Showing posts sorted by date for query bouchercon. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query bouchercon. Sort by relevance Show all posts

12 September 2025

Bouchercon Waffle Report


And the Anthony award for best anthology goes to... 

Tales of  Music, Murder, and Mayhem, edited by Heather Graham.

The convention anthology took home the Anthony this year. It is filled with amazing stories written by talented authors.

Still, it was disappointing news, not only for our Scattered, Smothered, Covered, and Chunked siblings, but for Murder Neat’s SleuthSayers as well. 

After the awards ceremony, writers offered heartfelt “literary condolences” to our Waffle-clan, and I appreciated their thoughtful remarks. Later, as the dust settled on our syrup bottle (so to speak), I reflected on the convention and our amazing contributors with a tremendous sense of gratitude. Scattered, Smothered, Covered, and Chunked may not have won the Anthony, but our contributors won in many other ways.


Connection


At the convention, our Waffle-writers connected with attendees, creating buzz about the anthology and joyful energy. They shared waffle-inspired swag on giveaway tables and at the author speed dating event. Convention-goers wore waffle charms on their badges and recounted personal Waffle House stories. An editor asked if a second anthology was planned because she had a client who wanted to be part of it. 


Fifty copies of the anthology in the book room were gone before the conference concluded. The bookstore sold out. And our auction basket, Breakfast with a Side of Crime, was popular, too.


Visibility


During the Anthony mixer, I had a chance to talk about the anthology and was honored to mention each of our contributors.


Leading up to the convention, Tammy Euliano’s story, “Heart of Darkness,” won the Derringer Award for best short story, an award she received at Bouchercon’s opening ceremonies.


 Waffle Swag with Tammy Euliano


Sean McCluskey’s story, “The Secret Menu,” was selected for inclusion in The Mysterious Bookshop Presents the Best Mystery Stories of the Year 2025, edited by John Grisham.


We may have lost the Anthony award, but the visibility our authors received and the connections we made with readers were priceless.




***


Anthony awards with Tammy Euliano, J.D. Allen
Andrew Welsh-Huggins, & Bonnar Spring
 



Want to learn more about Scattered, Smothered, Covered, and Chunked—the birth of an idea and what it’s like working as a co-editor with short story legend, Michael Bracken? Check out this SleuthSayers post from May.








31 August 2025

There's Always A Catch


Because I work at home, I've been looking for opportunities to get out into the community and have some social contact with actual … um … what are they called again?

Right: PEOPLE.  I gotta write that down or something.

A couple of weeks ago, this quest led me to a book club meeting at my local independent bookstore (yes, those still exist, thankfully).  They meet monthly, and this month they were discussing one of my favorite books, a novel I'd rank high on the list of best American fiction of the last century: Joseph Heller's 1961 Catch-22.  Most of you are probably familiar with the book; for those who aren't, it's the story of an American bomber squadron stationed in Italy during World War II.  It's probably best known for its unconventional structure (the book jumps back in forth in time, in a way that's deliberately disorienting) and wild, slapstick humor, though the tragedy, pain and anguish of wartime are much in evidence.  In short, it's a good 'un.

I'm glad I went to the meeting, and I'll certainly be going back.  They were a charming, lively, intelligent group of about a dozen people.  They've obviously been meeting for a while and know each other well, but were welcoming and friendly with this newcomer.  I enjoyed myself thoroughly.  It turns out that getting out of the house is a good idea!

Here's the thing that surprised me, though: as a group, they hated the book.  The book that, once again, I love, and assumed most readers would.

It was too long (a number of them didn't finish it).  It was too repetitious, returning to the same events and themes multiple times.  They didn't think it was funny.  It was misogynistic.  With only a few exceptions, they didn't like the characters.  The kindest thing they could find to say about it was that it probably paved the way for later writers to handle such material better.

Now, I will concede that, in terms of gender, the book hasn't aged especially well.  Most of the significant female characters are prostitutes; those who aren't are still discussed mostly in terms of their actual or potential sexual activities and tastes.  When Heller introduces a male character, he starts by talking about the man's face and general emotional demeanor.  When he introduces a female character, he generally starts by talking about her breasts and sexual availability.  At one point Yossarian, the book's central character and most sympathetic figure, grabs a nurse in a way that in Heller's day probably counted as "harmless horseplay" and which today would be considered "sexual assault."

None of that looks very good through 2025 eyes.  On the other hand, the book is about a group of young men being subjected to the continual stress and terror of war; it's not surprising that when they get a weekend in Rome, they're not out looking for a knitting circle to join.

Rereading the book in preparation for the meeting, I actually found it even more relevant to today's issues than I had remembered.  I think it's fair to say that a fair number of the book's most reprehensible characters would be right at home in today's administration.  The book's great villain, Milo Minderbinder, is the embodiment of completely unfettered capitalism, a man for whom the only true God is profit.  Hmm.  If I thought about it real hard, that might remind me of more than a few folks regularly turning up in headlines today.

