – I do those too, formal and spontaneous. Of course, like many other authors, I end up with five times as much material as I need… a little description goes a long way.

LC: Now that you are a successful writer, is it harder for you to read books by other authors? Meaning do you itch to reach for a red pen and make corrections in the margins of someone else's book? Or can you still just sit back and enjoy the read?

LFH: What a good question! My reading habits have changed dramatically. I will start a book, but if it hasn’t grabbed me by page 25, I’m outta there. There are just too many books to read and not enough time to read them. I look first for smooth, velvety prose. If that’s not there, I usually won’t stay with it. But if it is, and the story’s got suspense, I can be just as hooked as I was before I started writing. I love when that happens, btw.

LC: Is there any author you would kill to meet? Living or dead, though admittedly the latter would be more difficult?

LFH: Louisa May Alcott… she defined my childhood. John Le Carre: he introduced me to the world of the thriller.

LC: Which do you prefer, sweating your way through the first rough draft or sweating your way through re-write?

LFH: Give me rewrite any day. I love editing, shaping, making it better. I hate writing first drafts. Hate it. I feel so unequal to the task. In fact, I try to fool myself and pretend that I’m always editing… it works except for that very first draft. Then I adhere to Annie Lamott’s theory of “shitty” first drafts. That’s my goal.

LC: Sigh, me too. You've edited a crime fiction anthology which is due out in October. Was that job easier or harder than cranking out a mystery novel?

LFH: Editing Chicago Blues (Bleak House… an October release) was much easier. And more fun. Getting the submissions was like getting a birthday present every day! I loved reading them. And it’s funny…. I knew from almost the first graf which stories would make it into the antho.. and which wouldn’t. There was such a sense of professionalism and finesse... It was almost eerie, as if they were calling to me.

LC: Anything else you'd like our readers to know about you or your writing?

LFH: Okay… Consider this BSP….I blog with the Outfit at http://www.theoutfitcollective.com/ The Chicago Tribune just did a story on us which you can find at http://tinyurl.com/2ekqqz. And my website (http://www.hellmann.com/) has lots of new stuff, including info on Chicago Blues.

Btw, your Chicago readers are hereby invited to our launch party Friday, October 5th, from 5 pm to 8 pm at Legends (Buddy Guy’s place) on South Wabash. In fact, Lonnie… why don’t you come up too? It’s gonna rock!

LC: Sounds like fun, Libby! Thanks for a great interview. Best of good luck with the launch, and I hope to see you soon.

Bouchercon Gleanings

By Sandra Parshall

Outside the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

I can envision a time when Bouchercon expands to a full week, from 8 a.m. the first day to 6 p.m. the last. And the panels and other events will spread into a second hotel (next door if attendees are lucky).

If you’ve never been to Bouchercon, the World Mystery Conference, you can’t imagine how big it is, how noisy it is, how thoroughly, down-to-the-bone exhausting it is.

So many writers now attend, all of them expecting a spot in the limelight, that a full day of panels now takes place on the first day, Thursday, before the opening ceremonies in the evening. Attendees who used to arrive Thursday afternoon now have to get there twenty-four hours earlier (and pay for another night in a hotel) if they don’t want to miss anything. If they stay for the whole thing, they won’t see home again until late Sunday. A lot of people have to select just a couple of days to attend, and suitcases roll in and out the hotel doors throughout the event.

I flew to Cleveland, the site of Bouchercon 2012, on Thursday and came home Saturday afternoon, but I still felt as if I’d been there a week, and I packed an amazing amount into my short time. I didn’t take a lot of notes, but I have a headful of recollections that I hope are halfway accurate.

The opening ceremonies were almost overshadowed by the venue, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but toastmaster John Connolly could capture anybody’s attention. Along with the usual intros of honorees and a jokey skit with a short guy named Tom Cruz (don’t ask) about the Jack Reacher film (“Was the role a stretch for you?”), Connolly offered brief but passionate words about the enduring appeal of printed books. He returned to the topic on a panel Saturday morning that was ostensibly about heroes and villains. Both Connolly and fellow panelist Karin Slaughter strayed from fictional characters to the real-life villains they believe are bent on eradicating traditional publishing and its authors.

Connolly said it’s “appalling” to hear writers express so much hatred toward the publishing business and the printed book (“They live on anger”). Because traditional publishing hasn’t met their expectations, he said, some writers want it to fail and disappear, leaving readers with no choice beyond e-books. That kind of world, without brick-and-mortar bookstores, libraries, or physical books, would be a much poorer place.

