The Writers in Residence

My Reading Life in Classics

by Maggie King

My love affair with the classics took off in 1989. Why 1989? That was when I started a job in downtown Los Angeles. One day at lunch a co-worker asked if I wanted to go to the library. Surprised, I said, “Sure!” I’d never worked with anyone who spent her lunch hour at the library.

We walked to the Los Angeles Public Library and I checked out Jane Eyre. I had a vague memory of reading Charlotte Bronte’s tome in high school and decided to try it again. Over the next few years, I read—in many cases revisiting my high school reading list—works by Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, Willa Cather, Theodore Dreiser, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Gustav Flaubert, Thomas Hardy, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Washington Irving, D. H. Lawrence, Sinclair Lewis, W. Somerset Maugham, Ayn Rand, Robert Lewis Stevenson, Leo Tolstoy, Mark Twain, Edith Wharton, and Virginia Woolf, among others.

Many I loved, with a few being okay. Sad to say, I didn’t like Wuthering Heights any better in the early nineties than I had in high school. Heathcliff was just too dark (funny reaction from a crime writer, but there you have it). For many years, Jane Eyre topped my list of favorite classics. But a year ago, I picked it up for the third time and didn’t even finish it. Jane Eyre was given to monologues! Apparently that didn’t bother me thirty-plus years ago.

In 1993 I joined a mystery group and became obsessed with that genre, classic and contemporary. Up to that point, I’d read many Agatha Christie mysteries, but few by other authors. It wasn’t long before I started penning my own.

I try to read at least one classic a year, and sometimes it’s a mystery. A favorite is Wilkie Collins’s early example of detective fiction, Woman in White. I read the epics Brothers Karamazov and War and Peace from start to finish and lived to tell it! I finally got to Little Women a few years ago. I had seen countless film versions but never actually read the delightful autobiographical novel by Louisa May Alcott. David Copperfield was wonderful but populated with characters who, like Jane Eyre, spoke at great length.

Why do I love the classics? They have a timeless quality and universal appeal, essential traits that make a classic a classic. Little Women—despite the lack of texting and social media—could be a contemporary coming-of-age novel.

The classics are known for well-drawn characters and compelling storylines. That said, it can take time for a classic story to be compelling. Contemporary books have to grab the reader on page one; classics require more patience, but are worth the wait. My friend who took me to the LAPL and I started Middlemarch together. Several times I was ready to close the book for good but, being a faster reader, my friend assured me that the story would pick up. Sure enough, George Eliot’s masterpiece became a page turner.

What’s my next classic? Many of my author friends rave about The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas. And I’ve had Elizabeth Gaskell’s Wives and Daughters on my TBR list for some time.

Would reading the classics benefit writers? Absolutely! Have they improved my writing? As an optimist, I want to think so—but such a belief is hard to verify. This post on KindredGrace, “5 Reasons Why Every Serious Writer Should Read Classic Literature”, is worth reading. I especially like #4: Classic literature expands our knowledge base for literary allusions.

Renowned author Joyce Carol Oates suggests that writers read Ulysses by James Joyce. According to her, our vocabulary will improve (or, if nothing else, we’ll want our vocabulary to improve). I take Ms. Oates’s point, but will pass on Ulysses (I managed to get through one chapter).

Back to where the classics began for me: here’s a photo of the beautiful and impressive Los Angeles Public Library. During my stint working downtown, this building was closed for renovations due to two fires, and the collection was temporarily housed on South Spring St. By the time the original building reopened in 1993, I was working elsewhere, but occasionally returned to visit this stunning structure. If you can visit, do so, but you can read about it here.

Closing thoughts: what contemporary novels will become classics? Any of our own? Perhaps works by Margaret Atwood, Toni Morrison, and Joyce Carol Oates will stand the test of time. As for contemporary crime novels, would any make the cut? As much as I enjoy them, they lack the timeless quality—even the historical ones. I’d love to be proved wrong. In the meantime, we have Arthur Conan Doyle, Wilkie Collins, Anna Katharine Green, Agatha Christie, Dashiell Hammett, and many others.

A big thanks to Alison, my long ago library pal!

AI Can Make Mistakes Too

by Gayle Bartos-Pool

Editing is a major endeavor for any writer. Even if you hire it done or your publisher actually provides one, you need to go over your work a few times to make sure the story you thought you were telling made it to the page.

Before I published my first novel, I hired a professional editor. Back then, most publishers were dropping their editors at an alarming rate because they thought the writer would do a good enough job and the cost of an editor on staff was too much for the publisher, so they were let go.

