|
BIO
Jeffery Deaver is the author of numerous suspense novels, including the New York Times bestsellers THE VANISHED MAN, THE STONE MONKEY, THE BLUE NOWHERE, THE EMPTY CHAIR, THE DEVIL'S TEARDROP, and THE COFFIN DANCER, as well as THE BONE COLLECTOR and SPEAKING IN TONGUES. His latest novel, GARDEN OF BEASTS, is forthcoming in hardcover from Simon & Schuster. As William Jefferies, he is the author of SHALLOW GRAVES, BLOODY RIVER BLUES, and HELL'S KITCHEN. He is a five-time Edgar Award nominee, an Anthony Award nominee, and a three-time recipient of the Ellery Queen Reader's Award for Best Short Story of the Year. Deaver was born in Chicago, attended the University of Missouri, and received a law degree from Fordham University in New York. Readers can visit his website at www.jefferydeaver.com.
Back to top.
AUTHOR TALK
 July 2004
In this interview bestselling suspense/thriller author Jeffery Deaver discusses his motivation for writing GARDEN OF BEASTS, his first historical novel, and explains the incredible amount of research necessary to accurately portray 1936 Berlin. He also provides brief descriptions of the novel's main characters, talks about the connection between this book and his Lincoln Rhyme series, and shares with readers his future writing plans.
Q: Jeff, this is your first historical novel. What triggered the idea to place a story in 1936 Berlin?
JD: The inspiration for the book was September 11th. I wanted to write a book with a different villain --- basically, pure evil, institutionalized evil, rather than your typical hit man or serial killer. But since I don't find fundamentalist terrorism particularly compelling for a thriller, I searched for some large-scale evil that would give me the chance to write about something a bit different and yet keep a certain familiarity about the book. The Nazis came to mind immediately. I liked the Olympics as an image because of the stark irony: There was Hitler putting on a show for world harmony while at the same time preparing for war and murdering thousands of opponents in the early concentration camps.
Q: I imagine that writing this book took an amazing amount of research because you touch on so many historical facts. Where did you begin?
JD: Yes, indeed. Usually it takes me one year to research and write a book. GARDEN OF BEASTS took me two, and the extra year was devoted almost entirely to research. I read perhaps ten thousand pages of material from books, the Internet, declassified government documents, correspondence, maps. Even though we know how certain aspects of the story played out (World War II did occur, for instance), I was careful not to read anything past the fall of 1936, since I didn't want to have my characters anticipate what might happen.
Q: The story is based in history yet it is a very suspenseful thriller. How did you balance the facts with your fiction?
JD: My number one responsibility is to give my readers a sweaty-palm thriller, not a history book. I tried very hard to incorporate only those facts into the book that would move the story along. For instance, there are very accurate scenes involving Hitler, Goering and Goebbels (their dialog is modeled after actual transcripts of theirs), but those scenes aren't gratuitous. They introduce a subplot that pays off at the end of the book in a big way.
Q: Can you describe the main characters: Paul Schumann, Willi Kohl, and Reinhard Ernst?
JD: Paul is a hit man for the New York mob (he works for Luciano and other assorted mobsters). But he's a hit man with a conscience. He's like a soldier (he was a decorated infantryman in WWI); he only kills other killers. Willi Kohl is a senior investigator in the Kripo, the Berlin criminal police. He's smart, hardworking, loves his family (and his bratwurst and desserts!), and dislikes the Nazis, but is forced to work among them. He is the most efficient and relentless of all the foxes on the trail of Paul Schumann. Reinhard Ernst --- Hitler's rearmament tzar --- is the most complex character in the book. He is a former WWI hero and has a deep love of the German people and nation. He sees Hitler as a temporary evil and thinks he can work toward a better country after he's removed; still, he must do his duty, which means making the country ready for war.
Q: Do you have a favorite character in this book?
JD: My favorite is probably Otto Webber. He's a small-time crime boss and operator in Berlin. He's funny, lives life to the fullest and forms an improbable friendship with Paul.
Q: Do you plan on writing any other historical novels?
JD: I may. But it would have to be a story that would let me tell my typical novel --- many twists and turns, surprise endings, and a very short time frame, one or two days (which probably eliminates the Hundred-Years War!).