Karin Slaughter agreed and added another set of true-life villains: people who use online reader reviews to try to destroy the careers of authors they’ve never met. Why get so angry about a book you didn’t enjoy? Write negative comments about a book if you must, she said, but does your review have to be filled with vitriol? And why give a book you haven’t even read a one-star rating when your only complaint is that the e-book version costs too much? The author doesn’t set the price, so why try to hurt his or her career? Keep in mind, Slaughter said, that the author you’re ranting about is a real human being, with a family to support and bills to pay.

The current hero in Slaughter’s life is John Connolly, because he asked that she conduct the toastmaster interview with him. Women writers aren’t often invited to interview male honorees at conferences, she said. Often when a male writer interviews a male honoree, the result is guy talk and/or a joke fest. I’ve attended some of those, and found them lamentable, usually to the point that I walked out before the end. By contrast, the Connolly-Slaughter event was a genuine conversation between two fabulous writers, and I enjoyed every minute. (The Georgia and Irish accents were a bonus.)

Another favorite panel was Mysteries & the Movies, with Robin Cook, Charlaine Harris, Jeremy Lynch (moderator), Joseph Finder, and Chelsea Cain. Sitting there listening to those stars talk about the joys and sorrows of seeing their work adapted for the screen was a lot like touring a palace: I’ll never live there, but it’s fascinating to get a peek into that world. Cook and Finder are veterans, but Cain and Harris are still learning how to cope with those odd people who make movies and TV series. When Harris was asked to a meeting about adapting her Harper Connelly mysteries for TV, she was informed that her assistant couldn’t attend. When Harris protested that she needed her assistant there to take notes and remember things that Harris might forget, she was told the assistant couldn’t even be in the building during the meeting. After some negotiation, the assistant was allowed into the building, but not the meeting.

Although Cain is enthusiastic about the adaptation of her series for broadcast on FX, she’s having a little trouble with the thought of her characters being played by actors who may seem totally unsuited to the parts. Clearly she needs a pep talk from Lee Child.  
The panel I most enjoyed – and I don’t know why the room wasn’t packed wall to wall – was Judging a Book by Its Cover. Robin Agnew moderated as Marcia Talley, Heather Blake, Denise Swanson and Avery Aames talked about the selling power of a good cover, the disastrous consequences of a bad one, and the author’s influence, or lack of it, in determining the way a novel will look. Marcia put together a slide show to illustrate how covers of the panelists’ and other authors’ books – including mine – have evolved over the years. She also spotlighted the current fad for covers featuring women in red, a trend I wrote about here recently. Covers are changing as the book industry becomes more mindful of how cover art will look at thumbnail size online. The internet may be pushing publishing toward simple, uncluttered covers with a single strong image on each.

And the best part of Bouchercon? Leaving. I’ll admit it. I’m an unapologetic homebody. As much as I enjoy seeing a swarm of mystery and thriller writers gathered in one place, I live for the moment when the airplane’s tires hit the runway at a DC airport.

Finding Chandra's Killer

Interview by Sandra Parshall

When 24-year-old Washington intern Chandra Levy disappeared on May 1, 2001, the story became a worldwide sensation. Her romantic relationship with a married Congressman, Rep. Gary Condit (D) of California, made him the prime suspect and focused relentless press attention on every aspect of his life, but no evidence linking him to her disappearance was ever found. The terrorist attacks on September 11 of that year eclipsed the story of the missing intern.

By the time her skeletal remains were found in D.C.’s Rock Creek Park the following May, and the medical examiner declared her death a homicide, Condit’s political career was in ruins and police were no closer to learning the truth about Chandra’s disappearance and death. The case went cold.

In the summer of 2008, The Washington Post ran a 13-part series about the case, the culmination of a year’s work by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters Scott Higham and Sari Horwitz. The series pointed to a suspect the police had considered briefly but dismissed: Ingmar Guandique, who had assaulted at least two women in Rock Creek Park. Police renewed their investigation, and in March 2009 Guandique was arrested for Chandra Levy’s murder. He goes on trial in October.

Scott Higham and Sari Horwitz went on to write Finding Chandra, a look back at the case and their own investigation that includes some details never before published. The book was published yesterday. Today Scott and Sari talk about their work.


Q. When the two of you began your investigation of the Levy murder, many people probably considered it a cold case that would never be solved. Did the DC police have that attitude, or were detectives still working on it?

A. For many years, the D.C. police had given up on solving the case. In 2007, the new police chief, Cathy Lanier, assigned two new detectives to the case and promised Chandra’s mother, Susan, that she would do everything in her power to solve it.

Q. How did the police and the US Attorney’s office react to your investigation? How cooperative -- or uncooperative -- were they?