The editor I hired had worked at a large publishing firm. She’s the one who told me about all the layoffs. I paid a tidy sum and expected her work to be good, if not excellent. I got back my manuscript and happened to ask my sister-in-law who worked as an editor on a large newspaper in Orange County California if she would mind going over the pages. She said yes, did the job, and found numerous errors the overrated editor hadn’t found. I paid my sister-in-law $50 just to be nice. I had paid the “professional” $1800.00. This was back in 1996, even though it took eight years before I got that book into print.

I did my own editing after that. I know there were errors in my subsequent books, but like I say: Only God is perfect.

Recently, I happened to pick up one of my spy novels and decided to read it. I wanted to send a copy to someone whose book I had read and wanted to make sure the book wasn’t too full of errors. I did find a few mistakes during that quick read, but they might be overlooked if the reader didn’t pay too close attention to every comma.

I enjoyed reading my book after all these years and decided to read one of the other books in the spygame series, but this time I let my computer read it aloud to me. I was still watching the screen as it was reading my words, but that’s when I started seeing Spell Check underline a word or two…then it wanted me to add a comma here or delete another comma there or change a phrase or use a different word. I actually agreed with a few of those changes, but I was having a problem with the computer wanting me to add way more commas than we were told to do back in 9^th grade English. I didn’t remember old Mrs. York telling us not to use a comma before a “but” in a sentence,,, but the new Spell Check didn’t want the comma.

There were some words that had an obvious typo, but I was surprised I hadn’t caught them myself, but then again, when we read our own work, we know what we were going to say and we “read” it even if it’s not there. That’s why in my newer books I do have the computer read my work back to me so I can hear what I wrote. Many times, I would find a typo that I hadn’t seen when I read through the first draft of the book in actual printed form. When I wrote my first few books which included the three spy novels, I didn’t have the luxury of that audio editor to help me.

So, flash forward several decades and all those computer tools have made the editing somewhat better. I still have errors in my books, but hopefully fewer.

But wait! Sometimes the computer program might be a stickler for “correct English” when you want your words to have more of a regional accent or colorful flair. I continued letting the new Spell Check go over those old words and I started finding things it wanted me to change like in the phrase “everything was socked in” referring to the weather, but AI came up with “shocked in.” Then there was my word “noose,” and it wanted “nose.” Or “chicken coop” was changed to “chicken cop.” “Sliver” to “silver.” “Antiaircraft flak” to “flake.”

“Houston, we have a problem…”

There were dozens more of these stupid mistakes the AI “genius” was making. They weren’t just possible words you might want to use which more or less meant the same thing. These were totally incorrect.

Fortunately, the AI Spell Checker wasn’t making these changes without my Okay like it does on my cell phone or Kindle Tablet, so I didn’t let it have free reign. And as I was making the changes I thought were correct, I still had the WORD program read back my words because hearing them still allowed me to make sure that’s what I wanted to say. I re-edited those three spy books and reissued them this year. Hopefully most of the mistakes were corrected…even with all the blasted commas.

So, be aware of the little goblins hiding in your computer. They might have less education than you do. In fact, I never saw an AI sitting in one of my English classes in high school or college. But I certainly discovered that these AI creatures aren’t writers, because a computer program has no imagination. If you don’t believe me, sit in front of your computer without touching the keypad and tell it to write a novel. Without the human element, human imagination or human touch, or without Internet access to hundreds, if not thousands, of books already written by humans, that conglomeration of motherboard, CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD and HDD can create nothing. Try unplugging your computer with its AI capability and see what it can do by itself. I don’t need to be plugged in or have my batteries replaced in order to tell a story. And my stories are the ones I created, not by a machine that cobbles together bits and pieces of other work and then mashes it all together in an incoherent jumble.

A computer helps, but the human heart, brain and talent will always be better.

Write On!

Getting Word Out There

by Linda O. Johnston

Promotion. Writers need to do it, especially when they have a book coming out.

As I do. The fifth in my Shelter of Secrets series for Harlequin Romantic Suspense, CANINE REFUGE, will be an April release. It’ll be the last in that series, which I’ve enjoyed writing. And I want to make sure the world knows about it.

And so I’m mentioning it here. And on my weekly blog for Killer Hobbies. Plus, I’m speaking today at the Union Oil Company Alumni Association lunch, and guess what I’ll be mentioning along with a lot more. In addition, I subscribe to a promotional organization called Writerspace, which also maintains my website. I do more promotions there, including sending out a newsletter—which I haven’t done for a while.

So, what do other writers do? Most published writers understand the importance of getting the word out when they have a new book coming out, whether it’s from a traditional publisher, as mine are, or if they self-publish, which is becoming much more popular these days.

My first career was in advertising and public relations many years ago, but things have changed. A lot of promo then could be in publications like newspapers and magazines, but there was no internet then. Now, it’s much easier to get word out all over the country, all over the world, by finding sources online and utilizing them.

