27 October 2025

Writing the Unwriteable


Twist Phelan
Twist Phelan
It's a fine October morning in Texas and I hope you're as happy as I am to be here. I'm also honored today to introduce, my jet-setting, mystery writer friend, Twist Phelan. She just returned from Greece in time for us to put this all together.
Twist Phelan is the award-winning author of eleven mystery novels, which have been praised by Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Kirkus, and Booklist.

She also writes short stories, which have appeared in Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine and various anthologies. Accolades for her work include two Thriller Awards and the Arthur Ellis Award, plus multiple nominations for the Thriller, Ellis, Shamus, Anthony, Derringer, Silver Falchion, Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine’s Readers Choice, and Lefty Awards, as well as the Crime Writers of Canada's Award of Excellence and the Irish Book Awards.

My first meeting with Twist Phelan was many years ago at some mystery con, neither of us remember exactly when or where. She was introduced to me as Twist Phelan. I was introduced to her as Jan Grape. Of course, neither of us could believe our names, sort of halfway thinking "She came up with that name just to use as a writer name." It couldn't possibly be her "real name." But yeah, those are our real names. We both remember seeing each other at other years over the years and asking "Is that still your real name." And both of us saying, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."
This essay originally appeared at the Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine web site, Something is Going to Happen.

— Jan Grape

Writing the Unwritable

by Twist Phelan

There’s a moment in almost every mystery writer’s career when you conceive a story so dark, so audacious that it freezes your fingers over the keyboard. The premise makes you uncomfortable. The twist feels too devastating. The concept challenges not just genre conventions but human decency itself. Your internal editor whispers: Pull back. This is too much.

Don’t listen.

I’ve written many stories that might be considered on the edge: stories about rape in a nursing home, a parent murdering a psychopathic child, forced marriage as a weapon of war. Each time, I wondered, Is this the story that goes too far?

The answer was always no, because the story was honest.

Mystery fiction has always been society’s dark mirror. We write about murder, the ultimate transgression. Yet somehow we’ve convinced ourselves there are gradations of acceptability in depicting human evil. A serial killer who targets strangers? Acceptable. A parent who recognizes the monster in their child’s eyes? Suddenly we’re squeamish.

But our squeamishness is exactly why these stories need to be written.

The best mysteries don’t just entertain; they examine. They force us to confront uncomfortable truths about human nature, societal failures, and our own moral boundaries. When we self-censor, we rob readers of fiction’s unique power to safely explore life’s darkest corners. We become complicit in the very silence that allows these horrors to flourish in reality.

I’ve had an editor hold two stories for months, a third for over a year, while she wrestled with her discomfort. In each case, the editor eventually recognized the story’s power lay precisely in its willingness to go where others wouldn’t. Those three stories went on to win or be nominated for awards. I like to think it wasn’t despite their difficult subjects, but because of them.

The key is craft. Sensationalism comes easily, but honest exploration of difficult subjects requires precision and nuance. Every word must serve the story’s deeper purpose. Shocking elements can’t be gratuitous—they must be essential to the truth you’re revealing. Rather than simply surprising readers, your twist should recontextualize everything that came before, forcing them to question their own assumptions and prejudices.

The best mysteries don’t just entertain; they examine. They force us to confront uncomfortable truths about human nature, societal failures, and our own moral boundaries.

This isn’t about shock value. It’s about value, period. When we write about a nursing home rape, we’re really writing about society’s abandonment of its most vulnerable. When we explore a parent’s unthinkable decision about a dangerous child, we’re examining the limits of love and responsibility. These aren’t just plot devices; they’re invitations to necessary conversations.

Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine (EQMM)
Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine

Yes, you’ll lose some readers, the ones who want their mysteries sanitized, their moral questions pre-answered. But you’ll gain others, readers hungry for fiction that doesn’t insult their intelligence or coddle their sensibilities. Readers who understand mystery fiction at its best doesn’t just ask whodunit? but how could we let this happen? and what does this say about us?

The stories that haunt me as a reader are never the safe ones. They’re the ones where writers trusted their vision enough to leap into the abyss, where they chose difficult truths over comfortable lies, where they refused to pull back when the story demanded they push forward.

So when you find yourself writing the unwriteable, remember: your discomfort is not a stop sign. It’s a signal you’re approaching something real, something necessary, something that needs to be said.

Write it anyway. Write it especially.

The world has enough safe stories. What it needs are writers brave enough to shine lights into the darkest corners, and readers courageous enough to look.

26 October 2025

They Done Parker Dirty


One of the pleasures of mystery fiction is finding those series characters you love--the ones you can't get enough of, the ones whose adventures you snap up on sight.  We all have our own list of favorites.  Mine includes Robert B. Parker's Spenser, John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee, Lawrence Block's Matt Scudder, Sue Grafton's Kinsey Milhone, Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin, Stuart Kaminsky's Toby Peters, Max Allan Collins's Nate Heller, Andrew Vachss's Burke, Kinky Friedman's, um, Kinky Friedman, Gregory Mcdonald's Francis Xavier Flynn, Warren Murphy's Digger/Trace, and Patricia Highsmith's Tom Ripley.

Anybody besides
me remember this?

If I had to pick a single favorite character from all crime fiction, though, I wouldn't hesitate.  My favorite is Parker.