As I say, though, despite having a radically different opinion from anyone else in the group, I enjoyed the meeting a lot.  It's good to hear different opinions, and good to be reminded that there's no such thing as a text (or movie, or painting, or whatever) that is truly univerally beloved.  There are people who don't like Hamlet, people who don't like Citizen Kane, people who don't like Van Gogh, people who don't like Sherlock Holmes.  And that's okay.  As a writer, I can even see it as liberating.  You can't possibly please every reader, so just write what you want to.  The right readers will find it.

Have you had the experience of being startled by criticism of something you held in high esteem?  For that matter, do you belong to a book club?  And by all means, feel free to pass along other ideas for ways to get myself out in the world.  The walls, they do start to close in after a bit.

IN OTHER NEWS

One very social activity, of course, is Bouchercon, which will be starting its 2025 iteration in New Orleans shortly after this is posted.  To my great regret, I won't be able to attend this year, and I'll very much miss seeing all my mystery writing buddies (including a number of my fellow SleuthSayers) and the opportunity to meet new ones.  I hope everyone has a great time, and raise a glass to me if you get a chance.  With a little luck, I'll be seeing you all in Canada next year.

Now, while I won't be at the con, I do have a story in the 2025 Bouchercon anthology, Blood on the Bayou: Case Closed, published by Down & Out Books.  I'm thrilled to be included in the volume alongside a host of terrific writers, especially since, after eight straight rejections, this is the first time I've made the cut for a Bouchercon book.  My story, "Final Edit," is actually set at a convention very much like Bouchercon, and concerns a famous author who has crossed a number of moral lines.  If you're at the con, pick up a copy!  If not, there should be a way to order one soon from the usual suspects.

As long as I'm plugging stuff, I'll mention that I have a story, "High in that Ivory Tower," in the September/October issue of Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine, which should be on shelves now.  Last week also saw the release, from Down & Out, of Better Off Dead: Crime Fiction Inspired by the Music of Elton John and Bernie Taupin, edited by D. M. Barr and including my story "All the Young Girls Love Alice."  Happy reading!

26 August 2025

Conventional Wisdom


Next week is Bouchercon. I'll be there. Besides grabbing any excuse to visit New Orleans, Bouchercon presents an opportunity to connect in person with the community of readers and writers. I’ve gone convention-heavier this year with the release of The Devil’s Kitchen. But I always try to attend at least one conference annually. I learn something every time. I get other benefits. My network grows. Opportunities I didn't anticipate sometimes crop up.

Mostly, I get a sense of belonging. Reading and writing tend to be solitary activities. Bouchercon and the other conferences allow us private practitioners to come together. Maslow's hierarchy of needs puts belonging only slightly above fending off wild animals. As a social species, we want to be a part of something bigger. Mystery conventions give each of us a chance to connect and to share.

How do we maximize the opportunities at a conference? What follows are a few simple suggestions. For most of the experienced conference presenters and attendees, what follows is probably not groundbreaking. Consider the list as a refresher.

1.      Think about what you hope to gain from a conference before you arrive.

Identify your goals. Want a selfie with a famous author? They’ll likely be signing something somewhere. Get in line. Want to renew acquaintanceships? Find a bar stool with your name on it. Success at a conference differs depending on where you are in your reading/writing journey. Identifying your personal goals helps you determine the steps to achieve them.  

2.      Wear your name tag in a place where it can be easily seen.

I'm horrible with names. Often, I'll forget a name within moments after the conversation finishes. And I'm usually reluctant to renew a conversation later because I can't remember someone's name I should know. Help me out. A prominent nametag makes it easier for introverts to take a chance.

3.      It’s hard for most of us to start a conversation. Consider a few easy and planned openings.

Surprisingly, the question, "What's your favorite book?" may not be the right starter. Surrounded by big names and smart talk, a person's mind may be spinning in search of the correct answer to this question. Consider perhaps asking, "Are you a reader, writer, or both?" The answer leads directly to easy follow-ups. In moments, you may find yourself having an accidental encounter with conversation.

4.      Keep lists.

I'm a list guy. I need to write things down if I want to get them done. Usually, have three lists going at a conference: A. The books I'm going to add to my TBR pile, B. Ideas gleaned from panels. This list contains suggestions to improve either my current project or a future one, C. A list of action items—things I need to do to help myself succeed as an author.   

5.      Say “Yes.”

Conferences can be draining. It’s easy to want to retire to your room after a long day. While everyone needs to find the balance that works for them. Try to say “yes” to opportunities.

6.      Be realistic.

Not every session will be right for you. But everyone will be doing their best. Similarly, not all conversations will be smooth. Remember, people are most likely to remember the last thing you say. End positive. You don’t have to lie and gush excessively if flattery is not warranted. Instead, thank your conversational partner and wish them a good conference.