Q: You have mentioned that there is a connection in GARDEN OF BEASTS to the Lincoln Rhyme series. Do you want to share anything more about this?
JD: Already in Italy my Simon & Schuster is planning a contest about it. Those who can spot the Lincoln Rhyme series connection get their names put into a hat and can win a trip to a film festival. I can't really say too much . . . But the reference is in the last half of the book.
Q: What is coming next after GARDEN OF BEASTS?
JD: I'm presently writing three short stories and am nearing completion of GALLOWS HEIGHTS, which will be the next Lincoln Rhyme/Amelia Sachs novel, to be published in 2005. In this book, to save the life of a young girl, Lincoln and Amelia have to solve a crime that's 140 years old.
© Copyright 2004, Jeffery Deaver. All rights reserved. May not be reprinted without permission.
• Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.
Back to top.
PAST INTERVIEW
April 11, 2003
In this special interview two thriller authors, Jeffery Deaver (author of THE VANISHED MAN) and John Gilstrap (author of SCOTT FREE) discuss their different approaches to writing, their definitions of the mystery and suspense/thriller genres, competition with other authors, and more.
BRC: You approach the suspense/thriller genre differently, with Jeffery writing more plot-driven titles while John's work is character-driven. How did you each discover the form you were most comfortable with? And once an author writes in one style, is it tough to change to another?
Jeffery Deaver: In my case it was trial and error. My earlier books were more character driven --- that is, while they still had plot twists and surprises I would digress more to explore the characters' lives. When I decided to try writing less of that and adding more intricate plots and additional twists (because that's the kind of book I enjoy reading), readers seemed to enjoyed the books more. So I've made that my niche. Regarding changing styles, I think there is a mode or tone a writer falls into naturally and it's very hard to change. However, it's possible to write about different subjects or with a different slant than you've been doing. The question you have to ask, though, is this: Why change? And the only reason to change is if you're convinced in your heart that you will produce a better product for the reader.
John Gilstrap: For me, there's a strong analogy between method acting and storytelling. When I write in a particular character's point of view, I try to become that character, seeing the action through his or her eyes. I try to create a bond between my characters and my readers that is strong enough for readers to feel as if they've come to know the characters on a very personal level. That way, when the characters endure the hardships that define my books, there's a very real emotional rush.
Now, how did I discover this form? I don't think I ever did, at least not in the sense of poking around with many different styles and suddenly finding one that worked. I think this is my natural voice. I can see kernels of this style even in the stories I wrote in elementary school (Yes, I still have all the stories I wrote in elementary school; and yes, my wife is tired of having us cart the boxes wherever we move).
As for changing styles, I'm not sure that it would be possible and still have a bond with the readers.
BRC: Many readers ask us the difference between suspense/thriller and the mystery genres. Over the past few years the gap has been widening. How do you each see the differences?
John Gilstrap: Is the gap widening, or are we just seeing the birth of a thousand sub-categories? I think we've entered an age of specialization. Even within the "mystery" genre, you've got the "cozy," the "hard boiled," the "P.I.," the "noir," and heaven knows what else. When I tell people I write thrillers, I'm often asked, "So, you write stories like Tom Clancy?" (Answer: "Um, no.") I don't write techno-thrillers, medical-thrillers, legal thrillers or spy thrillers. Actually, now that you mention it, I'm not entirely sure what I do write. People-on-the-run thrillers, I guess, although even that is not true in every case. Thinking about it makes me a little dizzy.
There's much about this genrefication that I find confusing --- and, frankly, a little self-defeating for writers. Aren't most "mysteries" driven by a healthy dollop of suspense? Don't most thrillers have an underlying mystery that the protagonist is attempting to solve?
To my mind, I guess the primary differentiation between the mystery and the thriller is, in a mystery, we're mostly trying to discover who did what to whom, whereas in a thriller we're mostly trying to figure out how the good guy or the bad guy can achieve his elusive or dastardly goal.
Jeffery Deaver: A suspense/thriller novel asks the question, "What's going to happen?" A traditional mystery novel asks, "What happened?" In other words, the mystery is a puzzle that the hero (and reader) seek to unravel. A thriller is a carnival ride with the hero (and reader) in the front car.