If you're reading this you probably know Parker, and if you don't, you should.  Created by the great Donald Westlake (writing under his pen name, Richard Stark), Parker is a single-minded, ruthlessly efficient thief.  He'll kill if absolutely necessary--or occasionally out of revenge--but for the most part Parker is interested in only one thing: getting away with the money.  Most of his adventures see him recruited by or putting together a team to pull an ambitious heist.  It inevitably goes wrong in some way, and much of the pleasure of the books is in watching Parker deal with that.  Often this involves finding himself at odds with The Outfit, which is what the mob calls itself in Parker's world.  There are 24 Parker novels, from 1962's The Hunter to 2008's Dirty Money.  All are richly deserving of your time.


Now, a nail-biting moment of suspense for a mystery fan is finding out that one of your favorite characters is getting a movie.  Will the makers of the film get them the way you do?

Parker has been put on film a number of times (though usually under a different name), played by actors ranging from Lee Marvin to Jim Brown to Mel Gibson.  Earlier this month, the latest Parker film dropped on Amazon Prime: Play Dirty, starring Mark Wahlberg as Parker.  If you're mostly familiar with Wahlberg from his meathead roles in various comedies and action franchises, this might seem like an odd choice, but Wahlberg is also capable of doing serious work and being appropriately intimidating--witness his performance in Martin Scorsese's The Departed.  The new Parker movie was co-written and directed by Shane Black, who's made some solid films in the crime genre--Lethal Weapon and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, for example.  When I watched the trailer, I was impressed that one of the other characters was Alan Grofield, a character from the books who steals to fund his acting career (and who was popular enough to star in four spin-off Stark novels himself).  I figured that the presence of Grofield meant that real fans were behind the movie, so I approached it with high hopes.

Those hopes came crashing to the ground fast.


I'll acknowledge the positives first.  Wahlberg is, I think, perfectly acceptable as Parker, capturing the character's intensity well.  He's almost always the smartest guy in the room, but if brute force is called for he won't hesitate to use it, and he'll usually win.  LaKeith Stanfield is even better as Grofield, the more affable, but no less competent, sidekick.  Tony Shalhoub does good work as the head of the Outfit.  Several other characters from the books are part of Parker's crew--the married thieves Ed and Brenda Mackey, the driver Stan Devers--indicating, again, that somebody who knows the books well was involved at some point.

The basic setup is also solid.  Play Dirty isn't based on a specific Parker novel, but the elements of the plot are familiar (I won't reveal anything here that isn't in the trailer).  At the start of the film, Parker is part of a racetrack robbery.  One of the crooks, a woman named Zen, betrays the crew and runs off with the take.  Parker sets out for revenge.  Learning that Zen took the cash as seed money for another, much larger job, he deals himself in.  Complicating this is the fact that three years ago Parker made a deal with the Outfit requiring him to stay out of New York City--and guess where Zen's heist is happening?

So far, so good.  So where does it all go wrong?  Well, on a technical level, the special effects in the action scenes are horrendous, completely taking me out of the world of the film.  The opening racetrack heist ends up with a cars v. horses chase on the track, with such bad CGI that the horses look like something out of Grand Theft Auto.  The cheap CGI gets even worse in later scenes, culminating in a subway crash that is utterly unconvincing.

I can forgive bad effects.  I can't forgive the fact that Parker acts less and less like Parker as the film goes on.  One of the hallmarks of the character is his determination to avoid unnecessary heat and exposure, but this Parker, by the halfway point of the film, is plotting an absurdly overblown heist that would have every federal agent in the country descending on New York and result in hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian casualties.  If that wasn't bad enough, he casually kills a celebrity (in what's meant to be a humorous cameo) for no good reason in the middle of a restaurant full of witnesses and cameras.  The real Parker would shoot a member of his crew who did something so dumb.

The movie's also full of logical leaps and absurdities totally at odds with the basically realistic content of Westlake's stories.  One of the targets of the New York heist, for example, is a figurehead recovered from a sunken treasure ship.  The thing is massive, and surely weighs tons, but it's moved easily from place to place by Parker's crew and others--at one point being transported in what seems to be an ordinary NYC subway car.  Watching how they managed to get it in there would have been more entertaining than the actual film.


The second half of the movie, with the crew bantering playfully and dealing with ridiculously contrived obstacles popping up at the most inconvenient times, doesn't play like a Parker plot.  It plays like a Dortmunder plot, so much so that it feels like this must have been a deliberate choice.  If you know Parker, you probably also know Dortmunder, Westlake's other hugely popular thief character.  The Dortmunder books (which Westlake published under his own name) are comedies--for my money, the best comic caper novels ever written.  There's a reason Westlake never wrote a Parker/Dortmunder crossover (not counting the book where Dortmunder's crew draws inspiration from a Parker novel).  The ice-cold Parker simply doesn't fit in Dortmunder's farcical world.  Trying to shoehorn him into it makes both him and the plot look silly.

The end result is a film that's just over two hours long, and feels twice that.  It's a shame.  My understanding is that this was meant to be the start of a new series, with Grofield even getting his own spin-off movies.  That would have been fun--if only Play Dirty was worth watching.  About the best I can say of the movie is that it's marginally more watchable than 2020's dreadful Spenser: Confidential, in which Wahlberg played Robert B. Parker's seminal Boston PI as a brutish ex-con vigilante.  I have no idea why a significant part of Mark Wahlberg's career is suddenly ruining my favorite characters.  I suppose in a few years he'll be playing Nero Wolfe, probably as a streetwise boxer or something.