But is it okay to bombard prospective readers with info about new books? Well, why not? It’s good to let them know about them, whether it’s via social media or otherwise. The more they know, the more likely they are to buy and read a new book. And they certainly don’t have to buy it if it’s not their kind of thing—if they prefer mysteries or regular romance to romantic suspense, for example.

So all you other writers out there, how do you promote your new releases? Do you promote them? And readers, whether writers or not, how do you prefer to learn about new releases?

MAKING THINGS FIT….

By Rosemary Lord

Whether it’s time or words – it’s an ongoing challenge for me.

Not having the luxury of a 30-hour day, I’m always trying to squeeze things in, so that, apart from ‘work’, I can have some sort of personal life, family time and of course writing time. As I struggle to transfer my workload at the Woman’s Club of Hollywood to a new dedicated crew, it’s taking a lot longer than I anticipated – and about 6 new people to do the work I’ve been doing on my own for so long!

But – I will make it all fit.

I designated Sunday as MY day, when I will not deal with any Woman’s Club work and only speak with family, friends, potter, catch up on housework and fit in some writing time, too. My ‘work phone’ is switched off. This is the only way I’ve been able to catch up on my personal life, finding serenity, make things fit – and even make time to paint my nails – a pale blue this week! I cherish my Sundays.

I envy some of my friends who retired early and travel all the time. I just can’t fit that in now!

And then there’s making things fit in my writing. I have three major writing assignments at the moment. A non-fiction, 144-page coffee-table history book, an historical novel and a memoir. So far, I’ve not had the time – or the mental focus – to sit for hour after hour, day after day, as I used to, to complete one of them. I tend to fit in the odd hour or two and peck away at one of my projects. Although my mind is always working overtime thinking about them.

First, in fiction, especially in mysteries, I have to get the right name for my characters. I have to make the name fit.

I mean, you can’t really have an exotic, sultry siren called Mary or Jane, could you? Sophia or Camille, maybe. Or a tall, hunky, sun-bronzed hero called Arthur or Reginald, doesn’t really work, does it? The names have to fit the character, the story, the era, the background, in order to be believable.

Although one of my pet peeves as a reader is to have the characters all having a similar sounding name, especially in the same scene: Fin, Tim, Dick, Nick, Rick – or Jim, Jon, Jan, Jen, Janey, Jed and so on. I make a point of making sure the names differ in sound and length. You’re not going to get confused when characters names are specific for the storyline and sound different. Such as a Jim, Stephen, Montgomery, Drew and Samuel. Or Roberta, Annie, Pamela, Sue, Gwendoline and Florence. Different lengths and starting with different consonants. Easier for the reader (and me, the writer) to keep track of.

I always feel challenged with the word-counts we’re given. Tough to fit all I want to say within their limits. Should my work be a short-story, a novella, a novel – or a War and Peace tome? My storyline has to fit into the right category.

Then I (hopefully) unobtrusively, fit in the clues and red herrings. Remembering the villain needs to be seen, fleetingly, very early on in the story. Almost hidden, with no big flashing neon signs. So that at the end, when all is uncovered, I haven’t cheated my readers by suddenly announcing: “By the way, the Butler, whom you’ve never seen before, did it.” As a reader I like to think I know ‘Who Dunnit,’ but I’m not sure and I keep trying to work it out. Then the satisfaction at the end of saying “of course!” and retracing the steps to figure it all out for myself. So, I have to make sure that it all fits in.

And I have to fit in the adversity, the challenges, the processes my characters go through, without the reader aware of what I’m doing. Static stories are boring. My characters need to lose something – or fear losing it. They must process crisis – large & small – then recover and carry on obliviously enjoying life, until another surprise stops them in their tracks from an unexpected source. Unseen forces. Another deadly trap.

It was Raymond Chandler who said, “there’s no trap so deadly as the trap you set yourself.”

Whatever that means. But then it was Mark Twain who said: “write what you know.” So, between the two, I should have a story somewhere!

And somehow, I will fit in the time to make it all happen.

Writing anything is a challenge, but writing mysteries is a unique adventure, unraveling the human mind. It’s like designing a large jigsaw puzzle, making all the pieces fit.

So, I’ve become very proficient at making things – time and words – fit. How about you?

How Do Writers Choose the Titles for Their Books & Stories?

This week the Writers In Residence members answered a “group question.”

How do you choose the titles for your books or stories?

1. Rosemary Lord: For me, titles flow as part of whatever I am writing at the time. Sometimes, the title comes first, maybe snatched from a song title or a poem. But the titles have to fit the setting, period, and essence. The title has to match the “inside” and be intriguing or evocative because it is the first thing that catches the reader’s attention.

Once, I thought a writer friend’s book titles were heavy and pretentious, a bit “off-putting.” I felt bad for her as I thought her big publisher chose them. I was going to make a “diplomatic” suggestion. Then she said SHE had come up with all her titles! Oops!