BRC: When you read suspense/thrillers written by others, do you find yourself "taking them apart" to study how the author set up the story?
Jeffery Deaver: Though, as I note below, I don't read as much as I would like to nowadays, when I do read a thriller I can't help deconstructing it.
John Gilstrap: Absolutely, especially when I'm taken completely by surprise. I love to go backwards through a book that blind-sided me to see if the author cheated, and if not, to see how he so effectively set me up. Writing is, after all, a craft; and as with any craft, there's no better way to learn than by studying the masters.
BRC: What do you read for recreation while you are in the middle of a book? Do you find that reading certain books --- such as other suspense/thriller novels --- interferes with your current work-in-progress?
John Gilstrap: When I'm really in the moment, in the throes of writing a new book, most of my recreational reading looks a lot like research, either for the book in progress or as a means of exploring an idea for a future work. Some fiction works its way in, of course, and when it does, it's usually a thriller, and more often than not the author will be someone I know. They say you should write the type of books you like to read, so I guess I'm true to the maxim.
Jeffery Deaver: I'm afraid I do little recreational reading at this stage of my career. I write one novel a year (this year I'm doing a novel and a novella) and several short stories as well. This makes writing for me a full-time job and I don't have nearly the time to devote to reading that I'd like. (For next year's book, CITY OF WHISPERS, I've had to read and digest 57 nonfiction books.) Then too, I am influenced by other writers' styles and I don't want that to interfere with my prose.
BRC: When writing --- have you ever run a storyline or a plot by each other for suggestions or input? Have you done this with any other authors, or do you prefer to work on your own?
Jeffery Deaver: Occasionally we'll mention to each other what we're working on currently for each other's general thoughts, (and John is always right on!). But aside from that and the editors I hire, I don't look for specific suggestions from anyone. I tend not to play well with others.
John Gilstrap: I do this all the time with Jeff, who I consider to be one of the masters in this business of telling stories. I don't seek input or suggestions on plot points as much as I seek advice on which of several story ideas he thinks would be the most viable.
BRC: In many businesses, people compete. Do authors compete with one another the same way, or do you think by nature of the fact that you know how tough it is to do this work you instead look at each other's success differently?
John Gilstrap: I'd be dishonest if I said I didn't feel competitive at times, but it's always tempered by good wishes. This is a brutal business, and I've had more than my share of lucky breaks, so I really have no right to complain about anything. I remember the day that Simon & Schuster's Weekly announced a very lucrative deal for Jeff Deaver. I was meeting him that night at a local watering hole so when I joined him, I tossed the article on the table and said, "Okay, I'm officially jealous." (That's guy-talk for: "Congratulations.") He thanked me and said, "Not a bad deal for my sixteenth book, huh?" Sixteen. As in, he'd done fifteen before that. I'd done three, I believe, at the time. His point was well taken.
Perhaps this is too obvious even to state, but at the end of the day, the secret of success for a writer is to write, and the secret to success as a human being is to cheer everyone's good fortune.
Jeffery Deaver: We're very lucky to be in this business because the state of the economy isn't so bad (so far, knock on wood) that readers can't afford several books a year. Unless you're completely strapped, you can probably buy both the new Deaver and the new Gilstrap this year, unlike buying cars or DVD players. So I don't see much competition. Of course, you always are looking at other authors and thinking, I wish I had that much advertising behind my book or why can't I have such great placement of bins in the grocery store book departments. But that's not author vs. author competition; that's author vs. Simon & Schuster issues.
BRC: John, you have done some screenwriting where Jeffery has not taken a keen interest in this aspect of the business. What do you like about screenwriting that keeps you at it even as you are working on your novels?
John Gilstrap: There's a lot to like about screenwriting, but much of what is likable ultimately plays out as what's also most annoying. In my previous professional life, I spent fifteen years in corporate America. Unlike many writers, I really enjoyed the frantic pace and the personal interaction, and I was really very good at it. Because screenwriting is such a collaborative endeavor, I think it taps into that part of my personality. Plus, since I've only done adaptations, screenwriting has been much faster --- eight weeks for a screenplay, as opposed to a year-plus for a novel.