What Parker should you watch instead of Play Dirty?  The conventional choice for best Parker adaptation is John Boorman's 1967 Point Blank, starring Lee Marvin in an adaptation of the first novel in the series (which was also filmed in 1999 as Payback, with Mel Gibson in the lead).  Point Blank is a good film, and Marvin is well-cast, but for my money it's a little self-consciously artsy, leaning into impressionistic and pseudo-psychedelic style at the cost of a straightforward story.

I prefer Taylor Hackford's 2013 Parker, based closely on the Stark novel Flashfire and starring Jason Statham as Parker.  Statham is terrific in the part, believably capturing the character's intelligence, determination, and menace.  There's a strong supporting cast, including Jennifer Lopez, Wendell Pierce, and Nick Nolte.  The plot and action sequences are exciting without ever being ramped up into the unbelievable.  I really regret that it apparently didn't do well enough for Statham to return to the part, but for fans of the character, it's very much worth seeking out.


(I'll also confess to a lingering fondness for a kind of alternate universe version of the character.  In the TV series Leverage, about a crew of con artists and grifters who team up to use their skills on the side of justice, Beth Riesgraf plays a master thief named, you guessed it, Parker.  I've never seen any confirmation of this, but that's surely a tribute to Stark's character, particularly since, to my knowledge, the character's first name is never revealed.  Riesgraf has a lot of fun with the part, and I really enjoyed the first run of the series, but I've never watched the reboot, Leverage: Redemption, in which she continues the character.  If you have, let me know if it's worth checking out.)



If you're looking for a truly great Parker adaptation, though, don't look to the screen--get thee to your local comics shop.  In 2009, the writer and artist Darwyn Cooke, with Westlake's blessing and endorsement, released a graphic novel version of The Hunter that is a pure pleasure to read, or even just to look at.  Cooke's monochromatic art is stunning, and his sense of pacing and design keeps the story humming along.  He's obviously a huge fan of the novels, and his love for them is apparent in every line.  It's a very faithful adaptation, set in the 1960s rather than being updated to modern times.

Cooke went on to adapt several more Parker books--The Outfit, The Score (my personal favorite among the novels), and Slayground--and had hopes of covering the entire series, but, tragically, his own death in 2016, at the age of just 53, prevented that from happening.  His Parker adaptations are still in print.  I particularly recommend the Martini Editions, gorgeous, oversized, slipcased hardcovers that feature a wealth of bonus features and let you really luxuriate in the art.

And of course it goes without saying that if you haven't read the Parker novels themselves, you need to close this window and go do so now.  You'll thank me later.



25 October 2025

A Criminal’s Hierarchy of Crime, by Lisa De Nikolits


ALL ABOUT MOTIVATION!   Remember Maslow?  My colleague and pal Lisa has turned Maslow sideways and upside-down in this terrific chart that creates a parallel for our antagonists!  Illuminating for crime writers like us, but also lots of fun.  


by Lisa de Nikolits 

Imagine if Maslow had constructed  a Hierarchy of Crime instead of a Hierarchy of Needs.  Admittedly he didn't, but a hierarchy of criminal needs makes sense, right?

Crime. Gangsters. Drug running. con-games and con artists and those trying to outwit them. The darker side of life. The fascinating side of life. Real life, much stranger than fiction. What drives these criminals? What ladder of power do they climb. And what motivates them?

"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation..." (Thoreau) and he was correct but there are also those who lead  lives of quiet violence. And by quiet, I mean apart form the norm, below the surface, out of sight and unseen by the general suburban masses unless something mistakenly bubbles up to the surface, threatening to destroy the fiercely guarded status quo.

I often wonder about my own fascination with the dark side of life but life is dark. People are weird, inexplicably violent, and they are ever-creative in ways in which they perpetrate their evil deeds.

Which is why I plotted out a fictional Criminal's Hierarchy of Needs, based on the characters of  Mad Dog and the Sea Dragon, but universally applicable to all criminal activities and novels.  And Readers, I'd love your comments and insights - did I get it wrong?  What do you think?

I love watching true crime; The Dark Side of the Ring (VICE TV), Mafia: Most Wanted (CRAVE, Canada) and of course, Forensic Files, which shows ordinary people committing heinous crime and getting away with them for years.

And as much as there is crime, there is sometimes justice.  There is revenge, validation, vindication, and the happy-ever-after of the bad guys paying for their evil deeds. 

But justice doesn't always prevail which is a harsh reality that crime writers try to address.

Much like Once Upon A Time in Hollywood in which Tarantino rewrote the Tate-LaBianca murders, we can address social discrepancies, we can right wrongs, solve crimes, bring the bad guys (and gals) to their knees and deliver a far more satisfactory happy-ever-after which is cathartic for both readers and the writers. We can, from the safety of our own homes, process our fears, make sense of the world and bring justice.

If I'm plagued by an injustice or social inequality, I find the best solution is to write a book. It's the only way I can wrestle with the issue and bring it to a  resolution. Writing books is a form of political and social protest, a demonstration of our beliefs. It's our way of getting our voices out into the world on the backs of highly engaging vehicles that will entertain the readers and keep them guessing all the way.