7.      Carry a card.

It's impossible to remember all the names of people I've met. Even a list guy can't stop mid-conversation to write everything down. Have a card ready. They're cheap. They help build a connection that you worked to forge when you summoned the courage to start talking.  

    8. Fill out the evaluations.

Thoughtful comments help organizers make the best conference possible. No one wants to fail. Giving them a few sincere thoughts helps to improve everyone’s experience.

        9. Don’t reveal the ending.

A few years ago, I was sitting at a major conference watching a big-name author being interviewed. The first question from the audience was, “Why did you kill off [major character] at the end of Book Nine?” The room went ugh. In a private conversation, probe all you want. Writers love to talk about their work. In a public forum, stay away from announcing major plot twists.


 I’m sure you have other suggestions for maximizing the convention experience. If you see me at Bouchercon, come tell them to me. I’ll be the name-tag wearing, list-jotting, reader/writer. Please say hello. I’ll hand you a card.

Until next time.

19 August 2025

Hot Streak


Attempting to predict anything in publishing is a mug’s game, especially trying to predict how long it will take for a short story to find a home.

I’ve been on a roll this summer, with 10 original short story acceptances beginning June 20 and ending as I write this, a few days before it posts. (I placed a pair of reprints and a few originals earlier this year, but I’m only looking at my recent summer sales because there are some interesting things to note.)

Ten acceptances in nine weeks means an average of 1.11 acceptances per week. It’s been quite a while since I’ve had acceptances at a rate averaging more than once a week.

Six were accepted by paying publications; four by non-paying publications.

Three stories were accepted on first submission, five on second submission, and two on third submission.

The two fastest responses came quickly—one the same day as the submission and the other the day after submission. The slowest response took one year and 11 days. Ignoring the three outliers, acceptances ranged from eight days to 120 days.

One story took 10 days from submission to acceptance, but in between the editor requested some small revisions, so I date the acceptance as the day the editor accepted the revised version.

One other story required a revision before it was accepted, but the editor did not request the revision. The original rejection letter was so specific that I knew what I needed to change to fix/improve the story, but the story sat on my computer for more than three years before I figured out how to solve the problem. I submitted the revised story to the same editor with a note about why I was resubmitting it and what I had done to fix the problem. An acceptance followed. So, it sold on second submission, but to the same editor who had previously rejected it.

Eight of the stories are crime fiction. Two are romances.

One story was written to invitation. One was written for an open-call anthology. The two romances were originally written for a specific market that did not accept them. The other stories were of the “write first, market second” variety, which I haven’t been doing much of the past few years. Most of my writing has been “market first, write second”—that is, writing stories by invitation or writing to meet specific open-call anthology guidelines.

Now, here’s where I found some interesting data:

One story was written in 2003, one in 2010, two in 2016, one in 2020, one in 2024, and the last four were written this year, which means the oldest story would be old enough to vote, were it a person, and another would be getting its learner’s permit to drive. Many of the publications where I placed these stories did not exist when I wrote the stories.

What I learned from these acceptances is two-fold: 1) Never throw anything away because 2) the market is in constant flux.

I’ll be surprised if this pace continues, but it might. I’ve been looking through my unsold stories and putting them back out to market. After all, they’ll never be published if I don’t submit them.

* * *

I’ve been having a good streak with publications as well. In addition to the five stories I mentioned in my two previous posts, two more stories are hitting newsstands and mailboxes as you read:

“The Girl in the Shop” appears in the September/October issue of Alfred Hitchcock’s Mystery Magazine and “Blind Pig” appears in the September/October issue of Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine.

Curves” was published August 17 on Guilty Crime Story Magazines website.

* * *

Like many of you, I’ll be at Bouchercon in New Orleans the first week of September.

Barb Goffman and I will accept the inaugural Derringer Award for Best Anthology for Murder, Neat. I will also be celebrating Tammy Euliano’s Derringer Award for Best Long Story for “Heart of Darkness” (Scattered, Smothered, Covered, and Chunked, which I co-edited with Stacy Woodson), and I’ll be celebrating Stacy Woodson’s Derringer Award for Best Novelette for “The Cadillac Job” (Chop Shop, which I edited).

I’ll be hanging on tenterhooks awaiting word about M.E. Proctor’s Shamus Award nomination for Best PI Story for “Drop Dead Gorgeous” (Janie’s Got a Gun, which I edited).

And I’ll be hanging on different tenterhooks awaiting the announcement of the Anthony Award for Best Anthology because I co-edited two of the nominees: Murder, Neat, with Barb Goffman, and Scattered, Smothered, Covered, and Chunked, with Stacy Woodson.