A. Police and prosecutors did not cooperate with us before the Post published our investigation. After publication, they boxed up the police files relating to Congressman Gary Condit and redoubled their efforts to find Chandra’s killer. One of their first steps was to interview the prime suspect, Ingmar Guandique, in prison and obtain a sample of his DNA. And for the first time, they interviewed a woman he followed and two women he attacked in Rock Creek Park around the time of Chandra’s disappearance.

Q. In the book, you mention that unidentified sources provided you with hundreds of confidential documents regarding the case. What do you believe motivated these people to take what was obviously a great risk? To your knowledge, has any of your sources suffered any consequences for sharing inside information with you?

A. Many people in law enforcement knew the murder investigation had been badly botched and they wanted justice for the Levy family. They turned to the press because they felt the case was no longer a high priority inside the police department or the FBI. To our knowledge, there have been no repercussions.

Q. Your Post series detailed an incredible string of mistakes made by law enforcement investigators. They seem to have done almost everything wrong. After the series was published, did you get any blowback from them about any part of it? Do you expect to hear from them about your book?

A. Most everyone involved in the case has acknowledged the mistakes that were made, although sometimes grudgingly. The former police chief and two of his top commanders said there were aspects of the case they did not know about until they read our investigation. As the case proceeds to trial, the new team of detectives and prosecutors will have to overcome those mistakes if they hope to win a conviction.

Q. Did your conclusion that Ingmar Guandique was most likely the killer take shape gradually? Or was there a lightbulb moment, a single revelation or piece of information that convinced you?

A. It took shape over many months as we interviewed nearly everyone involved in the investigation. The closer we looked at Guandique’s pattern of behavior in the weeks before and after Chandra disappeared, the more convinced we became that the police should have focused on him as a key suspect after his July 1, 2001 arrest.

Q. In your opinion, why did investigators cling to their belief that Gary Condit killed Chandra even when they failed to turn up any evidence of his guilt? Guandique looked like the perfect suspect, so why did they resist the idea for so long?

A. In the early days of the investigation, Condit was less forthcoming about his relationship with Chandra because he was trying to keep his private life private in an effort to protect his family and his career. That decision, along with some his behavior during the summer of 2001, made him appear suspicious to police and prosecutors. It also seemed as though the police, prosecutors and the press were captivated by the idea that a congressman might be involved in a murder. It made for a better criminal case, and it made for a better story.

Q. Has Condit, or anyone close to him, ever thanked you for exonerating him?

A. The congressman has not, though we understand why. He blames the news media for destroying his career. His lawyer said he appreciated that The Post cleared his client, but he is quick to note that his client’s exoneration came at an unacceptable price.

Q. Coverage of the Levy case has been called a media frenzy, a media circus – and you’ve called it “pack journalism” at its worst. Can you give some examples of irresponsible news reports about the case? Do you think the press coverage interfered in any way with the search for the truth, or was it a sideshow? If Chandra had disappeared yesterday, do you think the coverage would differ from what we saw in 2001?

A. A book could be written about this subject. Overheated press coverage frequently distorts the public’s view of high-profile criminal cases, and investigators frequently find themselves paying more attention to the press than to the facts. In this case, the press reported rumors and innuendo about Condit that were repeated in stories around the nation. Several false stories, such as a report that Chandra and Condit’s wife had a fight before Chandra’s disappearance, resulted in libel suits. Unfortunately, with the proliferation of blogs and the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, the rush to be first rather than right has become more intense over the years and the facts continue to suffer. When Guandique was arrested last year, the Associated Press reported that DNA had tied him to the crime. The story was picked up around the country and it was not true.

Q. How did the two of you work together on the series and the book? Were you always together for interviews and research, or did you split up assignments to save time?

A. We conducted all the major interviews together and traveled around the country together, spending a lot of time in California, home to Chandra, the congressman, and their friends and associates. We split up other interviews and many of the menial tasks of building the foundation of an investigation to save time and keep our momentum going.

Q. Your story sounds like the plot of a thriller, in which an intrepid reporter uncovers the truth that eluded police. Isn’t this rare in real life? Do you know of other cases in which reporters have helped solve murders?

A. It’s a rare opportunity to investigate a murder, and there have been reporters around the nation who have done amazing work in the field. The work by Jerry Miller, an investigative reporter for the Clarion-Ledger in Mississippi, prompted authorities to reopen several unsolved homicides by the Klu Klux Klan. We didn’t solve the Chandra Levy case. Our investigation ignited police interest in the case and the new detectives put together a circumstantial case against Guandique. The strength of that case will be tested at the October trial.

Q. Do you still work for the Post? Do you anticipate teaming up again?

A. Yes, we are assigned to the Investigative Staff. We are currently working on different projects with new partners, but we would love to work together again. Finding a great work partner is a once-in-a-lifetime prospect.

