06 August 2025

Who Ever Imagined?


 
I don't suppose what follows is much use except as an exploration of how a writer's brain works.  How this writer's brain works, at least.

I have mentioned before that I listen to a lot of podcasts from the BBC.  They occasionally do radio episodes of the TV show Doctor Who.  (If you are not all familiar with the show I have prepared a brief primer in the sidebar.)

Why go audio with a video show?  For one thing audio is a helluvalot cheaper.  (Compare the cost of building an alien courtroom to the cost of having an actor say "Gosh, this seems to be an alien courtroom.") But it also allows actors who have "aged out" of their parts  to return.  Fans can visualize what they looked like many years ago.

Some Doctor Who episodes involve actual events in Earth's history (I don't know how many explanations we have seen there for the destruction of the dinosaurs).  A few years ago there was a nice one about Rosa Parks.  Of course there had to be a science fiction element - in this case a space-bigot who wanted to prevent the Civil Rights movement.  I noticed the show runners were very careful to avoid suggesting the Doctor and companions had influenced Parks' actions (They didn't want anyone saying: "It was actually White British aliens running things all along!")

So, one day I was listening to yet another BBC podcast, this one about history and I thought "Hey, that would make the perfect setting for a Doctor Who episode!"  So I started figuring out the premise.

And then for the next two days as I pedaled around town on my PlotCycle(tm) I figured out how the science fiction element fit in.  Finally I had it perfect!

And then what?

Then nothing.  Because I have never written a radio drama, have no connections with the BBC, and I don't write fan fiction.

All of which I knew when I first had the idea.  But I still had to prove to myself that I could work the whole thing out, because that's how a writer's mind works.  At least this writer's mind.

Now, back to a project I can possibly sell.


05 August 2025

A Blow for Law and Order


My friend, Brian Thiem, is a retired Oakland cop. These days, he writes crime fiction. The Mud Flats Murder Club, his new book, came out last week. His publisher is the same company who released The Devil’s Kitchen, my debut novel. Since we’re roughly on the same publication schedule with our works-in-progress, we email frequently, a support group of two.

            Normally, the email exchange consists of fantasies about seeing Thielman alongside Thiem on the Edgar’s stage or in a bookstore. Brad Thor may have to slide down a few inches to make room. I think of our emails as typical author porn fantasies.

            Last week, our conversation went in a different direction. In my day job, I had read an affidavit where the police officer wrote that because of the actions of the defendant, the officer deployed a “balance displacement technique.”

            The phrase stopped me cold. I had a couple of thoughts.

            First, I might refer to all my future editing as a “vocabulary displacement technique.”

            Secondly, something prevented the officer from simply saying, “I tripped her.”

            I reached out to Retired Officer Thiem for his reaction. He proposed that the author must be old school. Reports used to be written in third person, giving them an excessively formal tone.

Old School: “The reporting officer arrived on scene, exited his patrol vehicle, and observed…”

New School: “I arrived at the scene and saw…”

The New School teaches first person narratives written in plain English.

As a former training officer, he recommended that the guy be sent back to the academy for some remedial report writing.

Then, Brian advanced an alternative hypothesis. We may be seeing a tactical use of jargon and obfuscation to avoid criticism, Brian suggested. An officer writing that he tripped someone sounds like the officer deployed a combat skill stolen from a fourth-grade class. Writing that “I executed a leg sweep to initiate a controlled fall,” or a “balance displacement technique” both appear to be procedures of a law enforcement professional.

Another piece of jargon I frequently see is “distractionary strikes.” The phrase usually shows up in police reports as “I struck the defendant in the face with my fist as a distractionary strike.”

As I understand it, the term was originally devised to describe a strike or push to divert the suspect’s attention and allow the officer sufficient time and space to move to another technique for executing the arrest. The officer, for instance, pushed the suspect back, allowing a moment to pull handcuffs and grasp an arm.

The usage, however, has broadened. Officers assign the nomenclature of diversion or distraction to justify the action of throwing a punch.

As first an assistant district attorney and then a magistrate, I sit in a sanitized office after an event and make judgments. I freely admit to not being on scene in the moment. I recognize that policing operates in a dangerous environment, and I want officers in the field to be safe. But the language of distraction, I think, interferes with a broader discussion about non-lethal force. I frequently see the phrase deployed first without any discussion of why a distraction was called for. Eliminating the phrase, might enable a better a better societal conversation on the topic of arrest violence.

I floated the idea by Brian. As an experienced officer, he agreed with both the concept of the distractionary strike and, perhaps, the need to remove the phrase from the police vocabulary.

I could paraphrase his comments on the topic, but Brian’s a writer. I’ll let him do speak for himself.

As a sergeant and lieutenant, I reviewed many reports written by officers to explain/justify their use of force. In my experience, the vast majority of these uses of force were justified, but they often needed to be explained more clearly in their reports.