When I took my first screenwriting gig, I worried that it would somehow sap creative energy that would otherwise go into my novels. Instead, I found the opposite to be true. I've come to think of creativity as something liquid, which flows freely; just because I divert it in several directions doesn't mean that there's less of it.
There's no doubt, though, that novels will always be my first love, if only because it's the one medium in which I have absolute control over every aspect of the story.
BRC: When you read books or watch other media (TV and movies), do you ever stop and think how differently you might have set up a story or moved it along? Or do you just enjoy it?
Jeffery Deaver: I try to go with the flow and enjoy the experience. Only when the writer or director drops the ball and we see a glaring mistake that would have made for a better story do I mentally rewrite.
John Gilstrap: Every single time. I've come to think of it as the curse of what I do. I'm pretty forgiving, actually, of some esoteric details like incorrect police procedures, but when characters do something that is more for the benefit of the writer than for the benefit of themselves, then I'm ejected right out of the story, often never to return. (Hey, if you go for a walk alone in the woods when you know there's a killer on the loose, then you just flat-out deserve to die.)
BRC: There are a lot of writing conventions and organizations out there. Do you recommend aspiring writers attend such conventions and join the organizations whenever possible? Why or why not?
John Gilstrap: I attended exactly one creative writing class (in college). It lasted two semesters, and it took 10 years to repair the damage it caused. I was at an age when I believed that the majority of the class must have understood storytelling better than I did, and they were unanimous in their assessment that my writing was flat and derivative. I realize now that while I was trying to tell stories, they were trying to paint word pictures merely for the value of the images themselves. That I couldn't understand what they wrote mattered less than the fact that the words were colorful. Our approaches to writing could not have been more divergent. (Ask me if I take some small measure of delight in the fact that I am the only member of the class ever to be published.) That experience convinced me that when it comes to writing, William Goldman says it all in his famous quote about Hollywood, "No one knows anything."
When a writer joins a writing group, that act alone telegraphs a willingness to subvert one's literary voice to the whims of people who may or may not have a clue about what the writer is trying to accomplish. Add to this the likelihood of jealousy and competing agendas, and I think there's a lurking recipe for trouble.
So, for ASPIRING writers (note: the algebra changes a lot once an author is published), I suggest a great deal of caution in joining any group. If you know exactly what you're looking for, and have enough confidence in your own abilities as a writer and in the validity of what you're trying to say, then go for it.
Jeffery Deaver: I'm a member of the Mystery Writers of America and get to a convention or two a year, though I was more active in my earlier days as a writer. It's important for aspiring writers to network and to gather as much information as possible and conventions are a good way to do that. And of course, nothing beats standing around in the bars at convention hotels and gossiping bout the biz!
Back to top.
PAST INTERVIEW
p>March 14, 2003
In this interview with Bookreporter.com's Suspense/Thriller Author Spotlight team (Carol Fitzgerald, Joe Hartlaub, and Wiley Saichek), New York Times bestselling author Jeffery Deaver discusses his writing and research methods (we were intrigued by the outline and development process that takes place before he writes a word of the story), his characters, and his upcoming projects.
BRC: THE VANISHED MAN was noteworthy for a number of reasons, one of them being that Lincoln Rhyme didn't seem to figure as prominently in the story as he has in past novels. Do you have any plans to change Lincoln's situation, or further develop his character, in future novels?
Jeffery Deaver: It's important in a series both to give the readers what they expect and want and yet provide variations to keep the story fresh. While Lincoln Rhyme is, of course, the driving force behind the investigation in THE VANISHED MAN, the Amelia Sachs subplot --- and her relationship with Kara, the young magician --- took more prominence than in the past.
BRC: What was the most interesting thing you learned about magic/illusion/magicians while conducting research for THE VANISHED MAN?
Jeffery Deaver: That it's an extremely difficult art to practice! I tried a few trick myself and found that I'm a complete klutz. One thing that I did find helpful, though, was that much of what I do in my books is identical to what illusionists do: misdirection, that is, leading the audience's attention one way while doing something else out of their range of perception that will ultimately give them a huge shock.