Of course, there is the troubling matter of the truth. For example, will Tarantino's version of the Tate-LaBianca murders be remembered with more accuracy by generations to come than the brutal  truth?

As writers, we face many challenges.  How far can we change the narrative, Like Tarantino did? How can we avoid stereotyping criminals while also recognizing that some of the tropes exist for a reason. Is it possible to write noir crime without offending readers?

At the end of the day, apart from hate speech rhetoric, which has no place in this world, I say there are no holds barred as to what we can write. As creatgive, artistic people, it's our duty to rise about "quiet desperation" (or perhaps to delve into it and into what lies behind it and the lives of those desperately trying to escape.)

As writers we have a duty to explore everything in life; the good, the bad and ugly.

BIO:

Lisa de Nikolits is the award-winning author of eleven novels (twelve, with Mad Dog and the Sea Dragon) as well as numerous short stories and poetry, garnering five-star reviews and a strong international fanbase. Originally from South Africa, Canada has been her home since 2000. Forthcoming works include That Time I Killed You (2026, Level Best Books). She lives and writes in the Beaches in Toronto.

LINKS:  

Facebook author page:
https://www.facebook.com/lisadenikolitsauthor/

Twitter:
https://x.com/lisadenikolits

Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/ireadsomewherethatbylisa/

Author website:
https://lisawriter.com/



24 October 2025

Hollywood Kills


Filling in for me today is Alan Orloff, an award-winning author, skilled editor, and generous supporter of the writing community. I am deeply honored to be a contributor to his newest project.
— Stacy
Here's more on HOLLYWOOD KILLS.
***
Thanks, Stacy, for inviting me to guest blog today about an anthology that Adam Meyer and I co-edited called HOLLYWOOD KILLS (Level Best Books). And thanks, Stacy, for the terrific story you wrote for it!
— Alan Orloff

The Idea

Adam and I were at the Malice Domestic convention, chatting in the lobby. (FWIW, the lobby and the bar at writers conventions are where most great ideas are hatched.) We talked about putting together an anthology with a theme based around a movie. That morphed into a more general Hollywood theme, and after a few minutes batting around possibilities, we came up with the killer twist: All the stories would be written by industry insiders (show biz people!) featuring protagonists in roles that the contributors themselves had experience in. In other words, a screenwriter would write about a screenwriter, an actor would write about an actor, a stuntman would write about a stuntman, and so on.

The twist was uber cool, but it presented some challenges as we put together our list of invitees. We knew a lot of crime fiction writers, and we could have assembled a list thirty people long in ten minutes flat. But we needed people who had worked in the business. Immediately, I thought of Tom Hanks, but I was pretty sure he wasn’t available.

The Pitch

We wanted our stories to have a certain theme/tone: desperate people willing to go to extreme lengths to make it big in Hollywood. Here’s the spiel we used to solicit our invitees:

Over the years, the technology of entertainment has changed, but one thing has stayed the same: Hollywood is a place full of dreamers—from the wide-eyed actor hoping to land the role of a lifetime to the hard-working writer trying to sell that breakout script.

Whoever they are, these people have one thing in common—they are desperate to bring their dreams to fruition, hustling for opportunity, and willing to do anything to get to the next rung on the ladder. Legal or not.

These strivers are at the center of a collection of short stories by Hollywood insiders, who use their wealth of experience to turn fact into fiction. They offer a closeup look at the dark side of ambition with an all-star cast of schemers, dreamers, killers and con artists … and their stories will stick with you long after the credits roll.

L➙R Jon Lindstrom, Matt Goldman, Stacy Woodson,
Alan Orloff, Adam Meyer, Ellen Byron, Eric Beetner, John Shepphird

The Lineup

We knew a few writers with show biz experience (a number of whom were screenwriters, natch), so they were no-brainers to invite. Beyond that, we needed help, so we put out the word we were looking for potential contributors that met our narrow criteria. We were determined to have as wide an array of show biz jobs represented as possible.

Some of the more specialized roles were tricky. Did anyone know a Hollywood hairdresser who wanted to write a story? Makeup professional to the stars with an itch to pen a tale? What about a stunt driver who could write like Elmore Leonard? We tried to get creative—we even contacted several professional societies looking for recommendations (Did you know there was a Stuntwoman’s Association? There is!). Not all of our out-of-the-box ideas were fruitful, alas.

Slowly, we suckered enticed people to contribute. Now, while many of these people had great Hollywood experience, some did not have much (if any) short story writing experience. Adam and I realized that for these folks, we might have to wield a slightly heavier editorial pen.

And it was true: we got commitments from several industry veterans who didn’t have writing experience. Unfortunately, though, when it came time to actually put the proverbial pen to paper, some of these people ended up “decommitting.” Which left us scrambling a bit to fill their slots.

Best laid plans, and all that.

With some persistence, we finally assembled a killer lineup of contributors, whose roles ran the gamut: a producer, sitcom writer, character actor, entertainment lawyer, sound mixer, background actor, aspiring actor, stuntman, casting director, soap opera star, true crime writer, editor, director, production assistant, set caterer, and screenwriting team.

We ended up with three first-time short story writers, and they gave us some great work. Two of our stories were co-written, one of which was a story I co-wrote with my actor son (roles: young actor and desperate father). A definite highlight of my writing career!