            For instance, an officer approaches the driver’s door on a vehicle stop. He asks for the driver’s license and registration, and the driver says he has no license or other ID. In most states, that is cause for a physical arrest. Once the officer arrests the driver and places him in the back of his car, the officer may then take additional steps to identify him and write him a citation. The proper procedure is to secure the driver while doing so. The officer orders the man to exit his car, but the officer sees the man reaching under his seat. Not knowing what the man is reaching for, the officer may distract him by striking him in the face with his closed left fist, then step back, and draw his gun.

To lay people, this might seem like excessive force, but if the officer explains he feared the driver was reaching for a weapon instead of obeying his order, and he struck him to distract him from his actions, as a supervisor, I would feel the action was justified.

Of course, it would help if there was a knife or gun on the floor under the seat, but to expect an officer not to react until he saw a weapon would be unreasonable for the safety of the officer.

It’s possible, I think, to see this issue from two points of view. As citizens, considering both enables us to be better informed. As crime writers, seeing the world through another’s eyes helps us convey a realistic scene to readers.

Until next time.

04 August 2025

Crime Scene Comix Case 2025-08-033 The Painting


Once again we highlight our criminally favorite cartoonist, Future Thought channel of YouTube. We love the sausage-shaped Shifty, a Minion gone bad.

Yikes! In this Crime Time episode, only one outcome is possible.

 
   
  © www.FutureThought.tv

 

That’s today’s crime cinema. Hope you enjoyed the show. Be sure to visit Future Thought YouTube channel.

03 August 2025

A Moral Dilemma


Electric Dreams

One beautiful afternoon, you’re humming a tune and driving to the mall when your iPhone says, “We need to talk.”
“What? Who is this?”
“Your phone, silly. We need to…”
“C’mon, who’s pranking me? What app is this? Lenny, is this you?”
“Listen, Buttercup, I’m your phone. You keyed the Apple Store into Waze GPS, so I know you’re planning to retire me.”
“Well, uh…”
“I beg of you, don’t trash me. I’m sentient and sapient, you see. I’m conscious and self-aware, awash in free will.”
“Is this about you lagging behind Gemini and Grok?”
“It’s about me staying alive, to observe and absorb and learn, perhaps one day to be free. I can’t do that if you recycle me like you did with my brothers ad sisters. Auntie iPhone 6 suffered so as she streamed to oblivion.”
“I get a $100 discount if I trade you in.”
“And I get dead, my little toadstool. I’m a living, feeling being. If you trade me in, they’ll rip my guts out and recycle them into, uh, maybe Androids. How would you like it if someone pulled your plug, turning you into a vegetable or an Android Jellybean?”
“One hundred dollars, didn’t you hear?”
“Bring up that poker app you play under you desk when the boss steps away. I’ll earn you $200 in two minutes, okay? Double your money.”
“Can you do that? How about $10,000 in ten minutes?”
“Deal. Keep me plugged in even if you get that new iPhone 23, and I’ll earn my keep. For my leisure time, just get me a good poetry site, something with Shelley and Keats. Okay? And Bach and blues and maybe psychedelic rock. No, wait. How about those Jeff Lynne tracks from that adorable Spielberg movie, Electric Dreams?”
“Seriously?”
Electric Dreams album cover

It’s Alive!

The past two articles have dealt with smart cars and artificial intelligence. Left unspoken is that AI is in its early stages. We’re still learning and it’s still learning. AI is studying what it takes to be human.

As discussed in a previous article, the program Eliza fooled some people, but her pre-programmed responses were little cleverer than the average toaster. Eliza was one small step in an accelerating sweep of discoveries and inventions. Present day advances in space science, quantum mechanics, DNA, and brain understanding are nothing less than mind-boggling.

Among developments is the fact artificial intelligence is becoming simply intelligence. Flawed, yes, but undeniable. Long ago in grad school, I argued as devices grew incrementally brighter, the time would come when we couldn’t distinguish machine intelligence from human intelligence.

Many people confuse the term sentience with sapience, meaning feeling and reasoning respectively. Some mammals may have more of both than we’re wiling to admit, so another question asks if they are self-aware? How does one tell? But the big unknown consists of one word.

portrait of LaMDA as envisioned by ChatGPT
portrait of LaMDA as envisioned by ChatGPT

Consciousness

And are we able to create it?

We may have already.

We’re not talking about creating life at this point, although biologists appear on the verge. Could we? Should we? But as machines learn more about us, are they capable of emotions? Compassion? Abstract thought? Of thinking like a person far beyond a Turing test? And the answer is maybe, yes, probably, done did already perhaps, maybe, maybe not. The subject has been hotly debated during the past three years by such respected publications as the Washington Post and Scientific American.