2. Maggie King: There are so many ways to choose a title. It’s not my strong suit, so I often collaborate with others. For Murder at the Book Group, my agent helped. When I re-released MABG as Death Turns the Page, my songwriter husband helped. I don’t recall how the title for Laughing Can Kill You came about, but I think “I” thought of it. For Murder at the Moonshine Inn, I brainstormed with a friend and her son. The son suggested the title based on his many visits to redneck bars (much to his mom’s surprise).

I had an easier time coming up with the titles for my short stories on my own. Maybe being “short” made the titles more apparent.

3. Madeline Gornell: I’m not being flippant, but they seem to come to me out of the blue. Maybe from dreams? Or TV? I say, don’t worry about it, they just come.” Hmmm.

4. Miko Johnston: For me, a good title hints at the theme and tone of the piece before it’s read and summarizes it afterward. Some titles came easily, like calling my short story, featuring a nameless protagonist who creates “art” By Anonymous. Others took a while to find the right title – years in the case of my series A Petal in the Wind – a perfect metaphor for my character.

5. Linda O. Johnston: I generally consider titles for any new series and the book I’ll next be working on as I’m starting to plot them. I jot them down, often on the computer, and modify them as new ideas come to me. And, of course, I anticipate that my editors will most likely modify them again once I submit them, although I do get to approve any new ones.

6. G. B. Pool: This is a fun question. When I’m pondering a new book or short story, the title almost always comes right as I’m coming up with the plot. I couldn’t tell you which came first. This is when I’m actually writing the story, not just tossing around ideas.

I have had a title before I had a plot. I mention this fact in the book of short stories I’m working on right now, called Bits and Pieces. This book is the result of several folders I keep of story ideas I’ve written down, newspaper articles I have saved, or ones a friend like Jackie Houchin has sent me over many years. These “bits and pieces” of ideas just might prompt a story. These are all fragments of an idea, and most have no title listed.

I have changed the title of a story once or twice, but that comes about only if I totally redirect the plot into something entirely different and the title just doesn’t work anymore.

One title I came across in a folder that I haven’t used yet is: “Just Shoot the Archbishop and Pass the Brandy.” All I have is the title. No story. A story may never come of it, but I mention it in this upcoming short story collection just to show how writers work. But I do think the title has to fit the story, the two coming as Siamese twins seems to work.

7. Jackie Houchin: It’s never been published, but a “woman’s fiction” book I wrote had the title of Sister Secrets. It’s about three women who have the same mother but different fathers. They each have a long-standing “secret” that has returned to haunt them. As the story unfolds, each sister’s strengths and talents help unravel and resolve the secret that is keeping another sister captive.

In my children’s short stories set in Africa I tried to make the titles be “teasers” for stories that middle-grade kids would enjoy. Dead Mice, The Eyes in the Well, and Deek’s Wild Ride were a few.

All my titles come to mind in the process of writing the story. They just fit.

###

READERS: If you enjoy these “Group Questions” and have one YOU would like to ask us, please mention it in a comment below or forward it to me at Photojaq@aol.com

Remember, if you comment, first click above on the TITLE of this post. (How do writers….)

THE WEIGHT OF WORDS

by Miko Johnston

Words have become a frequent topic for my posts. I often say they’re a primary tool in the writer’s toolbox, and like all tools they need to be kept sharp as well as up-to-date.

When I read, I’ll occasionally come across a word I don’t know or might be unsure of its meaning, whether in English or another language. Whether plots or articles, writing that includes corporations or government agencies and bureaus often use acronyms, and thanks to texting, so does modern fiction. We all know FBI, CEO, LOL. If the mystery is set in the fictional Gotham City, we can figure out what GCPD stands for. When the unfamiliar term is foreign, an acronym or other modern slang I’ll search for it online. I don’t mind doing this, as I enjoy learning new words, terms and expressions to expand my vocabulary, even if I never use them.

I used to keep my dictionary and thesaurus handy when I write. Now, I prefer to look up words online when I’m not sure of the proper meaning, or if they’ve changed over time. I google “(language) to English” if I need a translation, or the reverse if I need the word or phrase in another language. If I’m uncertain if a word I want to use is best or if another would be clearer, I check the thesaurus. I often understand the meaning better from similar examples than dictionary descriptions. If the synonyms don’t relate to what I want to express I delete the word and find another. You could say the dictionary “tells” me the meaning while the thesaurus “shows” it.

My thesaurus also comes in handy when I need a substitute for an overused word, or if I can’t think of the right one to use. However, it’s old and doesn’t reflect modern speech. If I want the language to be au courant, I google the word, or the idea I want to express, and add synonym. The results help me decide whether to stick with my original word, choose a better one from the list, or pick a different word that more closely expresses what I want to say.