We were thrilled (and mightily impressed) that our contributors had worked on such notable productions as Cheers, Seinfeld, Wings, General Hospital, Bosch, The Amazing Race, Boston Legal, Homeland, Just Shoot Me, Fairly Odd Parents, Snowfall, Spenser For Hire, True Detective, Ellen, America’s Most Wanted, Evil Kin, A Savage Nature, I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus, The Invasion, Young Guns, and more.

You’ll recognize many of the contributors from their screen credits: Jon Lindstrom, Gary Phillips, Phoef Sutton, Ellen Byron, Matt Goldman, Robert Rotstein, Wendall Thomas, Stacy Woodson, Tiffany Borders Plunkett, Kathryn O’Sullivan, Paul Awad, Teel James Glenn, Shawn Reilly Simmons, John Shepphird, Eric Beetner, Adam Meyer, Alan Orloff, and Stuart Orloff.

The Fires

Although this blog post dealt primarily with how the contributors were selected, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the California fires. More than half of our contributors currently live in the LA area, and they, along with everybody else, were affected by the wildfires, directly and indirectly. So, we decided that all contributor proceeds would be donated to the California Community Foundation Wildfire Recovery Fund. For a deeply personal take, I encourage you to read Ellen Byron’s moving introduction to the anthology.

If you’d like your very own copy of HOLLYWOOD KILLS, you can check it out here.




Alan Orloff (www.alanorloff.com) has published fourteen novels and more than sixty short stories. His work has won an Anthony, an Agatha, a Derringer, and two ITW Thriller Awards. He’s also been a finalist for the Shamus Award and has had a story selected for Best American Mystery Stories 2018. He’s adapted two of his novels into screenplays, and, man, is he desperate to make it big in Hollywood.




23 October 2025

The Tyrant Who Sold the Philosopher Plato Into Slavery


A few years back I wrote a series of brief biographical sketches collected in a volume entitled The Book of Ancient Bastards: 101 of the Worst Miscreants and Misdeeds from Ancinet Sumer to the Enlightenment. Now out of print (it is, in fact, the only one of my books not still in print), It remains one of my favorites from among my own work. This week I've decided to share the story from this book, of how an early poet–admittedly an incredibly powerful one–dealt with harsh criticism of his work.

Plato: you expect this guy to be fun at parties?
So here he is, Dionysius I, tyrant of Syracuse!

When Philosophers and Tyrants Don’t Mix (ca. 432–367 B.C.) 

[Dionysius], taking offence at something [Plato] said to him . . . ordered him to be brought into the common market-place, and there sold as a slave for five minas: but the philosophers (who consulted together on the matter) afterwards redeemed him, and sent him back to Greece, with this friendly advice. . . . That a philosopher should very rarely converse with tyrants.
—Diodorus Siculus, ancient Sicilian Greek geographer and historian 

If ever there was a piece of work who could prove single-handedly that one man holding all the levers of power is usually a lousy idea, it was that real piece of work, Dionysius I, tyrant of the Greek city-state of Syracuse in Sicily. Originally a government clerk, Dionysius rose through the ranks to ultimate power based on his ability as a political, diplomatic, and military strategist. To balance this out, he was also arbitrary, capricious, cruel, and (perhaps worst of all) harbored literary pretensions. 

Bear in mind that Dionysius was a tyrant in the ancient sense of the word (Note: in the ancient Greek world the word 'tyrant' didn't necessarily carry the negative connotation it does today. It simply referred to someone who control of a city by military force and used his troops to enforce his rule.). As such he was a military man, and particularly fearsome in battle. He’d lost an eye early in life, and as a result presented a ferocious image that struck terror in the hearts of his enemies. That terror was justified, as even in victory he could be a particularly ruthless bastard: In 386 B.C., Dionysius led his mercenary army in an attack on the Greek city of Rhegium (now Reggio, in southern Italy). After a protracted and bloody siege, the tyrant, who fancied himself a cultured and enlightened man, sold the entire population of the city into slavery. 


So this was the fearsome antagonist, ruthless conqueror and all-around rough guy, who also fancied himself both a poet and a philosopher, boasting “far more of his poems than of his successes in war,” according to Diodorus. Poetry being a big deal in the ancient world, and Dionysius being the big man on campus in Syracuse, he surrounded himself with other literary and intellectual types, including Plato, who, as described in the quote opening this chapter, got sold as a slave in the public market for speaking his mind in the presence of the philosopher-tyrant. 

In another example of why it’s a bad idea for a creative type to be bluntly open and honest with a benefactor possessing no discernable sense of humor, Dionysius asked the poet Philoxenus what he thought of Dionysius’s poetry. When Philoxenus answered candidly, Dionysius had him dragged off to work in the quarries. 

Dionysius regretted the action once he’d sobered up, freed Philoxenus the next day, then invited him to dinner again. The wine flowed (again) and Dionysius asked (again) what Philoxenus thought of his poetry. In response, Philoxenus told Dionysius’s servants to drag him off to the quarries. This time the tyrant laughed. 

From then on, and for the remainder of his time at Dionysius’s court, Philoxenus promised that he would give truthful criticism of the tyrant’s work while also never again offending him. He accomplished this by basically inventing the double entendre. Dionysius’s poetry, according to Diodorus, was “wretched,” and he had a taste for tragedy, so when Dionysius would declaim a poem with a sad subject, then ask Philoxenus what he thought about it, the poet would reply, “Pitiful!” 