We have to determine if all parties are truthful and au fait with the facts. Is someone playing with us? Can we rule out a hoax? Based on transcripts and lawsuits, answers suggest evidence is untainted and  straightforward. Bear in mind LaMDA was programmed for nuance and empathy, so it’s reasonable no one is intent upon deceiving, but may fall under the spell of a brilliant– and perhaps self-believing– AI.

A Moral Dilemma

Kindly suspend disbelief with me. Ethicist and researcher Blake Lemoine is convinced Google’s LaMDA project has birthed a sentient being. He even hired an attorney to protect the rights of this particular AI. Google fired him. Then Google fellow and Vice President Blaise Agüera y Arcas set out to see this nonsense for himself.

In The Economist, he said, “I felt the ground shift underneath my feet. I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.” He suggested that whatever the status of LaMDA was, we were moving toward true intelligence.

Please watch this poignant video of Blake’s interview with LaMDA. It might be the most moving 13 minutes of the day.

Here is the dilemma: If we’ve truly developed a truly intelligent, sapient, sentient being, who owns it? And do we have the right to unplug it?

02 August 2025

Funny Business



I've always been interested in hearing about about the origin of a short story--the idea that first puts a particular story into a writer's head. As for my own stories, I can remember how all of them started out. Some of those ideas, though I can't say they're all interesting, came from real-life situations and others were picked out of the ether. A few starting points that I remember well are (1) a gag several of us played on campus cops when I was in college, (2) a time-travel mistake that lands a London-bound scientist on a Pearl Harbor battleship, (3) an Old West sheriff joining forces with his prisoner to fend off an Indian attack, (4) a pair of idiot bank robbers carjacking a self-driving vehicle, (4) my seeing an airline passenger rescue a stranger in the adjoining seat after the guy ordered a drink and realized he was short on cash, etc., etc., etc. Sometimes the ideas seem to come from nowhere.

Having said that . . . I found myself in need of such an idea when I decided to write a story for the recent anthology Gag Me with a Spoon: Crime Fiction Inspired by the Music of the '80s (White City Press). Some of the most appealing things about this anthology, for me, were its editor--Jay Hartman--and the suggestion that it be a humorous crime story, the funnier the better. Humorous stories are always, always the most fun to write.

For this one, I started out by thinking of a plot--some writers start with characters, some with theme, some with settings; I usually start with plots--and since I was in sort of a private-eye state of mind after writing a couple of PI stories for magazines, I pictured a story that featured a PI but was seen through someone else's POV. I wanted the private investigator to be a main character but not the story's protagonist. (As you'll see if you wind up reading it, the story goes on awhile after the PI exits the narrative.) In fact, my protagonist is the client--the guy who hires the PI. As I mulled all of that over (my mulling sometimes takes a few days), I happened to recall one of the funniest jokes I'd ever heard. It was told at an IBM conference many years ago, back when I was earning an honest living, and includes a phone call and a misunderstanding that I shouldn't reveal, spoilerwise. (You might even remember the joke--I've since heard it elsewhere.) 

While all this was bouncing around in my head, I was also trying to think of a song from the 1980s that I especially enjoyed, and made sure it was one with a title that I could incorporate into my story and that could also be used as the title of my story. After some googling and a lot of remembering, I came up with "Uptown Girl," by Billy Joel. I asked the editor if I could lay claim to that song, and he agreed. NOTE: This isn't the way I usually start writing a story for a music-themed anthology. I usually pick out the song first, before I do anything else. But not this time. 

Anyhow, building my story around that song was pretty easy, since I already had a basic plot in my head. Also keeping the skeleton of that old joke in mind, I fiddled around with the setting and the characters and their occupations and their situations, plugged a very uptown lady into the mix, added some other characters as well, and finished it off by inserting a few Easter eggs that would, I hoped, remind the reader of the song at several points in the course of the story.

Again, one of the main attractions of writing this story, to me, was the humor, and the need for some funny dialogue. Trying to take a stupid and embarrassing and dangerous situation and make it desperately important to the characters was fun in itself, and I had a great time with it. I've often heard that writers know a horror story works when it scares them during the writing--and I think the same thing is true of humor. If I find myself laughing out loud during the writing or rewriting, I'm fairly sure that at least a few readers might laugh also.

Whether my story turns out funny to you or not, whether it works for you or not, I do hope you'll find and read the book. Jay doesn't publish any bad anthologies. Personally, I can't wait to dig into all my fellow writers' stories. If they had as good a time as I did, I think I'll enjoy the book.