I also search for the etymology of words, phrases and expressions. As a writer of historical fiction, I must know when they came into usage to avoid anachronisms. The reverse is true as well. A word or phrase that brings authenticity to a period in history would sound ridiculous spoken out of time – who says 23 skidoo, groovy, or gag me with a spoon anymore? Then, I consider who will use the word. For example, I wouldn’t have a fusty old person use hipster (for the time) jargon, or vice versa.

Sometimes I must use an obscure word. When it’s foreign or an historical reference, I often describe it in the sentence following its usage. Sometimes the meaning can be gleaned by context, such as when my characters lit a yahrzeit candle to commemorate a loved one’s death. However, some terms can’t be explained without a dictionary-like entry – for example, plastron, which I used in my first novel, set in 1899. I expect most readers had to look that word up to find it meant “an ornamental front of a woman’s bodice or shirt consisting of colorful material with lace or embroidery, fashionable in the late 19^th century”. Hardly something that could evolve naturally in dialogue. Certain genres, such as historical fiction and hard sci-fi, as well as unique careers and hobbies of the characters, give the writer some leeway for the occasional obscure term. So does a post on a writer’s blog.

Even so, I sometimes question the use of vocabulary that may be unfamiliar to the average reader, like etymology or anachronisms. I don’t want to oversimplify the subject, nor do I want to write over the reader’s head. I wonder – should I find another way to express myself? Is there a better way that won’t send readers rushing for their dictionary? Or is that necessarily a bad thing?

Some believe using more complex terminology – what we used to call “hundred dollar words” – makes them sound smart, while others find it pompous and pretentious. A wise person can explain complex ideas in complex terms, but a wiser person can do the same using plain language. I wouldn’t consider that “dumbing down.” I’d call it making the information more accessible to more people. Even so, the best word may be foreign to some, including me. As a reader, I will look up a word I don’t know or am unsure of its meaning in the context of what’s on the page. If I have to do that once or twice, I will, but too many unfamiliar words put me off.

Some writers must use foreign words, terminology, slang, or acronyms related to the time period, profession, or avocations of their characters. How do you handle challenging vocabulary as a writer and as a reader?

Miko Johnston, a founding member of The Writers in Residence, is the author of the historical fiction series “A Petal in the Wind” as well as a contributor to several anthologies, including the about-t0-be-released “Whidbey Island: An Insider’s Guide”. Miko lives in Washington (the big one) with her rocket scientist husband. Contact her at mikojohnstonauthor@gmail.com

Deadlines, Deadlines, Dead Lines

by Jill Amadio

Whether you self-impose a deadline or your publisher sets one for you, a looming deadline (pardon the cliché) for writers can send terror racing through our veins, to say nothing of a scramble for inspiration for that perfect ending to our story.

Time as a concept rules our lives but little comes as close to engendering fright as an editor’s reminder, if any, that you have three days to send in your manuscript.

Idioms that refer to time are many but the word ‘deadline’ has few competitors for sheer panic, leading to writer’s block. Mine was so pronounced a couple of years ago that instead of diligently finishing editing my mystery prior to submission, I took off for a lecture on The Hidden Infrastructure of Waterways.

The deadline effect can strike as early as signing a publisher’s contract to write a book, with the due date blithely ignored in order not to spoil the moment.

If we separate the word into ‘dead’ and ‘line’ we can carry on without another thought. ‘Dead’ is, of course, a wonderful word for crime writers. It finds its way into titles, sub-titles, true crime, novels, and non-fiction. It is often overworked, but there are some great substitutes that have a satisfying, final ring to them. Even time itself cannot escape its fatal meaning when we talk of ‘killing time.’ As for ‘line,’ it can refer to the last line of your book or, my favorite, The End.

I remember talking to Michael Connolly at the Los Angeles Festival of Books one year when we were suddenly interrupted. I assumed he was urged away by one of his publisher’s staff for more book signings with the threat of ‘we have a deadline before the store closes..’

Escaping one’s deadline can become quite a game. We can close the document and play online Solitaire; dig into more research; meet a friend for coffee; walk the dog, or read someone else’s book and envy the author who made their deadline and is subsequently well-published and a much-in-demand panelist at writers conferences.

It is easy for creative people to bristle at a deadline but without one, would we ever finish a book? Many deadlines hang over our heads such as filing taxes by April 15, but it doesn’t seem to make us feel pressured as we fall into line without protest or ask for a delay.

Self-published writers, of course, have the luxury of ignoring any deadline they may initially give themselves, but adhering to a disciplined writing life points to a professional approach to one’s career.

Often, we use the word ‘deadline’ as an excuse to avoid doing something, seeing someone, or simply to justify lazing around claiming we are mentally sorting out a plot, a character trait, or a setting.