BRC: You introduced Lincoln Rhyme and Amelia Sachs in THE BONE COLLECTOR. Did you originally plan to craft a series of novels around him, or did you sense, upon completing THE BONE COLLECTOR, that there were more tales in him?
Jeffery Deaver: No, Lincoln was going to be a one-off novel. But because of the great response around the world to Lincoln and Amelia, I decided it would be good for my fans to keep him around.
BRC: THE EMPTY CHAIR was set in North Carolina, and because of this Lincoln Rhyme often remarked to himself that he felt like a "fish out of water." What made you decide to set this particular novel in North Carolina instead of New York City or upstate New York? Do you have plans for Lincoln and Amelia to do more traveling in future books?
Jeffery Deaver: I picked North Carolina because I wanted a state that was both sophisticated and had a rich culture and yet had a backwoods aspect to it, so that Lincoln would indeed be a fish out of water. Lincoln and Amelia will stick pretty close to New York but may venture out again.
BRC: THE STONE MONKEY dealt heavily with Chinese culture and history. What sparked your interest in China?
Jeffery Deaver: I never have a particular interest in a subject before I conceive of the idea for a book. I look for subjects that I think will interest readers and be appropriate for a thriller. I was aware of illegal immigration and the ruthlessness of the "snakeheads" (human smugglers) from the news. I thought that would give me the chance to write a compelling story set in New York and featuring Lincoln Rhyme.
BRC: You've written about a wide range of topics --- from forensics in the Lincoln Rhyme books to computer hacking in THE BLUE NOWHERE. How much of your time is spent on research for your books? How long does it take you to actually write the book?
Jeffery Deaver: I spend eight months outlining and researching a book before I write a single word of the prose. The outline is usually 150-250 pages long and includes every plot twist, every character, each clue, every subplot resolution and a comprehensive choreography of the ending. Researching and outlining are a full-time job for that eight-month period and, despite the fact I research extensively, I make certain that I only incorporate information in the book that furthers the story; it's a sin for authors to digress from the tale to show off or instruct readers. Once the outline's done, it takes me only two months or so to write the book.
BRC: Speaking of subject matter --- are there any topics you won't write about? Why or why not?
Jeffery Deaver: I won't pick a topic (or write a scene within a book) that would turn readers off --- either because of boredom or a repellent subject matter, such as excessive, gratuitous violence. I write books for my readers' pleasure. Anything that troubles them should come out.
BRC: Many readers have commented about the charts in the books that represent the "evidence" board used in the books. How do YOU keep track of your notes while working? Do you have your own board, or do you use a computer or notepad?
Jeffery Deaver: I create and keep elaborate chronological charts of the clues (both the ones that my characters find and know about during the book and the ones that are sent out for analysis and those that are yet to be discovered). These start out being handwritten then after the book is completely organized and underway I transfer them to a computer, then check them against the final book to make sure I haven't missed anything.
BRC: One of the things fans like best about your books is the interaction between your characters and their individual approaches to solving the crime. Do you have a favorite recurring character? Which, if any, is most like you?
Jeffery Deaver: I have no particular character I like more than any other (among the good guys, I mean). I know Lincoln better than the others because there are more books featuring him and they're more recent. But every time I sit down to write a book I try to get as completely into each character's mind as possible. And, no, I don't write from personal experience; none of the characters are the reflection of me --- except to the extent that all writers' work reflect their experiences.
BRC: Your books have strong women characters, i.e. Rune from her series, Lucy from THE EMPTY CHAIR, Amelia Sachs, and Kara in THE VANISHED MAN. Tell us how you approach creating a strong, believable female character. Is this process something that has gotten easier over your years of writing, or does
it remain a challenge?
Jeffery Deaver: One of the most important jobs of any author is to create believable characters and since the best books involve a mix of cultures, sexes and ages, it's necessary for a writer to roll up his or her sleeves and try to become that person, as difficult as it might be sometimes. It involves research and a certain intuitiveness and empathy. It's also one of the most exhilarating things for a writer to explore ---different personalities and cultures --- in creating those characters. I love it.
BRC: Any more books featuring Rune? If yes, when can readers look for them, and if not, why?