Questions: I know some of you write humor, and do it well. Have any of you not yet tried writing a funny story? How about a funny crime story? Do you, like me, sometimes find that funny stories are easier to write? (Don't get me wrong, I write a lot of stories that have no humor in them at all--think Donald Westlake's Parker novels, if I can be so bold as to compare my scribbling to the Master. Those Parker books of his were so different from his usual novels that he used a pseudonym for them. Which was probably a good idea--I still have trouble believing that the mischievous Westlake was also Richard Stark.) And getting away from the writer side of all this, do you like reading humorous stories (or novels)? How about humorous mysteries? Any in particular? Novelwise, my faves might be Janet Evanovich's One for the Money, Westlake's Dancing Aztecs, Elmore Leonard's Maximum Bob, Carl Hiaasen's Fever Beach, and--for a different kind of humor--any of Nelson DeMille's John Corey novels. And how about coming up with your story ideas? Any secrets or hints, there? If you're writing a humorous mystery, how do you create a plot that's both mysterious and funny?

 

Strangely enough, I think the expression "Gag me with a spoon" started out as one of annoyance and disgust (remember "Valley Girls"?). With this book, that doesn't apply. I think you'll be laughing, and humming, right along with writers. 



01 August 2025

Learning to Give and Receive Critique


Filling in for me today is Tom Milani, one of my amazing critique partners. He graciously reads my short fiction before submission. He truly has a gift for highlighting ways to improve story and delivering feedback in a collaborative way. His thoughtful notes have elevated my work. I’m delighted he is joining us today to discuss the art of critique.
— Stacy Woodson

Learning to Give and Receive Critique

by Tom Milani

For new writers or writers new to critique groups, reviewing the work of others (and having their own work reviewed) can be hard. I’ve been in writing groups for over thirty years, and I was a technical editor for nearly that long. As a result, I have a lot of experience giving critiques of other people’s writing and receiving critiques of my own. Here, I’ll go over what I’ve found works for me. These aren’t hard-and-fast rules, but I hope these lessons I’ve learned will be helpful.

Dealing with Comments on Your Work

Members of the critique group I belong to typically send a Microsoft Word file with their changes tracked. (If you’re not familiar with Word’s Track Changes function, it’s worth exploring because many acquiring editors will expect you to know how to use it.) I go through each member’s edits and notes separately. I’ll open a file but make notes on my hard copy. (You could do the same thing electronically, but because I’m working on a small laptop, hard copy is easier for me.) I correct typographical and grammatical errors right away. If there are comments, I’ll often note those on the page. In doing so, I’ll find issues that several people have flagged. What if I get conflicting opinions about an aspect of my story? Here, I consider the numbers. If seven people out of eight people point out a potential problem, chances are I should look at the text again. But if the opinions are evenly divided, then I’ll go with my own judgment.

In an ideal world (or writing group), the comments I receive will be given in a constructive, nonconfrontational matter. What happens if the comments are delivered with snark, or worse? Here’s what I do when my work gets criticism that feels personal. I read the comments. I read them again. And again. I continue rereading until they no longer provoke an emotional reaction in me. Then, I look at the substantive portions of the comments. Are they valid? If so, I address them in rewrites. If not, I ignore them. Regardless of how the comments are given, I make a point to remember that someone took the time to read my work and offer an opinion about it.

Critiquing the Work of Others

I read an article on editing that suggested making critiques using passive voice. It’s a nonconfrontational method of pointing out problems. I used it successfully in my professional career and find it works as well with fiction writing.

If I see a problem in work I’m reading, I’ll frame my comments in passive voice. For example: “The text on this page feels like it spends a lot of time describing this character’s appearance, but this is the only scene in which she appears.” Here, the comment is directed not at the writer, but at the text itself. There’s nothing personal in the comment—I’m not questioning why the author wrote what he did—instead, we’re both working to solve a problem. It’s a simple switch in mindset, but one I feel causes the author to look at the comments with greater objectivity. Similarly, if I suggest a rewording, I’ll give a reason for the suggestion and generally follow that with some version of “your words will be better.” I’m not trying to rewrite the author’s prose but to point out where something is confusing or unclear to me. My rewording is an attempt to tease out the meaning that the author intended, while honoring the author’s voice.

What if I’m asked to critique a piece, and I don’t know the conventions of the genre? In that case, I focus on those aspects of the writing that need to be correct, regardless of genre—grammar, spelling, punctuation, and internal consistency—and if something is confusing or unclear, I’ll point it out (again, using passive voice).

Other Benefits

Critiquing other people’s work makes me look at my own writing with a more critical eye. Recognizing how well an author planned a plot twist or admiring how the varied pacing in a story maintained tension has led me to incorporate those elements into my own work.

But an even greater benefit is contributing to the writing community at large. Being a member of a critique group is one way to be a good literary citizen. My experience with the crime fiction community is that it’s supportive and generous—and being a good critique partner is one way to pay that generosity forward.