Throwing out the word has its own resonance. We sound important. It surrounds writers with an aura of being special when uttering it, often with a fake facial expression begging sympathy.

I wonder if a deadline has the same time limit if it were to fit into a short or a long day, month, or year. Does the deadline contract or expand with these descriptions depending on our individual sense of time? When push comes to shove, do we tend to interpret a deadline one way while its dreaded imposer means it in an entirely different context?

As a reporter, I was always under deadline, which I credit for bringing me to heel and making it easy to comply with my traditional publishers’ edict. But once released from their tyranny, plunging into self-publishing, and receiving monthly royalties I discovered how simple it was to let the world go by with no deadlines to obey.

Roget’s Thesaurus has zillions of ways to describe a deadline, not the least of which include crunch time, point of no return, and my favorite, kairotic. What? Oh, that means time-sensitive.

I once read that a character ‘insisted on killing time before his deadline.’ Is that an oxymoron?

Finally, there is an upside to a deadline: it can get writers into the chair and tapping the keyboard. Perhaps my colleagues on this blog have a secret way to beat a deadline. Care to share?

Mystery Books to TV Series

by Jackie Houchin

After reading Maggie King’s intriguing post last week about writers and an old movie, I realized that many of the mysteries we watch on cable (Acorn and others) are based on books by mystery writers.

We have watched many of The Murdoch Mysteries, set in late 1800s Toronto. The original writer of the books is British Canadian author Maureen Jennings. Her most recent book (2019) is HEAT WAVE, which introduces Murdoch’s son as a police detective in 1936. It has not been made into a TV show (as yet.) She is 86.

We enjoy most of the episodes, and although they have evolved into semi-comedic, some are absolutely silly. We stopped watching them for a while!

How much can an author control content once the series is bought? (Probably none.)

We have also enjoyed many, many episodes of The Midsomer Murders. Caroline Graham is the British author of the Inspector Barnaby mysteries. Her first five Barnaby books formed the basis of the Midsomer episodes.

The plots are complex and sometimes dark but have a touch of comedy, primarily as Barnaby interacts with his wife, dog, and sergeant. As of Oct. 2024, Graham was still alive at age 93.

Can an author still write books after her books are bought for television? Would they automatically be a part of the filmed series? Hmm.

P.D. James is the author of the darker Adam Dalgleish mystery series, which has 14 books and a few TV episodes we have just begun watching. She (Phyllis Dorothy James) was an English Baroness. She wrote 14 books about the Poet/Detective and was planning a 15^th when she died at age 94.

If you have watched them, have you ever noticed how they frame his face with a peculiar expression for the last few seconds of the episode? I like it.

Of course, Dorothy L. Sayers wrote the clever and popular Lord Peter Whimsey novels adapted into a TV series. Along with mystery, there was the added pleasure of a romance. (Such a handsome and wealthy sleuth!) Sayers lived 64 years.

My absolute favorite Lord Peter Whimsy book was THE NINE TAILORS. I wonder if it was ever made into a TV episode or film?

Very recently on PBS, we watched the 4-season adaptation of Frank Tallis’ book, Death in Vienna, the diary of Dr. Max Liebermann (based on Sigmund Freud), a fictional Viennese crime solver, with his pal Detective Oskar Rheinhardt, in the series Vienna Blood.

They were well-written, had strong plots and vivid characters, and were very cinematic. The setting (Vienna and Istanbul) was gorgeous.

They say there will not be another season because the story in Tallis’s book is finished. Hey, that didn’t stop Midsummer Murders….

Two more present-day shows follow.

Dark Winds is a new series on Acorn (4 episodes so far) based on Tony Hillerman’s Leaphorn and Chee novels.

It is on my list to begin watching. I’ve read many of Hillerman’s mysteries, so I hope these are good.

And lastly, we have also tried the new series on Acorn, Case Histories, based on Kate Atkinson’s Jackson Brodie private investigator books, also set in England.

The first one was pretty good. Brodie investigated and unraveled several cases, either distinct or entwined with each other. There was a sex scene, however, which I didn’t enjoy watching.

We will try another and decide.

Of course, we have watched many old and newer adaptations of Agatha Christie’s and Arthur Conan Doyle’s Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, and Sherlock Holmes novels.

And I know YOU can name many more shows that you watch.

My first question is, which do you enjoy more, books or screen adaptations? And what is the “why?” for your choice?

I enjoy the books, but I must admit that my decreasing vision makes reading fine print daunting these days. I get more involved in watching the actors (especially the settings) in the series’ episodes.

My second question for authors is, other than the monetary reward, why would you like (or dislike) to have your books made into a TV series?

Double Indemnity: A Crime Writers Film

By Maggie King

“How could I have known that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?”