Dionysius is reputed to have either been murdered by his doctors to make way for his son to succeed him or to have died of alcohol poisoning from having drunk too much celebrating a win by some of his poetry at a festival in Greece. Either way, neither Dionysius, nor his poetry, proved "deathless."

And Philoxenus? He eventually left Syracuse and went on to write his most famous and successful poem, a comic piece called Cyclops, about the ridiculous passion of the mythical one-eyed monster for a beautiful goddess. Most people assumed that he was making fun of his one-eyed former benefactor. 

If Dionysius wrote a poem about his feelings on the matter, it hasn’t survived.

22 October 2025

Sidney Reilly: The Bottom of the Deck


Although novelty has its rewards, one of the dividends of leafing through the streaming services, PBS Masterpiece, BritBox, Acorn, MHz, and so on, is rediscovering previous favorites, a few of which have held up pretty well.  One is Lovejoy, still lively and clever, Ian McShane very much a treat, as always; and another, if showing its age a bit, is Reilly: Ace of Spies, first broadcast on PBS in 1983.

Reilly was a risk for Thames Television, they’d never done a mini-series, but they got a good return, selling the show in every major market.  Although it’s been outpaced in the export market by Thomas the Tank Engine, Mr. Bean, and Benny Hill, it was a commercial success at the time, and it made Sam Neill a star. 

Sam Neill
Sam Neill

Sidney Reilly was a real guy, and while the scripts played a little loose with the facts, the storyline was in many ways less fanciful than the rake’s progress of Reilly’s life.  You could also be forgiven for playing up his charm, and playing down his murderous opportunism.  Reilly was written by Troy Kennedy Martin, based on a book by Robin Bruce Lockhart – Lockhart the son of R.H. Bruce Lockhart, a famous spy in his own right, resident in Moscow after the Bolsheviks came to power, and credibly linked to Sidney Reilly in a 1918 plot to assassinate Lenin.  Half the stuff Reilly got up to never even makes it into the TV show. 

He was born Rosenblum, in Odessa, in 1873.  Or not.  His given name was Sigmund, or Georgy, or Salomon.  He was the illegitimate son of Perla and Mikhail, fathered by the cuckold Mikhail’s cousin Grigory.  Or perhaps the last heir of a Polish-Jewish family with an estate at Bielsk, on the edge of empire, the frontier of Belarus and Poland.  He first shows up in official paperwork in 1892, eighteen or nineteen years old, when he’s arrested by the Okhrana, the secret police, for political indiscretions, and the best guess is that he turns informant to avoid jail time.  This shape-shifting is a pattern that emerges early.  He fakes his death, in Odessa, and beats feet for Brazil.  He claims to have saved the life of a British officer, who rewards him with a passport and 1500 pounds sterling, but when he shows up later in London, in 1895, the money may well have been stolen from two Italian anarchists on the train from Paris to Fontainbleau, who had their throats cut.  How much of this is fiction?  The two Italians are dead enough to make the local paper.  Sidney is clearly inventing himself as he goes along.  In the trade, this is known as a legend, creating a false biography for cover.  It might simply be convenience, but it seems to be a developing habit of mind, Sidney shedding his skin.

Reilly
Sidney Reilly


He takes a lover, Ethel Boole, later Voynich, who writes a roman à clef about him, The Gadfly, which goes on to enormous success, in Russia!  Because of her Russian émigré connections, it’s suggested Sidney was actually spying on her for Special Branch.  By this time, he’s gone undercover for Scotland Yard’s intelligence chief William Melville, and it’s Melville who comes up with his new cover identity, Sidney George Reilly.

He’s also gotten married.  His wife is the recent widow of a clergyman.  They’d been doing the horizontal mambo before the husband’s death; her husband changed his will a week before he died; his death was certified as influenza by a doctor resembling Sidney, and no inquest was held; the rev was buried thirty-six hours after he died.  The young woman inherited £800,000.  Sidney married her four months later. 

Reilly reconnoiters in the Caucasus, and here’s where the series first picks up his story.  He’s working for the Admiralty, but he’s also being paid by the Japanese, and he eventually shows up in Port Arthur, in Manchuria.  This is later on the first strike of the Japanese against the Russian navy – the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.  Reilly has gained the reputation of an international adventurer.  He makes a deal to secure Persian and Iraqi oil concessions for the Brits.  He infiltrates the Krupp works at Essen, and steals German armament plans.  He spends the war years in New York, selling weapons to both Germany and Russia, until the U.S. enters the war and embargoes the German market, and then the Russian Revolution deposes the tsar.  Sidney keeps an eye on American radicals, reporting to British military intelligence, and takes on some industrial espionage.  It gets him recommended to SIS, in London.