I’ll also be participating in two events:

“Killing Your Darlings: Edit that Manuscript,” a panel discussion with me, Luisa Cruz Smith, Donald Maass, Paula Munier, and Otto Penzler, moderated by Sara J. Henry. Friday 2:30–3:25 p.m. in Galarie 5-6, followed by a signing in the Acadia Ballroom.

“Jumpstart Your Story,” which I’ll co-host with Harry Hunsicker and Stacy Woodson. Saturday, 10:00–11:00 a.m., in the Media Room.

If you see me, say howdy!

27 July 2025

Guest Post: What Kind of Relationship
Do You Have With Your Writing?


This month, I'm turning my column over to a guest, Eric Beckstrom. I've been friends with Eric, a talented writer and photographer, for some thirty years, and I'm pleased to have the chance to let him address the SleuthSayers audience on a topic I'm sure many of us can identify with. As Eric mentions here, his first published story appeared in the 2017 Bouchercon anthology--an enviable place to make your debut, given the competition for those spots! What's even more remarkable is that he's since placed stories in three more Bouchercon anthologies (how many other writers have been selected for four? Certainly none I know of). His latest, "Six Cylinder Totem," will be in the 2025 edition, Blood on the Bayou: Case Closed (available for preorder here). Without further ado, here's Eric!
— Joe

What Kind of Relationship Do You Have With Your Writing?

Eric Beckstrom

We all have a relationship of craft to our writing, or however you choose to put it--relationship, interaction, approach--but I find myself wondering whether other writers also think about their relationship with their writing as a truly personal one--a nearly or even literal interpersonal one, as distinguished from simply craft-centered and intrapersonal. Maybe every writer reading this column experiences their writing in that way, I don't know. That is my own experience– closer to, or, in practice, even literally interpersonal. It is intrapersonal, too, but I also relate to my writing as this other thing outside of myself, like it's a separate entity. The relationship has been fraught. Sometimes– much more so now– it is functional and healthy, sometimes less so, and, for an interminably long time, it was dysfunctional right down to its atomic spin. It includes compromise, generosity, forgiveness, impatience, resignation, joy, trust, fear, just like any other important relationship in my life. The current complexity of the relationship is a gift compared to when it was an actively negative, hostile one, defined by avoidance, fear, and resentment, with only the briefest moments of pleasure and appreciation.

That was years ago. Then, one night, I made a decision that changed my relationship with my writing forever in an instant: I let myself off the hook. More on that later. I understand, of course, there are many very accomplished writers among the SleuthSayers readership, and that perhaps everyone moving their eyes across this screen has also moved well beyond anything I have to say here; but if you ever trudge or outright struggle with your writing--not the craft connection, but the relational one--then maybe there's something here for you.

One of the most common pieces of advice or edicts offered by established writers to budding or struggling writers is, "Write every day," "Write for at least an hour each day," or some variation thereof. This advice is always well-intended, but in my view it seems awfully essentialist. Sometimes it even seems to stem from writers with--I'm being a little cheeky here--personality privilege, such as those who have never or rarely had difficulty with motivation; or from other forms of privilege, like growing up in an environment that encouraged and nurtured creativity or was at least free from significant obstacles to creativity.

© Eric Beckstrom,
LowPho Impressionism

Or maybe those edicts about the right way to approach writing aren't nearly as pervasive as I have thought, and it's more that my (more or less) past hypersensitivity turned my hearing that advice four or five times into a hall of mirrors back then, fifty-five times five in how I felt it reflected negatively on me. Back when I was struggling for my life as a writer, I heard it as judgment. "Eric, you don't writer every day, let alone each day for an hour or two. Therefore, you are not a real writer because you obviously don't have the passion everyone says you'd feel if you were. You are a piker: you make only small bets on yourself, and to the extent that you make writing commitments to yourself, you withdraw from them."

While advice around commitment, writing schedules, regularity, and habit, is, on the face of it, sound, it has a hook on which I used to hang like someone in a Stephen Graham Jones novel or the first victim in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That hook has barbs of guilt, fear, imposter syndrome (not to mention nature-nurture baggage). It also has barbs forged from practical challenges like having to work full-time and having other commitments, and being too mentally exhausted to sit down and write at the end of a day of all that. Until the night I let myself off the hook, I used to absorb those writing edicts as barbs into flesh. As profoundly, debilitatingly discouraging.

For sure, that's also on me. Also, on my upbringing. Also, on the third-grade teacher who called my very first story silly and unrealistic. But, at the end of the day, it was on me to change how I relate to writing. From the age of ten and decades into my adult life, yearning to write, but blocked by inhibitions and other stumbling blocks I'd never learned to turn into steppingstones, I absorbed the standards set by established writers as slammed doors, guilty verdicts, and commandments I had broken.

Here's what happened the night I let myself off the hook– off other people's hook.