One of many memorable lines from Double Indemnity (1944), a film I never tire of watching—even after the fifth or sixth time! It’s a film I urge all crime writers to study—whether you’re writing cozies or hard-boiled detective stories. The superb dialogue, with its emphasis on double entendres and provocative banter, not only entertains but moves the plot along. The use of light and shadow create a virtual underworld that emphasizes the unsavoriness of the characters and plot. It is film perfection.

Double Indemnity is the ultimate film noir—it’s dark, steamy, loaded with atmosphere, and the characters are sleazy as all get out. In this story, originally penned by James M. Cain and adapted for the silver screen by Billy Wilder and Raymond Chandler, discontented housewife Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck) bewitches insurance salesman Walter Neff (Fred McMurray) into killing her husband. Together, she promises, they will collect on a double indemnity insurance clause.

Phyllis is film noir’s classic femme fatale, luring a man whose brain goes on hiatus the moment he sees her. Walter seems like a good guy, but he’s no match for the lovely and smoldering Phyllis. She doesn’t even seem good—she’s evil to the core. Since he’s only marginally good, ensnaring him in her web is child’s play. Indeed, Double Indemnity’s best lesson for writers may be its showing how easily someone can be led astray by promises of a lifetime of riches and passion.

Writers are frequently advised to show, not tell. Double Indemnity follows this advice to good effect in its depictions of the life styles of Phyllis and Walter. Phyllis lives in an elegant Spanish house in the hills overlooking the Loz Feliz section of Los Angeles. Walter spends his days selling insurance, operating out of a ubiquitous office building in downtown LA, where the worker bees toil in a pre-cubicle bullpen desk arrangement (I worked in a few bullpen set-ups myself). Evening comes and Walter returns to his cramped apartment not far from his office. The contrast of life styles is stark, but never verbalized, only shown.

When it comes to sex scenes, the censorship of the day forced writers to show without telling, allowing them to achieve higher levels of creativity. Sex was left to the imagination, using suggestive dialogue and longing looks. A scene in Walter’s apartment hints that Walter and Phyllis had just been intimate. You don’t know for sure … but you’re pretty sure.

Elements of Alfred Hitchcock are evident in Double Indemnity. You don’t see the murder but you know it’s happening just out of camera range. Phyllis’s satisfied look and the gleam in her eye are what tell you that her husband is now thoroughly dead.

So … no sex, no violence, no profanity. Sounds like a modern day cozy. Not a chance! Double Indemnity is far from a cozy, and a current version of it would include all three no-nos. Body Heat (1981) is an example.

And there’s the creative way the senses are incorporated into the narration: “How could I have known that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?” and “I couldn’t hear my own footsteps. It was the walk of a dead man.” There are many such quotes in Double Indemnity.

Here’s a quote that sums up the film in a nutshell: “I killed him for money and for a woman. I didn’t get the money. And I didn’t get the woman.”

You can almost feel sorry for Walter—after all, if you go to all the trouble of murdering your lover’s husband, shouldn’t you reap some of the benefits? Perhaps the film’s best lesson for writers is showing how easily someone can be led astray by promises of a lifetime of riches and passion. It makes you wonder how many of us are just a whisper away from evil.

After the murder, things go downhill. For one thing, Walter’s boss, Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson), is highly suspicious of Phyllis’s double indemnity claim and investigates it like a dog with ten bones. And Walter and Phyllis grow to distrust each other (no surprise there). By the time Walter realizes that murdering Mr. Dietrichson wasn’t such a good idea, it’s too late. But is he sorry that he killed the man? Or does he only regret that he’s left with nothing to show for his efforts beyond a bullet in his shoulder?

Often when I re-watch a movie, or re-read a book, I start finding flaws and turn critical. Not so with Double Indemnity. But I will notice something new with each viewing. Like how Barton Keyes never has a match, and Walter Neff has to light his cigar. But in the last scene, it’s Mr. Keyes who lights a cigarette for Mr. Neff (there’s that bullet in his shoulder). An unexpected touching moment.

James M. Cain took his inspiration for Double Indemnity from a real life case. In 1927 a New York woman named Ruth Snyder persuaded her lover, a corset salesman named Judd Gray, to kill her husband. She had recently convinced her spouse to take out a $48,000 insurance policy with a double indemnity clause. For more information on the case, read this Wikipedia article.

The AI Concept Isn’t New…And It Isn’t Necessarily Good

I’m a writer. I usually write fiction. I also read a lot of books. There are some classics that I read as a youth and have reread recently just to see if I got a different reaction in this new century. The same goes for old movies. Some were old when I first watched them, so now, fifty years later, they are most interesting to watch again just to see how they hold up. Most do quite well. What I found astonishing was the fact that some of the old books as well as a few of the classic movies could have been written today because their underlying themes were basically stories torn right out of today’s headlines.