Q. Finally, a question that I'm sure the mystery writers and fans who visit our blog would love to ask: Do you read crime fiction, and if so, who are your favorite authors?

A. We do, though because of our work, we read a lot of non-fiction, which can read like top-flight fiction if done right. Poe, of course, The Murders in the Rue Morgue. Agatha Christie, George Pelecanos, one of our local crime fiction heroes. Scott, who worked for The Miami Herald before joining The Post, is a big fan of Carl Hiassen and Elmore Leonard. South Florida is stranger than fiction. Sari likes Daniel Silva, John Grisham, and Michael Connelly.

For more information about the book, the authors, and their appearance schedule, visit www.findingchandra.com.

Planning a blog tour? Read this first!

Sandra Parshall

Remember the writing life before blogs? It’s hard to recall those dim, distant days when we wrote in isolation, without a million online distractions at our fingertips, and the term “web log” – shortened to blog – wasn’t part of our everyday vocabulary.

For better or worse, here we are in 2012, when every writer is expected to have a blog and “blog tours” are all the rage. If authors can’t or won’t do full-blown, rigidly organized blog tours when their new books come out, they feel the pressure to at least do a respectable number of guest blogs. That means contacting bloggers – most of them other writers – and inviting yourself into their space, their online homes.

In the case of well-known authors with major publishers, the chore of scheduling is often handled by in-house publicists. Other writers have started hiring publicists, at their own expense, to arrange blog tours for them. Some of the publicists, to put it gently, seem unfamiliar with how blogs work and who the blog owners are. And that can cause frustration on both sides. This has happened to us a few times lately at Poe’s Deadly Daughters, and we’d like to offer some tips to authors who may want to visit us. All of this applies to individuals arranging their own guest blogs as well as to those employing a publicist.

First, please remember that writers with blogs are writers first of all, just like you, and they’re busy with their own work. They fit blog duties into their few free moments. Never forget that the blog host is doing you a favor, not the other way around.

Can you imagine Eddie on a blog tour?

If you have a publicist arranging a blog tour for you, please pass this on: Don’t request a guest spot on very short notice, then proceed to be inflexible about it. Many bloggers – and the Deadly Daughters are among them – schedule guests weeks or even months in advance. Sorry, but we are not going to reschedule someone who arranged his/her guest blog months ago just to accommodate somebody who asked at the last minute.

Some publicists are savvy about the way blogs operate, but others are clueless. An author should find out which type of publicist she has working for her, and make sure that person isn’t ticking off the very bloggers who

would love to have the writer as a guest.

Even when the date is arranged by a publicist, the author herself should discuss the blog directly with the host and send the material directly when it’s ready. That goes for bestselling authors as well as lesser-knowns. Few things are more insulting to a blog host than being kept at arm’s length by a publicist, as if she or he is not worthy to communicate directly with the author. Again: the blog host is doing the author a favor, not the other way around, regardless of how famous the writer is. 

When you commit to a date, get the guest blog in on time – and that doesn’t mean late the night before it’s due to run. Your host needs ample time to get a guest blog ready to publish, especially when the guest’s typos and spelling errors have to be corrected and the author’s photo and book cover have to be sized and positioned with the text. If the host asks for the material a week ahead, or three days ahead, make a note of that deadline and be sure you meet it.

Don’t offer material that has already appeared, word for word, elsewhere. As fellow writers, we understand how difficult it is to come up with something fresh for every stop on a 15-blog or 30-blog “tour” – but our sympathy does not extend to letting you use our blog to recycle tired material. If you can’t write something new for every stop... well, to put it bluntly, that’s your problem, not ours. Perhaps you should scale back the length of your blog tour.

If your guest appearance takes the form of an interview, please recognize that an interview is extra work for the host and it’s up to you to make it worthwhile. Be reasonably expansive in your answers. Don’t answer every question with a yes, a no, or a single short sentence. Don’t use canned answers that you’ve copied and pasted from your website.

While we realize that your guest blog’s purpose is to interest people in your new book, we won’t use a post that is a relentless hard sell or little more than a summary of the plot with review quotes added. If you have a funny or intriguing story about what inspired you to write the book, tell us about it. If something unexpected turned up in your research and forced you to alter the plot, write about that. Choose a particular aspect of the story and write about your interest in it, or tell us how your kids or spouse contributed to the plot.

Unless you’re at a loved one’s bedside in the ICU or in Timbuktu without internet access, you should visit the blog on the day your contribution runs and respond to comments. It’s the least you can do for people who take the time to read what you’ve written.

Any questions or comments?