I was sitting in front of the TV feeling conflicted, as I felt every night. I knew I ought to go into the other room, turn on the computer, and write. I longed to do so– it was a physical sensation– but couldn't bring myself to. I hadn't been writing, so I wasn't a real writer, right? And since I'd finished very few writing projects, I had limited evidence of talent anyway. All my Psych 101 childhood baggage was there, too, present, like that longing, as something I felt as you'd feel someone slouching behind you in the town psycho house, reaching for your shoulder.

Then, for some reason– and I don't know where this came from– I said out loud to myself "You know what? Screw all that. Screw the edicts and other people's standards. Screw the judgment you feel from others and screw the self-judgment. If you write tonight, great. If you don't write tonight, then don't castigate yourself. Maybe you'll write tomorrow."

In that moment, a strange kind of functional (as differentiated from dysfunctional) indifference triggered a profound letting go which permanently changed my relationship with my writing. And, finally off the hook, having made a deliberate, defiant choice to stop judging my writer self by others' standards and even by my own standards at the time, that very same night, I turned off the TV, turned on the computer, and started writing. Years later (not all my hangups disappeared in one night), after I began making the effort to submit stories for publication, one of the first ones I ever completed, over a single weekend just weeks after I finally began writing in earnest, landed in the 2017 Bouchercon anthology as the first story I had published.

Since then, I've encountered, or perhaps just become more capable of seeing and absorbing, more down to earth, approachable advice and insight offered by others. William Faulkner said, "I write when the spirit moves me." Now, he also said, "The spirit moves me every day," but his words contain no edict or implied universal standard, no judgment. Jordan Peele added an entirely new dimension to my relationship with writing, and, I will share, to my approach to life, with his suggestions to, "Embrace the risk that only you can take." One of the most practical, wise, simple, and compassionate insights I've gotten from another writer– and because of that component of compassion, this insight most clearly describes my current, far more healthy interpersonal relationship with my writing– came from a good writer friend, who, when I described my ongoing struggle with tackling large writing projects, said, "You know, I think it's just about forward progress, whatever that means to you." I also recall the wisdom of another friend who, when I told him about some life issues I was struggling with at the time, said, "That's good. If you're struggling it means you haven't given up. Don't stop moving, don't stop struggling." It's not advice specific to writing, but it sure works.

Nowadays, for me, forward progress could be a single sentence I drop into a story right before my head hits the pillow. It could be a cool ending to an as-yet nonexistent story. Or an interesting first sentence. An evocative title without even the vaguest notion of what plot it might lead to. A single word texted to myself at 2:00AM because it strikes me as belonging to whatever I'm working on. I often do research on the fly, so forward progress is sometimes a link to some article I drop into a given story doc, which I keep in the cloud so I can do that from wherever, whenever. And yes, sometimes forward progress is pages of fast, effortless, final-draft quality writing.

But I never measure my "progress"--those quotation marks are important--by the number of words or pages, though if I make good progress in that way I consciously, usually out loud, give myself credit. And, submission deadlines notwithstanding, I rarely measure my progress according to some timeline. Some days, and I hate to say, sometimes for weeks, I don't write a word, though if that happens now it's almost always due to external constraints rather than resistance; and that is in itself forward progress with respect to my relationship with my writing, upon which the writing itself, and really everything, depends. But that doesn't mean I'm not making forward progress with respect to writing itself, because during those stretches of not writing paragraphs and pages I'm still doing everything I've noted, like simmering ideas, writing in my head and emailing it to myself later, reading like a writer. It's a delicate and, yes, sometimes fraught, balance between self-compassion and self-discipline--after all, what relationship is perfectly healthy?--but these days my relationship with my writing is more characterized by compassion, generosity of spirit, and confidence. Stories have greater trust that I will finish them, and I have greater trust that stories will lead me where they want to go. Even if I don't know where a story is leading me, or I think I do but it changes its mind, or if my confidence flags, or it just seems too difficult to finish, the two-way charitable nature of the relationship between my writing and I has transformed how I approach these situations: at long last, more often than not, that is in a healthy, functional way.

And it's a good thing, too, because for reasons I won't get into here the relationship between my writing and me has become a truly existential thing that sways the cut and core of my life. This thing has been described as a need, a compulsion, a yearning. In Ramsey Campbell's story, "The Voice of the Beach," the protagonist-writer says, "If I failed to write for more than a few days I became depressed. Writing was the way I overcame the depression over not writing." I am grateful to have reached the point where writing is something I want to do, not just something I must do to reduce bad feelings. Writing has become something that I do because, yes, if I don't then I feel sad and unfulfilled, but that's no longer the principle motive. For decades, I yearned to reach a point where I would write because it brings fulfillment and pleasure, even when it's hard or I don't feel like writing in a given moment or on a given day. I am relieved to have reached that point, even if I'm not very "productive" compared to most other writers I know of. That's no longer a hook I hang on. These days, for me a hook is a good story idea, a good opening line or a great title, and the only barbs are the ones my characters must contend with.