Jeffery Deaver: Ah, Rune . . . She's a feisty young woman who lives in Downtown Manhattan. She solves crimes she stumbles across (or that stumble across her). She's a delightful, curious and gritty character (no cozy plots for her)! But the books starring her are nearly twenty years old and they tend to be smaller and lighter; my fans nowadays prefer longer, more complex stories. Though I may have her return at some point in the future.
BRC: Have you created any other characters that you might possibly feature as ongoing protagonists in a new series of novels?
Jeffery Deaver: Possibly. But more likely I will bring back characters in conjunction with the Lincoln Rhyme series (such as a book featuring hostage negotiator Arthur Potter) or create an entirely new series. Most of my existing one-off characters have specialties that wouldn't lend themselves to series.
BRC: Why did you decide to publish the John Pellam books under the byline of "William Jefferies?"
Jeffery Deaver: This was done for contractual reasons. In my "youth" I was writing two books a year and couldn't publish under the "Deaver" name because of my main publishing contract. So I took a pseudonym that echoed my first name. Those books are now available under my real name. (SHALLOW GRAVES, BLOODY RIVER BLUES and HELL'S KITCHEN.)
BRC: You have nestled quite comfortably in the mystery-suspense genre, arguably carving a niche that is all your own. Do you have any intentions of branching out into another genre, or writing another type of book, outside of the genre for which you are best known?
Jeffery Deaver: No, I have no desire to shift gears at all. I love writing thrillers and my fans seem to enjoy what I do --- and I as said earlier, the whole point of this is to give readers what they want. Besides, I feel strongly that no one type of storytelling is better, in any sense, than another; literary fiction, say, isn't superior to thrillers; they each simply serve a different purpose. The criteria for good writing is simply this: has the author told his story in the best way possible to communicate and affect his readers as he or she set out to do?
BRC: How involved are you in the process of making one of your books into a movie?
Jeffery Deaver: I'm not involved at all, nor do I want to be. My love is writing books, which is a full-time job. I don't want to take the time off to adapt one of mine. I also prefer the higher level of control I have in the books, versus films, which are, of course, projects created by committee.
BRC: You are doing a 15-city tour for THE VANISHED MAN. What is your favorite part of these lengthy tours? The worst part? What advice would you give to a novelist about to embark on his/her first major book tour?
Jeffery Deaver: Meeting fans is the best part of the tour. The worst is simply the physical exhaustion from a great deal of travel and long hours. My best advice to an author is to entertain your audiences at readings. Don't stand up and read a long portion of your book; edit your passages or find a short section --- never read for more than ten minutes and make it a bang-up suspenseful or emotional read. Be funny and charming and be sure to share something about yourself. After all, they can read your book; a signing is a chance to get to know you.
BRC: What's next?
Jeffery Deaver: I'm writing a thriller novella called FOREVER for an Evan Hunter anthology and writing my main novel for 2004, a historical thriller that takes place over two days in Berlin in July of 1936, just before the Olympics. It's tentatively called THE CITY OF WHISPERS. Then I'm outlining a Lincoln Rhyme novel for 2005.
Back to top.
PAST INTERVIEW
May 12, 2000
Jeffery Deaver is one of our favorite thriller writers. Not only can he quickly tap out nail-biting suspense novels, he is also genuine, sincere, and from all our email exchanges, kindhearted. You might expect a more frightening visage from the creator of such twisted stories as THE BONE COLLECTOR, but you'd be wrong. Recently, Joe Hartlaub, Bookreporter.com's Senior Writer and thriller aficionado, had an opportunity to ask Deaver about his new thriller THE EMPTY CHAIR, future movies starring everyone's favorite protagonist Lincoln Rhyme, the honor of receiving the DREAM Award, and much more in our latest interview.
BRC: THE EMPTY CHAIR focuses on not one, but three, scientific areas: medicine; psychology; and entomology, the study of insects. How did you become interested in insects as an underlying plot device for the novel?