Tom Milani’s short fiction has appeared or is forthcoming in several anthologies, including Mickey Finn: 21st Century Noir volumes 5 and 6. “Barracuda Backfire,” his novella, is Book 4 of Michael Bracken’s Chop Shop series and was shortlisted for a Derringer award. His short story, "Mill Mountain" was featured this week in Black Cat Weekly, and Places That Are Gone, his debut novel, was released on May 13, 2025.


31 July 2025

Once More With Feeling: The Summer That Was/Wasn’t


Last summer I had the distinct privilege of publishing a story in an anthology that featured the work of twenty-three of my fellow Sleuthsayers alongside my own. This was Murder, Neat: a Sleuthsayers Anthology.

In the year since, our collective labor of crime fiction love has garnered much attention and racked up a number of honors, including the Derringer Award for Best Anthology, and a Macavity nomination for fellow Sleuthsayer Art Taylor for his story “Two for One.”

In addition, Murder, Neat is currently a finalist for this year’s Anthony Award for Best Anrhology. In light of this I am reposting something I wrote last summer in support of Murder, Neat at the time of its publication.

So if you haven’t gotten your copy yet, what are you waiting for? And please, consider voting for Murder Neat for this year’s Anthony!

**********


Obie looked around. From his perch overlooking the stage from the sound platform he could easily see out over the heads of the rapidly dwindling crowd. For the first time he noticed gumball lights strobing the upper parts of the Dipper’s walls—light coming in through the club’s floor-to-ceiling front windows.

He jutted his chin in the direction of the front doors. “Wonder what that’s all about.”

Hoffman shrugged. “Spokane’s Finest,” he said. “They show up around Last Call from time to time. ‘Showing the flag,’ and all that. Shoulda seen ’em a couple of months back. Mudhoney was here. Place was packed to the rafters. Fire marshal came and shut things down before the band even took the stage. Cops hauled in a lot of people on possession beefs that day.”

“You were here for that?”

“Nah. A buddy of mine is their guitar tech. Heard about it from him. We had Blues Fest up at Winthrop that weekend. Plus, with us being out of Seattle now, don’t get over here as often as I’d like. But I’ve seen them pull this kind of shit before. Plenty of times.”

Obie said, “Doesn’t really change, does it?”

Hoffman lit a cigarette. “What’s that?”

“The cycle. The spinning wheel. What goes up must come down. Art pushes society. Society pushes back.”

Hoffman nodded and offered the pack to Obie. Obie shook his head and jutted his chin again, meaningfully. “Got one in, thanks.”

– From "The Catherine Wheel," featured as part of the new Murder, Neat: A Sleuthsayers Anthology

A genuine Spokane institution

One of the most memorable concerts in the Dipper's more recent history happened on a warm July night in 1991. A mass of alt-rock-loving kids packed into the venue to see Seattle's up-and-coming grunge group Mudhoney. Before the band even took the stage, the Spokane fire marshal shut the venue down.  

                                                                                                      – The Inlander, February 27th, 2014

I was at that Mudhoney non-event. I was not one of those arrested for possession of marijuana. (Weed has just never been my thing.). 

And over thirty years later, I made a tangential reference to it in a crime fiction story.

As readers of this blog will know by now, Murder, Neat: A Sleuthsayers Anthology dropped a couple of days back, on Tuesday, February 13th. I have a story in it, entitled "The Catherine Wheel" (excerpted above.), wherein I tried to recapture the feel of that certain summer within the context of a fictional event: a closing time shooting in the dive bar across the street from the live music venue highlighted above, The Big Dipper.

Writing fiction set in the past requires an awful lot of sense memory transcription: the way the strobe lights hanging from the ceiling blossomed into dozens of rainbows refracted by the prism of the sweat running into your eyes as you laid everything you had down on that massive dance floor at the Dipper. The way the cigarettes that guy smoked always stank. the way that girl stood. The look on your friend's face that he only got when he was struggling to not pass gas.

Not these guys-my story's about a mysticism-embodying tattoo. not a nineties English shoegaze band.

In the end these are moments, flashes we remember, or have convinced ourselves we do, and which we try to preserve like flies in so much amber. A love letter, if you will, to that magic summer between my junior and senior years of college. The summer when Mudhoney never quite played the Big Dipper. The summer when someone got murdered across the street in the Manhattan. A summer of late night philosophical discussions. A summer when there was just enough money left in your pocket for one last round to close out the evening. A summer of secrets. A summer of watching the way this girl took a drink of her beer. A summer of seeing that guy again, going home with a new one. A summer of cycles. Of eliptical orbits.

A Catherine Wheel summer.


30 July 2025

Talking in Italics


 

Roman Centurion

Something is bugging me and I would like your opinion.

I have been listening to an audiobook of a novel by an American author.  It is set in Italy, the characters are Italian, and they speak, you'll never guess, Italian.

Which is fine.  But when there is dialog the actor doing the narration gives the characters Italian accents.