That is what I wish for every writer, whether well-established or yearning to begin: a satisfying and healthy relationship with your writing, and, in the words of my friend, forward progress, whatever that means to you.

© Eric Beckstrom, LowPho Impressionism

30 June 2025

There’s a place for us.


 

            When I published my first mystery novel, I knew nothing about the mystery world and the writers, readers, reviewers and journalists who inhabit it.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  I’d written the thing in complete isolation, informed only by the hardboiled classics and my

twisted imagination.   So I brought my book to a mystery bookstore, The Black Orchid in New York run by Bonnie Claeson and Joe Guglielmelli.  Bonnie spent about two hours giving me advice, the first of which was to “Go to Bouchercon and hang out at the bar.”  I thought, this is something I know how to do.

            What I discovered has been as meaningful to me as publishing the books and short stories.  A big community filled with intelligent, witty, gracious and generous people.  I never would have expected this in a million years.  I assumed that writers were all introverted shut-ins, protective of their work and privacy above all else.  Not even close.  All I heard at that first Bouchercon was wall-to-wall counsel, useful information and welcoming words.  And encouragement.  Not just from the writers, but the booksellers, reviewers and magazine publishers, people like George Easter, Chris Aldrich and Jon Jordan. 

            I was hardly ever a shut-in, but I’m by nature an introvert who fancies solitary pursuits.  So I’m not naturally a joiner.  But in the mystery world, I fell in with a good crowd.  Aside from Bouchercon, I became devoted to Crime Bake in New England, which had some overlap with Bouchercon, but introduced me to a different sort of writer-oriented, and extremely involving conference.  Likewise Killer Nashville, ThrillerFest and SleuthFest.

            Twenty years later, I have a whole crop of lifelong friends.  I’m not a sentimental person, but I’m deeply grateful for these associations and all the experiences that have come from entangling myself in this hidden, delightful subculture. 

           

            I joined the New York Chapter of the Mystery Writers of America, which is geographically enormous.  Richie Narvaez, then chapter president, was eager to bring more programming out to his far-flung domain, and asked if I could do something in Connecticut.  The result was CrimeCONN, a one-day conference co-sponsored by MWA/NY and the Ferguson Library in Stamford.  I teamed up with my longtime editor, Jill Fletcher, to create the programs and we’ve been doing it now for eleven years.  It’s been a rollicking success, and you should come next year, especially if you live in the Greater New York area. 

            I imagine most readers of SleuthSayers have been in the game a long time and are familiar with everything I’m writing here.  The people who really need to read it are the aspiring, at any age, who feel isolated as I did, in a state of doubt and confusion.  The social element is great, and I treasure it, but equally valuable is the ongoing education.  I walk away from every conference, including ours – especially ours – having learned something I didn’t know before, and wouldn’t if I hadn’t been there listening.  I may or may not find it useful for my writing, but I love to learn in general, and nothing makes me happier than gaining an insight that topples a pre-conceived notion, or a bit of knowledge that is entirely novel. 

            I’m not exactly sure why people pre-occupied with murder and dastardly criminal behavior would be such convivial companions, but there you go.  Through all this I’ve also become friends with people in law enforcement, and feel the same way about them.  They

don’t fit the stereotype at all, especially the detectives, attorneys and forensic experts.  They are universally bright, self-effacing and quick witted.  Even cheerful in a disarming, irreverent sort of way.  They tend to admire us fiction writers as much as we admire them, even though we often test their patience with our accuracy and fact-checking.  But they’ll tell you, “That’s okay.  You’re just trying to tell a good story.”

            Lilly Tomlin once said, “No matter how cynical you get, you just can’t keep up.”  That’s how it feels these days, and it’s easy to just succumb to the prevailing oppressive mood.  But just coming off our most recent CrimeCONN, I feel like declaring for the optimists – that there are good people in the world doing good work, and supporting one another, with thoughtfulness and generosity of spirit. 

17 June 2025

Wipe Out


Michael, standing at the ShortCon 2025
registration table moments before
attendees arrived.

Banzai Pipeline,” published May 23 by Kelp Journal, is one of the stories I used during my presentation at ShortCon 2025 as an example of writing a story for an anthology submission call, but finishing well past the deadline.

At the conference, I presented “Writing for Anthologies: How to Slip Between the Covers,” which was an overview of the various types of anthologies, how they are conceived and assembled, things writers can do to improve the odds of acceptance, and what to do with stories that didn’t make the cut.

And I veered a bit off-track when I briefly discussed “Banzai Pipeline,” a story that exists because of an anthology’s open call for submissions but was never submitted to that anthology.

A while back there was a call for crime fiction short stories inspired by musical one-hit wonders, and I wondered what song with the fewest number of words in its lyrics could inspire a story. The answer was:

Two. Two words.