JD: In all my books themes such as the insect world serve several purposes. In THE EMPTY CHAIR the creatures provide an eeriness to the story to keep my readers unsettled --- wasps, after all, are used as a weapon on more than one occasion. They also give me a chance to paint a full portrait of Garrett Hanlon, the kidnapper in the story. He's known as the "Insect Boy," who's learned much of what he knows about life and survival from living among his miniature "friends" in the woods and swamp. This knowledge lets him go one-on-one with Lincoln Rhyme and I liked setting the boy and the man --- both scientists in their own right --- up against each other and having them try to outsmart each other. Finally, insects are the ultimate key to the secret of the tragedies occurring in and around Tanner's Corner (though I can't say more, for fear of spoiling the story).
BRC: Vladimir Nabokov also loved the field of entomology. Were you in any way inspired by him or his writings on the subject? If not, what books helped you in your research?
JD: Nabokov was, of course, an inspired scientist as well as a literary giant and --- if I recall --- made a number of important contributions to the subject of entomology. I didn't, in fact, rely on his scientific writing as much as I did off-the-shelf field manuals and entomological textbooks to extract specific details that were helpful in speeding my plots along. Those who've read my books know that nearly every bit of research I include must either advance the story or flesh out a character. This is true of the information about insects.
BRC: Your books are well-known for a number of factors: unexpected plot twists, unique characters, and meticulous research. For THE EMPTY CHAIR did you continue your past practice of doing your own research, or, given the number of scientific disciplines presented, did you have assistance?
JD: I do all my own research --- for the reason suggested in the previous response: Because the research serves the plot, I alone know what details are important. If I were throwing in information solely for atmosphere then someone else could provide me with facts. But I can't separate research from the story. Besides, I have a voracious curiosity and the act of researching is, for me, pure fun.
BRC: THE EMPTY CHAIR moves Lincoln Rhyme from New York City to an extremely rural area of North Carolina. While we don't want to give away any of the plot aspects, did you begin with the idea of moving Rhyme out of New York, and into another locale, or did you find, as your idea developed, that moving him out of New York and into unfamiliar territory provided additional dimensions to your story?
JD: From the very beginning of my outlining I intended to move Lincoln out of familiar environs. One of the themes of the story is that of a fish out of water (as Lincoln repeats to himself several times) and I wanted both Lincoln and Amelia to be challenged by the strange --- and spooky --- geography and life styles of a place as far from New York as I could make it. As you observe, too, the plot of the story depends on the setting being in a place like the fictional Paquenoke County, North Carolina --- but we'll have to let your subscribers find out why this is so.
BRC: THE EMPTY CHAIR touches on a topic I have been interested in for quite some time, that being the lost colony of Roanoke. You present a theory in THE EMPTY CHAIR as to what occurred. Is this theory your own conclusion, based upon your research for THE EMPTY CHAIR?
JD: After considerable reading about the Lost Colony, I must confess that I'm no closer to an answer than anyone else. I lean toward the theory that the settlers died at sea en route to Hatteras or landed there and were killed but that's far from conclusive. Mary Beth's theory in THE EMPTY CHAIR --- the kidnapped victim --- that the colonists traveled west into Albemarle Sound is plausible but not supported by much historic data.
BRC: There has been an incredible amount of progress which has been made in the past five years with respect to the treatment of spinal cord injuries. The treatment contemplated by Lincoln Rhyme in THE EMPTY CHAIR is in fact quite similar to one of many which have recently reached the experimental stage. Do you at some point see Rhyme regaining, at least to some extent, any additional physical functional capacity?
JD: Despite the intense amount of spinal cord research being done around the world, for someone as severely injured as Lincoln Rhyme there seems to be little chance for major improvement in his condition in the near future. It was important to me to make clear to readers that Lincoln's doctor had told him the operation would have no, or at best minuscule, effect and that the criminalist was seeking this treatment in a Quixotic vein. I liked the irony --- and the resulting insights into their characters --- that Lincoln wanted to risk the operation to improve himself for the sake of Amelia, while she harbored a secret desire that he not improve. This is similar to the theme of a short story some of your subscribers might be familiar with --- "The Gift of the Magi," by O. Henry.