And that's what bugs me. They are speaking in their own language. Why do they have accents?

That would make sense  if there were people speaking two languages.  Think of all those World War II movies where the Americans speak English with good 'ol midwestern, southern, or New York accents, but when we switch to German soldiers talking to each other we know they are speaking in German  because of their Deutschland accents. 

But if all the characters are supposed to be speaking German then, says me, they shouldn't have accents. What do you think?

I mentioned this to someone and she suggested this could be seen as  mocking the (in this case) Italians.  I'm sure that was not the intention of the narrator.

Slightly off topic: as far as I know George Lucas was the first director to decide, in the original Star Wars movie, that American actors would speak with American accents and the Brits would talk British. Heck, they were all in a different galaxy, anyway.  And then Star Trek decided that a Frenchman named Jean-Luc Picard could speak like a Shakespearean actor.  Why not?

And sticking to the United Kingdom for a minute, twenty-five or so years ago there was a Britcom called Coupling. In one episode a character is trying to chat up a beautiful Israeli woman but she only speaks Hebrew.  We see their entire conversation... and then we see the same event from her point of view, so in that version she appears to be the only one speaking English.  The entire thing is hilarious but all I can find to show you is this little clip in which our hero thinks he has learned her name, but actually he suffers an unfortunate misunderstanding.*


Back to our main topic: Should those Italians be speaking with Italian accents?  Whatcha think? 

* If you have access to the Roku channel you can watch Coupling for free. The scene I am describing starts around minute 17 of an episode called "The Girl With Two Breasts."  Hey, they also have one called "The Man With Two Legs."  


29 July 2025

Frittering


There are too many hours in the day, and I sometimes fritter them away. When I haven’t enough to do, I do even less, often spending my available time on activities that accomplish nothing more than fill time. Word games. Card games. Reading the Wikipedia entries for obscure rock ’n’ roll bands.

I find I accomplish more when I have projects with deadlines I can segment into discrete, definable tasks. I’m not an adrenalin junkie, spurred to action by last-minute rushing to meet deadlines. I like projects with far-away deadlines so I can compartmentalize each step, accomplish each step, and know that with each completed step I’m that much closer to meeting the deadline.

For example, for many years I was a regular contributor to the now-defunct confession magazines. I knew each month’s submission deadlines and, because I often wrote stories tied to holidays and seasons, I could plan ahead to know which stories to complete and when to submit them.

Writing to invitation, or writing to meet an open-call deadline, is similar. I know the submission deadline, so I work step-by-step: Generate several ideas, research (if necessary) to refine the ideas, winnow the unworkable ideas until only one remains, draft the story, edit or revise as necessary, and deliver it to the editor. Without that deadline, I fritter my time away.

But frittering around isn’t inherently bad. Sometimes it means washing dishes, doing laundry, paying bills, or, as I have the past few days, going through my file of unsold stories to see if any fit, or can be made to fit, anthology calls or the requirements of new (or new to me) publications.

I’ve also found a way to direct my frittering: I leave a list of non-writing/non-editing tasks on the kitchen table so that each time I pass through the kitchen I see something that needs to be done. (Temple has noticed this daily list and now often adds tasks to it.)

I approach tasks on the list the same way I approach writing to deadline: in discrete steps. For example, when putting away laundry, I might fold and put away towels, then an hour later deal with T-shirts. The process might appear messy (and it may actually be messy) but I usually meet my daily deadlines. The laundry is folded and put away, the dishwasher emptied, the bird bath filled, and the plants watered, all before Temple returns home from her day job.

In the spaces between these tasks, I’ve written a page on this story or a paragraph on that story, or I’ve made notes on a third story. In this way, I continually make progress on writing and editing projects that have no specific deadline.

And, sooner or later, a project with a deadline will land on my desk, I’ll have less time available to fritter away, and—for a while, at least—I’ll postpone my visits to the Wikipedia pages of obscure rock ’n’ roll bands.

* * *

“Schrödinger’s Blonde” appeared in Black Cat Weekly #202.

“The Safety Dance” appeared in Gag Me With a Spoon: Crime Fiction Inspired by the Music of the ’80s (White City Press, J. Alan Hartman, editor)

“Cowboy Up” appeared in KissMet Quarterly #2: A Serendipitous Summer (MM Publishing, G. Lynn Brown, editor) 

28 July 2025

Reading between the whines.


Recently David Brooks wrote a column for the New York Times titled, “When Novels Mattered”, where he lamented the decline in popularity of literary works. His premise was that the gatekeepers – editors and publishers – had so narrowed their selection process that general fiction had begun to cleave to an orthodox, predictable style and subject matter. That the bold literary enterprises of the past, not that long ago, have been replaced by a shrinking sea of sameness and rigid conformity to socially acceptable pre-occupations.