I chose The Safari’s “Wipe Out.”

(The Champs’s “Tequila,” with a single word repeated three times, might be an even greater challenge.)

The sound of a breaking surfboard, followed by a maniacal laugh and someone shouting, “Wipe Out,” provided both the setting and the inciting incident for my story.

Writing the opening proved easy enough. The surfer who wiped out dies, his girlfriend thinks he was murdered, and the private eye she hires to investigate knows nothing about surfing.

Then I wiped out. The wave of inspiration collapsed beneath me, I found myself floundering, and the file remained unfinished on my computer as I moved on to other projects.

One day, while falling into a research rabbit hole for another project, I discovered “Hawaii: Black Royalty in the Pacific,” and what I read upended everything I thought I knew about the ethnicity of our 50th state.

And I knew what my story was about, and knew it wasn’t just about investigating a possible murder.

I finished the story, changed the title from “Wipe Out” to “Banzai Pipeline” and submitted it to various publications until it found a home with Kelp Journal.

Michael, pontificating about
anthologies at ShortCon 2025.
NOT THE FIRST TIME

Something similar happened with “Denim Mining” (AHMM, May/June 2023).

I had already begun writing “Denim Mining” when the 2019 Bouchercon in Dallas announced that the theme of their anthology was denim and diamonds. Incorporating diamonds into the story I had already begun was no problem. Unfortunately, as with “Banzai Pipeline,” the wave of inspiration collapsed when I ran into a problem.

The solution, in this case, wasn’t diving down a research rabbit hole, but help from fellow SleuthSayer Leigh Lundin. He provided a few suggestions as well as information about gunpowder that gave me what I needed to finish the story.

LESSONS LEARNED

The lesson I intended to impart at ShortCon when I shared the story of “Banzai Pipeline” is to never give up on a good story even if the inspiring project’s submission window ends before you finish writing.

And if you do finish your story in time, and it gets rejected, keep it circulating. That’s what fellow SleuthSayer Joseph Walker did with “Give or Take a Quarter of an Inch,” rejected from the same Boucheron anthology to which I had intended to submit “Demin Mining.” He placed it with Tough, it was selected for inclusion in The Best Mystery Stories of the Year, and then it was reprinted in The Saturday Evening Post.

So, how about you? Have you missed a submission deadline and still sold the resulting story? Or has a story rejected by the editor of a themed anthology later appeared in a better market or received recognition?

20 May 2025

Murder, Neat is on a Roll!


In February of 2024, I had the good fortune of having my turn to post here on SleuthSayers fall on the very day that our first anthology, Murder, Neat, was released. The book has twenty-four short stories, all written by members of this blog. Michael Bracken and I edited it, stepping in after our original editor and fellow SleuthSayer, the late Paul D. Marks, fell ill.

Every anthology editor has high hopes their baby will be well received and that the individual stories in it will be beloved. (The authors with stories in the book hope that too, of course.) So you can imagine the smiles we all shared when Murder, Neat was named one of the six finalists a few months ago for the inaugural Derringer Award for Best Anthology. Those smiles turned to grins on May 1 when we won the Derringer, especially because the competition was stiff. (Hats off to the editors and authors of the other five anthologies. You can find a list of the finalists here.) 

Then, a couple of weeks ago, Murder, Neat was named a finalist for this year's Anthony Award in the Best Anthology category. Talk about icing on a delicious cake. So this is a good time to remind you about the anthology and, if you haven't read it, entice you to do so. (I also hope you will check out the four other anthologies nominated for the Anthony Award. Bouchercon attendees, please read before you vote. You can find the names of the nominated anthologies, as well as the finalists in all the other categories, here. One of those other anthologies was edited by Michael Bracken (him again!), working with fellow SleuthSayer Stacy Woodson.)

Back to Murder, Neat. Every story takes the reader to a location where drinking happens. Bars--be they regular, college, dive, or gastropub--make an appearance, of course, as do restaurants and even a winery. What also happens in those locations? Crime, of course!

When the book came out, Art Taylor, a retired fellow SleuthSayer with a story in the book, hosted four other of our bloggers on his personal blog, The First Two Pages. There they each wrote about--no surprise here--the first two pages of their stories. I invite you to click here to read the first of those essays, by Melodie Campbell. Near the bottom of that screen, you will be able to click to read the next essay by one of the Murder, Neat bloggers, Lawrence Maddox, followed by one by David Edgerley Gates, and finally, one by Leigh Lundin.

If you haven't yet read Murder, Neat, you can purchase it in trade paperback and ebook. We all hope you enjoy it. Cheers!

Finally, before I go, a little more news: I'm honored to have been named a finalist for this year's Anthony Award for Best Short Story for my tale "A Matter of Trust," which appeared in the anthology Three Strikes--You're Dead! The other nominated authors are James D.F. Hannah, Curtis Ippolito, Gabriel Valjan, and Kristopher Zgorski. I hope you will take the time to read all of their nominated stories. You can find the names of those stories by clicking on the link in the third paragraph of this blog. And you can read my story here.