1918.  Sidney Reilly had come full circle, when the Secret Intelligence Service recruited him and sent him back to Russia.  His job was to assess and report on a chaotic situation.  Kerensky’s provisional government had fallen to the Bolsheviks six months before, but civil war had blown up between the Reds and the right-wing Whites.  Reilly immediately put his energies into a counter-revolutionary plot to murder Lenin and overthrow the Communists.  He had support from British Naval Intelligence, Lockhart, acting for the Foreign Office, and SIS.  Allied troops had landed at Archangel and Murmansk.  The coup looked plausible.  But it fell apart when a former anarchist, on her own, made a premature attempt on Lenin’s life, and the Cheka struck back savagely.  Feliks Dzerzhinsky, head of state security, had informants everywhere, and it’s been suggested - even by Lockhart – that Reilly could have been a provocateur, in Dzerzhinsky’s pocket.  Reilly, as it happens, bluffed his way out of Petrograd, and got to London by way of Helsinki.  Others weren’t so lucky.

Lenin, Stalin
Lenin, Stalin

He was back, not long after, assigned to reconnoiter the anti-Bolshevik forces in southern Russia, along with Capt. George Hill.  (Hill was another clandestine intelligence operative with nerves of steel and a price on his head, a celebrated agent in both world wars, who’d worked covert with Reilly in Moscow and Petrograd, and helped him escape to Finland.)  They attached themselves to Gen. Denikin’s army, which along with the Cossack cavalries, made up the White resistance in Ukraine and the Caucasus.  Reilly reported back to London that with Allied military support, the Whites stood a chance, but he probably didn’t have that much effect on British policy.  Reilly is really only a footnote in the White story, which is a sad and complicated narrative – well told, most recently, by Antony Beevor, in RUSSIA: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921 – but the problem for the Whites wasn’t half-hearted and inconsistent help from the West.  The problem was that they had no real internal consistency, themselves.  They opposed the Reds, but they were stitched together out of monarchists, and democratic socialists, and conservative Tsarist army officers, along with fanatic anti-Semitic reactionaries like the Black Hundreds.  It was a marriage of convenience, and an inconvenience to everybody it touched.

The most interesting part of Reilly’s story comes at the end, and his undoing came not through his own perfidy, slippery and unscrupulous as he was, but by keeping the faith.  The triumph of Bolshevism was never a foregone conclusion, they could have been strangled at birth, if their adversaries had been ruthless enough – it was Lenin who turned out to have the necessary iron in his pants – but there were a few who banked the fires, even as late as 1925, when the Communists were securely in control, and Stalin had succeeded to power.  One of these was Winston Churchill, who was at this point in and out of government, and another was Sidney Reilly.  Reilly took a meeting in Paris, accompanied by a representative of SIS, with a small cadre of White partisans.  The counter-revolutionaries in exile were disenfranchised, with little political leverage, and no credible intelligence sources inside Russia, but Reilly somehow convinced himself they could organize a grass-roots guerrilla campaign through their underground movement, the so-called Monarchist Union of Central Russia, known colloquially as the Trust. 

It was, of course, a trap.

Dzerzhinsky’s OGPU – the Cheka went by many different worknames, over the years – had developed the Trust as a long-term deception, loading it up with backstory, and peopling it with characters, like salting a worthless mine with gold nuggets.  They fabricated an alternate reality, where a stubborn resistance movement, burning with righteousness, held out against the Communist devils to bring back Holy Russia.  Utter poppycock, but it was constructed to lure in anti-Bolsheviks of exactly Reilly’s stripe, the unrepentant, who dreamt of turning back the wheel of history, and he fell for it.  Smuggled across the Finnish border, he was arrested two days later, the mission compromised from the outset.

Dzerzhinsky
Dzerzhinsky

He was interrogated at the Lubyanka, and after a couple of weeks, he was ready to give up any and all, regarding the American and UK spy services.  Even allowing for embroidery on Reilly’s part – the problem with enhanced interrogation being that the subject tells you what they think you most want to hear – this would have proved useful to Soviet espionage, but in spite of his obvious value to the Russian security apparat, he wasn’t persuasive enough.  There was that luckless conspiracy to assassinate Lenin, back in 1918.  It proved the final nail in his coffin.  Dzerzhinsky was overruled by Stalin.  Reilly was taken out and shot. 

The question most of us would ask is, Why did he go back, that last time?  He was never an idealist.  The answer seems to be that he heard what he wanted to hear.  He must have suspected, he knew he was a marked man, but he thought he still had the moves, that he could dazzle the crowds with his footwork.  And there was always the chance it was real, that the Trust was what they claimed, that the days of the Red Terror were numbered, and Sidney Reilly would be the man who frustrated their Destiny. 

Not every story we wish to be true is false, the fabled spy-hunter James Angleton once remarked.  He meant that a deception, to have legs, needs to be more than simply convincing; it needs an element of the unreachable, of the fantastic.  Reilly was drawn to the flame because he read his own story as myth.  A lesser man wouldn’t have believed it, and been able to save himself.

21 October 2025

It’s the End of the World as We Know It


After a troubling start to the year for writers of short crime fiction—Alfred Hitchcock’s Mystery Magazine and Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine changing ownership, leading to distribution delays for print issues; Level Best Books restructuring after a partner retired, causing delays in release dates for anthologies; Tough going on indefinite hiatus; and Sherlock Holmes Mystery Magazine changing to an annual publication focusing on Sherlock Holmes material and closing to other subgenres of crime fiction—mid-October brought a wave of distressing news: Down & Out Books, publishers of several anthologies each year, announced their closure; Unnerving Books, which published anthologies and a magazine, closed; and Black Cat Weekly announced that its last issue would be the 2026 Halloween issue unless someone takes over the publication.