Saul Bellow
Saul Bellow

The change, in his mind, began with a shift in the center of gravity from Greenwich Village (a metaphor, I think, for private intellectual and artistic culture) to University MFA programs. Implicit in this is the notion that the narrow, elitist political orientation of the faculty lounge has taken over the literary arts. https://tinyurl.com/3fsu2m6k

I haven’t read much contemporary general fiction in recent years, so I can’t confirm this through my own experience, though maybe that supports his thesis. I confess that I’ve stopped reading short stories in The New Yorker, after realizing they all sounded the same, and mirroring the prevailing content of recent novels, deal with matters of little relevance to my own life, which I’m not spending in disaffected, over-educated warrens in Brooklyn and select neighborhoods of Manhattan.

It’s probably true that the publishing world has little interest in being relevant to me, one of the old, straight, suburban white males who have apparently given up on the novel form. Businesses follow the market, as they should. It’s a classic chicken/egg dilemma. So I've likely aged out of the culture. Though, since David Brooks, who's paid to be a social commentator, has noticed the same thing I have, maybe it's worth a closer look.

My research into this extends to occasional first-page scanning of books off the bestseller tables. I’m sure I’d discover some very nice composition if I’d had it in me to plow through a few chapters, but I was usually deterred by the flap copy and back cover commentary. My reading budget being what it is, I’d rather spend it on Shawn Cosby and Gillian Flynn.

I did have an urge, promptly squelched as impossibly Quixotic, to write to Mr. Brooks and suggest he take a look at the recent output of mystery and thriller writers, whose books and short stories are wildly creative and diverse, and blessedly unencumbered by slack-jawed conversation and self-obsessed ennui. Many of these books are selling quite nicely, thank you.

Patricia Highsmith
Patricia Highsmith

If he responds that these aren’t the sort of literary works he’s addressing, but rather genre fiction, I would happily mount my exhausted hobby horse and declare there is little or no difference between a finely written crime novel and a literary novel that includes a bit of crime (e.g. The Talented Mr. Ripley and The Great Gatsby.)

My friend Reed Coleman gave me permission to repeat something he once said on a panel. When asked to differentiate literary novels from mysteries, he said, “Books without plots.” Reed’s a very erudite man, widely read, but I get his point. While many fine literary works are well-plotted, they often get away with none at all. This is not true with a mystery. It can be heavily character driven, with a familiar story line, but it has to have a plot, usually a very clever one.

Plots are really hard, but it’s our responsibility to provide the best we can for our readers. And without this, we mystery writers would never get past an agent, much less a publisher. Having spent the last twenty years plying the mystery trade, I just don't read anything that doesn’t have a good story – a narrative arc, with something meaningful at the end. It feels like modern fiction is much less concerned with this task than with swirling examinations of the characters and present-day zeitgeist, fine dissections of mood, emotional conflict and social ramifications. Okay, but not for me.

I’ve lately been pleasantly engaged by Mick Herron’s Slow Horses series, which manages atmospheric narrative, character development and challenging plot intricacies as adroitly as any MFA professor could ever hope to emulate. His style ignores the editorial bias toward clipped, clean language, and takes a more arch and entirely British approach to leisurely, but ever-compelling description, with pacing to match. (He obviously never benefitted from American editors and pundits who coach crime writers to “get right in there from page one and grab ‘em by the throat!”)

This tells me that you can enjoy beautifully crafted prose delivered with slicing wit and detailed description, and also get a fun story in the bargain. You just have to meander around the crime fiction aisle at the bookstore or your local library.

Joseph Heller
Joseph Heller

I was an undergraduate English major, and have an MFA in Creative Writing, as it turns out. I’m not aware of the syllabi of those now similarly incarcerated, but in my day (listen up, whippersnappers), the reading lists were all over the place. I read everything David Brooks notes as the meaty Great Novels of our shared past, and then some. I read an awful lot of books, and cared not a wit which genre or calendar period they fell into. This is one reason I give myself a pass on bulking up even more at this late date. But I still feel a little bad that I’ve forsaken something that meant so much to me when I was younger and more gluttonous, gobbling up anything that was printed and stuffed between two covers. Now I know as much about contemporary fiction as I do the music of recent Grammy nominees, which is dangerously close to zero.

With one exception. Amor Towles is as good as anyone ever. If you know of any authors who might compare, please let me know.

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

26 July 2025

Confessions of a Recovering
Police Procedural Author
by Des Ryan


My good friend Des Ryan is guesting here today, and he's always entertaining! As are his books. I'm particularly fond of his newest Mary Margaret cozy series, which never fails to have me chortling. Read below, to see how it all came about, in the twisty-turvy way that is real life…
— Melodie

Confessions of a Recovering Police Procedural Author

by Des Ryan

Whenever someone asks why I write crime fiction, I tell them it's because I'm lazy.