09 May 2025

Behind the Scenes: Scattered, Smothered, Covered, and Chunked


On Wednesday, I learned Scattered, Smothered, Covered, and Chunked: Crime Fiction Inspired by Waffle House (Down and Out Books), is nominated for an Anthony Award for best anthology.

It is an amazing honor and privilege to have co-edited an anthology with my mentor and friend, Michael Bracken. I could not have imagined a more PERFECT moment than when we received this incredible news. 

 

Michael mentioned in a recent SleuthSayers post that he doesn’t view an anthology award as an editor’s award; he views it like the Academy Award for Best Picture because it reflects the work of an entire team of people—editors and writers, our cover designer, and publisher—to succeed. I share his view and am deeply grateful for our team of talented contributors including stories written by Alan S. Orloff, Nils Gilbertson, J.D. Allen, Mark Bergin, Bonnar Spring, Austin S. Camacho, Tammy Euliano, Ann Aptaker, Penny Mickelbury, Donna Andrews, Sherry Harris, Deb Merino, Sean McCluskey, Michael Bracken, Andrew Welsh-Huggins, Hugh Lessig, and the brilliant cover designed by Angela Carlton. 


This is my first published anthology sitting in a co-editor’s seat. How did I get so lucky? The short answer is Michael Bracken. 


Birth of an Idea

In 2018, I attended Malice Domestic for the first time and met Michael Bracken. He was my port in the speed dating storm. It was a pivotal moment in my writing career (more on that here). During the years that followed, I had an opportunity to contribute stories to several of his anthologies, including one story we co-wrote together that was short-listed for a Derringer Award. Often, we met for lunch at writing conferences, and our conversation always turned to anthology ideas. I had the best time brainstorming with him and quickly learned which anthology ideas worked and why others didn’t.

 

So, in May 2023, it wasn’t unusual that I sent Michael an email with another anthology idea, two proposed titles for one concept: The Pull, The Drop, The Mark OR Scattered, Covered, Smothered, and Chunked: Crime Fiction Inspired by Waffle House. 

 

He thought the idea was promising, suggested a revised title (featured on the cover), and asked if I would like to co-edit the project with him. I had little experience. The opportunity to learn from Michael was something I couldn’t pass up. I quickly agreed, and it has been a master class.

 

Takeaways Co-editing with the Master


Shared Vision

Both editors need to share the same vision for an anthology. This vision shapes submission guidelines, influences how stories are edited, and who is invited to contribute.

 

Workflow

Version control is critical. Mistakes are easy to make, especially when two people are editing the same project. Before the project begins, decisions need to be made on which editor communicates directly with authors, which editor communicates with the publisher, and workflow—how stories are received, labeled, stored, and move through the editing process. 

 

Deadlines

Life happens, often things we can’t predict—a death in the family, illness, home repairs, etc. It’s important to create realistic deadlines with these moments in mind.

 

Assembling the Team

Several factors determine which type of submission call works for which project. With time constraints and juggling several projects, Michael and I decided submission by invitation only had to be our approach. We reached out to authors we admired—both multi-award winning and rising stars.

 

Working with the Publisher

Understanding the publisher’s requirements and deadlines are crucial. The finished manuscript should be formatted to the publisher’s specifications, and each step in the process—checking the publisher’s copyedits, reviewing the page proofs, checking the cover copy, and collaborating on the cover image—should all happen in a prompt and professional manner.

 

Working with the Authors

Maintaining communication with contributors builds trust and respect. Michael insisted we maintain regular contact with our contributors and send updates during each step in the process. I appreciated this as a contributor to Michael’s anthologies. Now, having co-edited an anthology, I also appreciate the extra effort this requires and the importance of maintaining a professional relationship with authors.

 

Have you co-edited an anthology? Are you an author who worked with more than one editor on a project? What insights can you share?

***


Speaking of teams, we are assembling one in New Orleans! If you love waffles and crime fiction stories, we hope you will celebrate this incredible Anthony Award nomination with us, along with the awards our contributors have recently received for their Waffle House-inspired stories. 

Tammy Euliano’s “Heart of Darkness” won the Derringer Award for best short story of the year. 

Sean McCluskey’s “The Secret Menu” was selected by Otto Penzler and John Grisham for Mysterious Bookshop's anthology: The Best Mystery Stories of the Year 2025.


Want to read Scattered, Smothered, Covered, and Chunked: Crime Fiction Inspired by Waffle House? Find it here.

 

Find me at Bouchercon (September 3-7), mention Scattered, Smothered, Covered, and Chunked, and receive waffle-inspired swag in honor of our talented team. Hope to see you there!