What I find troubling is the fact that an awful lot of what’s reported on the nightly news sounds like some of these old movies and books. But what if the non-fiction news is really fiction written… by a machine?

Having a machine, as it were, spit out information or data or even a fairy tale using bits and pieces of things already out there in the “ethosphere” has been a concept used for centuries. Verbal stories were passed around by cave dwellers before people had a written language. You can bet one caveman’s story was retold from caveman to caveman in between the hunting and gathering they did back then.

Fast forward to the late Sixteenth-Early Seventeenth Centuries when Bill Shakespeare wrote his plays. There are those who say he took his ideas from other people. His name’s on the Playbill, so he did more with the idea than anybody else around at the time, so he gets credit for those memorable plays.

A century later, books were filling the shelves of private libraries and people who could read, read them. As more and more people learned to read, more books came out. The printing press helped enormously since those scribes in monasteries who were giving us copies of the Holy Bible could only do so much. God Bless them. But a basic education gives people even in the lower economic brackets a chance to learn things. Books worked.

Jump to the Twentieth Century and we get that invention that rocked the world, at least a world with electricity and an antenna to pick up television signals from a local broadcaster. People turned away from books and started watching stories come to life in their own living rooms on a twelve-inch screen.

Now you ask, where does this AI stuff come in today? You ever watch Murder She Wrote or Columbo or any of the many Hallmark Channel cutesy mystery/romance stuff? The plots vary only in which actor plays any particular role. Murder She Wrote always had an older, yet famous, actor or actress play the villain, or the person accused of the killing, and Jessica Fletcher would always solve the case after remembering one little clue we all saw about eight minutes into the show and which she remembers when she reveals the bad guy in the final few minutes of the program.

In Columbo, he was onto the villain, also a once popular TV or movie actor who was now doing guest bits on TV, from the beginning of the show. Most of the time it didn’t ring plausible, but people liked the show, so the plot remained basically the same for ten seasons.

The Hallmark movies are very formulaic, whether it’s the scene where the two who end up in love by the end of the movie throw snowballs at each other or the scene where the girl totally misunderstands the handsome guy’s motives and tells him to get lost only to learn the truth and they kiss in the last scene. They’re all the same. That doesn’t mean people don’t watch them. I do, but I also watch to see how many of those routines they use in each episode. If I did it as a “drinking game,” I’d be drunk about eighteen minutes into the show.

A lot of this redundancy is done by design. Back in the early-Eighties I got myself an agent, Ivan Green, and he tried to sell a few of my scripts to Aaron Spelling and Leonard Goldberg who were producing TV shows like The Love Boat, The Mod Squad, and Charlie’s Angels. My agent submitted a few of my scripts to Fantasy Island that the pair also produced. One of my scripts about an angel who goes to the island was liked by Goldberg, but just as he was ready to accept it, Spelling decided he was only going to use the small group of writers who had been writing for the series for a while. Spelling didn’t want anything new. The series went a few more years, then ended in 1984.

Lots of television series must use the same team of writers because their episodes are so much alike. And different television shows are quite similar to others on TV, just like some books published by major publishing companies are like many other books also on their shelves. It’s been said for decades in television, motion pictures and books, if people like it, keep writing the same thing until the public gets sick of it. Publishers and producers seldom take anything, book or script, that’s different because they don’t want to rock the boat until something sneaks in under the tent and all of a sudden there is a new game in town and everybody uses that new theme for a decade or two. Vampires and the living dead have both had a long run. The “end of the world theme” keeps popping up. I’ve seen enough buildings blown up and car chases that should have killed half a city’s population along with the obligatory diabolical corporation owner or evil space alien who wants to conquer the world to last me two lifetimes. Today, it’s a lot of teen fantasy stories or some things that used to be considered X-rated back in my youth that’s perfectly Okay to show on major networks.

But isn’t that what AI does? It uses ideas already out there. It cuts and pastes stuff that’s sort of acceptable just enough to seem like a slightly different animal and then pushes it as something new that everybody should enjoy. That’s why I haven’t been to a movie in about thirty years, and I hardly watch anything new on TV.

Okay, let the AI machines watch and read the stuff they write. I’d prefer something different written by a human who really understands life as a living, breathing being does. Some newer books and TV series from smaller studios have themes that aren’t all that bad. I think a human wrote them, but I wouldn’t put money on it. I would really like to know there was actually a person with a mind and a soul who penned those stories.

If AI can aid science, great, as long as there is a human somewhere in the picture who can check the results and make sure we aren’t going down one of those paths we see in the apocalyptic movies where the world ends because a machine pushes the wrong button.

So, humans, why don’t you write the books and the movies. Now I just have to find a way to prove a human really did write the stuff I’m reading and watching… And by the way…no machine, other than my fingers typing on my computer, wrote this blog. Honest.