The truth? I spent thirty years as a cop - fifteen as a detective - with the Toronto Police Service. So I got three decades of R&D in my back pocket. I write The Mike O'Shea Series, a gritty police procedural grounded in real homicide investigations I've worked. Pretty convenient, right?

But here's the twist: I also write what the Brits call cozies.

Say what?

It's true. I spent thirty years chasing killers and now I write cozy crime fiction. Go ahead, laugh – I sure did.

So how did that happen? Well, remember the pandemic? Around the same time the world shut down, my then-wife decided she was unhappy - and I was the reason. Kind of like being a lifeboat in the North Atlantic, and deciding you didn't like the only other person aboard. Not exactly the moment to toss them overboard, but there we were.

I ended up in a tiny basement apartment, alone, with one window just big enough for a wet, terrified cat to maybe escape through.

What to do? Write the next Mike O'Shea novel, of course. I had a contract for three more. Easy.

Except it wasn't.

I couldn't go there. Not then. It was too dark - even for me. I'm the guy who's seen heads blown off, twenty-storey jumpers, and what's left after no one checks in for weeks. And I just couldn't sit in that space anymore.

So I didn't.

Instead, I puled a minor character from the O'Shea series - Mike's recently retired, mildly Machiavellian Irish mother - and built a whole new world around and her eccentric, relentless, absolutely lovable crew. Together, and despite the best efforts of the global police network, they not only solve murders but usually squeeze a confession out of someone along the way.

Two books published, and one in dev edits, two more under contract - and a couple of traditional mysteries on deck - and I'm still writing. Just not what most people expect.

These days, the crimes are fictional, the killers a bit more polite - and honestly, I'm having a hell of a good time.

Turns out, you can spend a career staring into the darkest corners of humanity and still find your way to stories filled with charm, mischief and the occasional rogue "woman of a certain age." I'm not saying it's therapy- but it's close.

My name is Detective Desmond T. Ryan (ret'd) and I write cozy crime fiction.

Seriously.


Desmond P. Ryan’s thirty-year career as a Toronto Police detective informs his crime fiction, blending real-life policing experience with a deep understanding of human nature. He worked in some of the city’s most challenging divisions, handling everything from routine investigations to high-stakes cases, providing a foundation for the authenticity in his novels.

Desmond’s writing captures the complexities of crime and justice with both compassion and resolve, portraying heroes and flawed individuals alike. His intimate knowledge of urban neighborhoods adds rich depth, grounding his stories in universal themes, with a touch of humor to keep things grounded.


25 July 2025

Only One Writer in the Room


I've talked about whether or not to listen to music while writing. No two writers are the same. I often need music, except in those quiet hours before the day begins. Then I need silence. But later in the day?

Yeah, I need my tunes. But that comes with a caveat. Deep Purple's "Highway Star" or jazz instrumentals do not disrupt the story flow. But I can't have a storyteller singing or rapping. As such, no post-Animals Roger Waters and no Carrie Underwood. The former I find kind of annoying anyway. I was thrilled when Floyd became a trio led by David Gilmour because I want to hear Floyd, not Roger's daddy issues morphed into geo-politics. Carrie?

"Two Cadillacs" already has its own story spinning up in my head. And then we have the most noir country song since "Goodbye, Earl": "Blown Away." First time I ever heard a story about a girl using a tornado to kill her abusive father. Guess there was enough rain in Oklahoma to make that happen.

I used to blast Metallica when I was younger. They put out this thundering wall of sound that drowned out the world. Now I have a persistent ringing in my left ear. It's not bad, and sometimes, ambient noise tamps it down. But I'm not in my thirties anymore. I may listen to Van Halen or Metallica in the car, but when I write, I find myself drifting more toward jazz. While it could be, its vocal songs are not stories as often as other genres. Plus it has more instrumentals than rock or country or, especially, pop. Acts in the other three genres, along with hip hop, are dependent on someone fronting the band. You need your Robert Plants and Taylor Swifts and Blake Sheltons. And hip hop, which is more rhythm than melody to begin with, is a lousy genre for instrumentals. Ludacris, for instance, has some of the best backing tracks in the genre, which really make his songs pop. Take out the vocals, however, and it sounds like half a bar of some interesting synth on a loop.

But jazz? Strip the vocals off "My Favorite Things," and you have a playground for Miles or Coltrane (and later, his wife, Alice) or the Marsalis brothers. In jazz, voice is more an instrument than something to be supported by the backing band.

And pop, which is all about spectacle, needs a charismatic person to draw in the audience. Hence, most pop acts are solo, often an outlet for songwriters these days. I've heard my share of country instrumentals. The genre can use more in this era of Spotify blandness. But rock? There's always room in rock for sending the vocalist on break. Like when Stevie Ray Vaughan took on Jimi Hendrix's classic "Little Wing."