BRC: One of the most enjoyable realistic aspects of your Lincoln Rhyme novels for me has been the slowly developing romance between Rhyme and Amelia Sachs. What is striking is the way they slowly dance around their relationship --- complicated not only by Rhyme's physical condition, but also by their working relationship and Sachs' quiet, surprising insecurity. Yet, their mutual feeling for each other is an irresistible force. You manage to maintain this as a subplot although it has major plot potential. Is there a real world model for this relationship?
JD: I must say that there is no real world model except to the extent that observation and empathy have shown me that the most enduring relationships (and therefore the more appealing to my readers) are those in which the partners challenge each other, respect each other and fill the gaps in each other. It is very important to me --- in order to please my readers --- that I keep a certain realism in the Lincoln Rhyme books and the connection that I've tried to craft between Lincoln and Amelia is what I see as the sort of honest and complex relationship that would develop between two people like these two. I also spend a great deal of time working on their relationship because it's important to me to be able to imperil my characters in as many ways as possible --- and manipulating relationships is as good a way to keep readers on the edge of their seats as exposing them to physical violence.
BRC: You recently were accorded a DREAM award --- an honor which, while not widely known, is nonetheless highly prestigious. Would you mind telling us a bit about that?
JD: This was indeed an honor. The Western Law Center for Disabled Rights --- a watchdog association that advocates the rights of the disabled --- selected me for the award last year. It's given to an individual in the creative arts for a realistic portrayal of the disabled --- not a sentimentalized or melodramatic work, but one that presents the disabled as multidimensional human beings. The award is one of the consequences of my work that I'm most proud of.
BRC: You are an attorney. One would think that you would take the highly traveled road of legal thrillers, since it covers territory which you are familiar with. Yet, you have eschewed that genre, choosing to focus, instead, on forensics, and criminology. What led you to choose those fields as topics for your novels?
JD: My whole point of writing is to give readers something they will enjoy; they pay me hard-earned money and it's my responsibility to return something pleasurable to them. One of the things they enjoy most, I've learned, is the sort of book I now write --- taking place over a short time frame, involving multiple plots, frequent deadlines, surprising plot twists and turns, endings that bring together all the plot strands in a whammy twist or two. I've been called a writer of "ticking-bomb thrillers" and, in general, legal thrillers tend to take place over a longer period of time than my typical book (one or two days) and require more exposition and leisurely development. I have written one legal thriller --- Mistress of Justice --- and it was typical of this distinction, being less an edge-of-the-chair thriller than a dark psychological study of power and corruption on Wall Street.
BRC: Given the theatrical success of THE BONE COLLECTOR, are there any plans in the works for adapting THE COFFIN DANCER into a film? And, if so, what input will you have in the production?
JD: Universal Pictures has the rights to make any future Lincoln Rhyme movies, provided they pay me (just a friendly reminder, just in case any of their executives are reading this!). The box office gross of the movie was good but the video rentals have been phenomenal. I haven't heard specifically if they want to make another movie but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens. I'm so busy with my present writing that I'm afraid I wouldn't have time to be very involved.
BRC: What are you working on now?
JD: The better question might be what am I not working on. Let's see...I'm promoting THE EMPTY CHAIR hardcover and THE DEVIL'S TEARDROP paperback. I'm reviewing proofs for a new hardcover for Simon and Schuster, to be published in December, called SPEAKING IN TONGUES --- another non-Lincoln Rhyme thriller. I'm also helping in the promotion of several of my older books, which are now being brought back into print: MANHATTAN IS MY BEAT, DEATH OF A BLUE MOVIES STAR, HARD NEWS, SHALLOW GRAVES and BLOODY RIVER BLUES. Oh, yes, I'm finishing my big thriller for 2001. I can't say much about it right now but I will tell you this: My intent is to scare the living daylights out of anybody who owns a computer...
BRC: What are you reading now?
JD: Sadly nothing for leisure; it's all been research on the history of Silicon Valley and the computer industry for next year's book. I'll be taking a little time off toward the end of the summer and trying desperately to catch up on my reading.
BRC: What advice would you give to aspiring writers of the suspense genre?
JD: There are only two rules I'd give to aspiring writers: one, write what you enjoy reading and, two, never, ever, ever give up; rejection is a speed bump, not a brick wall.
© Copyright 1996-2008, Bookreporter.com. All rights reserved.
Back to top.
|