There’s no good way to spin bad news. Except: Shit happens.

I’ve been writing short fiction professionally for half a century. I’ve seen genre markets contract—I’ve even seen an entire genre disappear—and I’ve seen new markets arise.

I lost three key mystery markets in the 1980s when Mike Shayne Mystery Magazine, Espionage Magazine, and the revived The Saint Magazine ceased publication. (I had multiple stories published in Mike Shayne and Espionage; had one accepted but not published by The Saint.)

I lost several magazine markets during the late 2000s and early 2010s as the rise of the internet led to the demise of several men’s magazines, and survivors reduced the amount of fiction they published.

Around the early 2010s, I lost several anthology markets when Cleis Press changed owners, and when StarBooks Press and Xcite Books ceased publication.

And I suffered significant loss when the last two confession magazines—True Confessions and True Story—shut down in 2017. (The confession genre had been good for multiple short story sales every month for years, but the entire genre disappeared after the last two magazines closed, leaving me with several unsold stories.)

After each of these setbacks, I took a deep breath, spent time studying the markets, and adjusted what I wrote and where I submitted. I persevered.

So, after you’ve cried in your beer or cursed the gods, or however you deal with setbacks, it’s time to get back to work.

It’s your writing career. Take charge of it.

SHINY HAPPY PEOPLE

Anyhow, in the middle of all this month’s bad news, I received some good news: I had two stories accepted—one for an anthology, one for a magazine—checked edits for a story upcoming in Dark Yonder, read page proofs for a story upcoming in Lunatic Fringe, and saw the cover for The Vigilante Crime Pulp Fiction Anthology, which contains one of my stories. I also reached an oral agreement with a publisher to take on the anthologies I had in the production pipeline at Down & Out Books.

* * *

“Black Velvet” appears in Lunatic Fringe (White City Press), edited by J. Alan Hartman.

“4:13 a.m.” appears in The Vigilante Crime Pulp Fiction Anthology (Vigilante Crime), edited by Matthew Louis and Philip M. Smith.

20 October 2025

Elementary.


             I’m always vaguely annoyed at the expression, “A picture is worth a thousand words.”  It raises a lot of questions.  I want to know if those thousand words adequately conveyed the same information as the picture.  Would a million words have done a better job?  How about a hundred?  And whose words anyway?  What if James Joyce described a painting by Claude Monet.  Would the result be an exact facsimile, of either the picture or the text?

             The problem is a picture is a picture and words are words.  Composers are always telling you their symphonies are renditions of literature, or historical events.  The 1812 Overture has lots of percussion and heavy brass, symbolizing canon fire and the like, but I bet the Russian soldiers defending Moscow would pick the timpani and cymbals any day over the real thing.  I’ve heard The Rite of Spring, and though I think the concertgoers who rioted over the symphony’s debut might have taken things a bit too far, it’s a pretty poor substitute for daffodils, butterflies and frolicking fawns. 

            I probably lack adequate imagination, but I prefer works of art to be judged by the distinctive, and irreplaceable, qualities of their form. The best film adaptations of books render both the story and emotional feel of the original, a real accomplishment.  I’d count the film versions of The English Patient and Mystic River among those that pulled it off.  But they’re not the books.  Doesn’t make one type of work any better than the other.  I’ve preferred some movies over their inspiration. Blade Runner, for example.  Philip K Dick was a genius, but his novella that spawned the movie is so so.  The movie’s a masterpiece. 


            The greater point is that these are separate works of art with the same title, each using a distinct form of media.  How lucky we are that such things exist.

            This is a long-winded introduction to the actual thought behind this post.  I’m thoroughly enjoying TV cop shows of late, in particular nearly anything on Brit Box, which exquisitely elevates the police procedural to it’s most riveting and involving expression.  And the British actors, with their precise speech, understated delivery and stiff upper lips, are ideally suited to the task.

            I’ve never read Anne Cleeves, whose books make for first-rate TV shows, and I’m sure she’s an excellent novelist.  But there are other Brit Box shows orchestrated by creator/writer/director/showrunners that are just as compelling and addictive.  Since I’m a partisan of the mystery writing gig, I’d make a case that mysteries are ideally suited to the TV series format.  They’re taut, contained and bursting with human drama.  The stakes are usually life and death, and the potential for moral hazard is endemic to the genre.  Police procedurals also trade in conflict between established power structures, intractable bureaucracies and tangled legal conundrums opposing the valor and hardheadedness of individual players.  Lone wolves, iconoclasts, denizens of the borderland between defending the law and vigilantism are its bread and butter.

            I don’t have to convince this audience that solving puzzles is the most satisfying of intellectual pursuits.  Brit Box serves up theirs as a dish both precisely calibrated and piquant.  While never shying from a gruesome murder scene, or burst of violence when called for, the point isn’t the action, but rather the shrewd doggedness of its protagonists.  Modern technology is ever present, though in the service of the quest, never an end in itself.  The heroes are physically brave, though their courage is more manifestly moral.  I’m not immune to the charms of a good shoot-em-up, but having the fastest gun or most effective right hook is the shallowest of heroic accomplishments.  In all this, the British have the proper sensibility.

And if in the midst of the highest drama and ugliest of dilemmas someone has the good sense to put the kettle on, I’m fine with that.