|
Jonathan Kellerman
 |
|
May 2003
Jonathan Kellerman has brought his expertise as a clinical psychologist to a number of his suspense novels, including those featuring psychologist-sleuth Alex Delaware. In this interview, Kellerman talks extensively about the latest book in this popular series, A COLD HEART, in addition to some of his previous novels. He also discusses the process of writing a book and what he considers to be his greatest strengths and weaknesses as a writer.
Q: Where did the idea for this story come from? And what does the title A COLD HEART refer to?
JK: One of the victims in the story is a blues guitarist named Baby Boy Lee. "A Cold Heart" is his signature song. It's also a description of the killer and his crimes --- he has a very frigid heart. The idea for the story came from several places. Music has always been a big part of my life. I've been playing guitar since I was nine years old. I used to teach guitar and play in a band. This isn't a book about music. It's a crime story. But I was also having fun exploring the plight of the artist.
Most of my books can be taken on several levels. I hope they're enjoyable and entertaining to the reader strictly as crime novels, but I also try to put a little more in. I have to be careful because I don't want to write "message books." I've always considered "message books" boring. Nevertheless I was intrigued with the notion that in most occupations, people --- even criminals --- are judged by their peers. Artists, on the other hand, are regularly judged by non-artists. Basically this story is about creative people being slaughtered by non-creative people. In this case it's not merely a critic who's doing the slaughtering --- it's a killer.
Q: As a musician, a guitarist, and a blues fan you know quite a lot about the history of the genre and the great blues players. Was there anyone in particular who served as the inspiration for Baby Boy Lee?
JK: No. I would never write about a specific patient because of my years as a psychologist. However, having treated thousands of patients I hope I know what it's like to be in a particular situation or have a certain problem. The same can be said for this character. I know the histories of many of the great bluesmen from Johnson to Clapton and beyond. Some have had smooth lives; some have had tumultuous lives like Lee's. He's a totally made up character but I think he's authentic because I do know the world that he came from.
Q: How long does it take you to write one of your novels?
JK: It usually takes about a year. Fortunately I've had the advantage of being way ahead of schedule virtually since the beginning of my career as a published author. My first novel, WHEN THE BOUGH BREAKS, was written in 1981 and sold to a publisher in 1983, but it wasn't actually published until 1985. So in 1984 I wrote a second book. In other words, I had two finished books before the first one came out and that put me ahead of the game. I got cancer in 1989. That slowed me down a bit but not much. Then a few years later I wrote two books in one year: SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST and BILLY STRAIGHT. It's not something I'd want to do again, but it put me ahead of the game once more. Currently I have three novels that haven't come out. One is A COLD HEART (which is about to be released), the second is a non-Delaware novel called THE CONSPIRACY CLUB (which is coming out in December 2003), and the third is another Delaware, THERAPY (which will come out a year from now). And I've just done outlines for two more books, one of which I'm currently working on. It sounds like I'm a workaholic but I'm not. I'm fortunate in that I do this full time without having to work another job. Most writers don't have that luxury. And also, two of my four kids are already out of the house and a third is about to start college. No longer having four kids living at home has freed up quite a lot of time.
Q: Your non-Delaware novels are all essentially one-offs. There are a lot of mystery writers out there who have two different series running at the same time. Have you ever considered doing the same?
JK: BILLY STRAIGHT featured Petra Connor, the female detective from the Hollywood Division who's also in A COLD HEART. So, to the extent that I've done a second book with her as a main character, that's another series. If CONSPIRACY CLUB works, I definitely have ideas to do more with its main character as well. THE BUTCHER'S THEATER, which is set in Jerusalem, featured Chief Inspector Daniel Sharavi, a Yemenite police detective. I didn't want to do another book about Israel but I did bring Sharavi back in SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST as a fairly major character and I may bring him back again as a side protagonist in other books. And right now I'm working on a second Petra Connor novel. I can see doing a lot more with her because she's a great character and I enjoy writing from a woman's perspective.
Q: Aside from the obvious difference in perspective because of gender, what's the difference for you between writing Delaware and writing Connor?
JK: Delaware is always written in the first person; Connor is written in the third person and the books are done in multiple points of view. Delaware is very much a psychotherapist --- a person against whom events and other people bounce. There are times he takes a proactive role but basically people talk to him. Petra's a cop. It's easy to get her in trouble because that's her job. In that sense her stories are more like police procedurals. I actually developed her character as a result of my wife, who writes brilliantly from the male perspective. I conceived Billy Straight as a challenge to myself to see if I could do the same thing.
Q: In your last Delaware novel we saw the distance between Alex and his longtime lover, Robin Castagna, continuing to widen and the hint of a new love interest in his life. Now we're seeing those hints come to fruition as he starts a new relationship with Allison Gwynn. As a writer what's it like to start your creation off in a new relationship, to move his life in a new direction?
JK: In some respects I'm a little ambivalent about it. You get attached to these people; you've written books about them; they live in your head. And here you are breaking them up. On the other hand, there's an excitement and freshness about starting something new. I wonder how readers will react. I'm sure some will say, "That's mean, how can you do that?" In fact I've already gotten feedback from fans who saw the way things seemed to be going between Alex and Robin in THE MURDER BOOK and said, "I hope they get back together. I like her." But this is like real life; it's unpredictable. I thought it was time to shake things up and make it more interesting. As a side note I also want to let my public know that this is not autobiography. I continue to be happily and ecstatically married to my wife.
Q: Let's talk a bit more about this process of "shaking things up." When do you know it's time to do so?
JK: Whether you're a writer creating fiction, or a musician, or a painter, the whole thing about being creative is doing something new. We call them novels for a reason: they're novel, they're new! I think creative people tend to have low tolerance for repetition. It gets boring. Thrown into the mix in my case is that there are a lot of built-in constraints to writing a series. There are limits to what I can do to Delaware. I can stretch him up to a point but not past it. Given those limitations I'm always trying to move those boundaries and make things interesting.
There are basically two approaches to writing a series. Agatha Christie ---one of the most famous writers from the first golden age of crime writing --- and her beloved character, Hercule Poirot, exemplify the first approach. Poirot doesn't develop at all. The things that change from story to story are the puzzles he solves. I'd rather have a character that evolves. It's an approach that is more typical of the crime writers of my generation such as Larry Block, Sue Grafton, and Faye Kellerman, to name just a few. They're more interested in character --- and character without sacrificing story. John Updike once said he couldn't write a crime novel because story would edge out character. I think great crime novels have plenty of characterization and story. That's what makes them exciting. Most of us, in what is often referred to as the "second golden age of crime writing," have chosen to create people who evolve and change and that's what I'm trying to do with Alex Delaware.
Q: You're also introducing a new character here in the form of Eric Stahl, a new partner for Detective Connor. What was the process you went through in developing this character?
JK: I don't know, he just came to me. I don't want to sound flip but it's not a long, drawn-out, arduous process. I do think a lot about what I'm going to write. I plan for months and months and months. But at a certain point I'll say to myself, "Hey, how about a guy like that." The way he looks, the way he sounds, his name, just flew into my head and took shape. I'm basically getting paid well to do what always got me in trouble in school: spacing out and fantasizing stories.
Q: One of the victims in A COLD HEART is a young artist named Juliet Kipper --- an extraordinarily gifted painter whose troubled career, like Baby Boy Lee's, was also on the verge of a breakthrough. You drew a very bleak picture of the dark side of the art world where gallery owners manipulate, chew up and spit out artists. Where did you get your insights into that world?
JK: I've been drawing and painting for forty-nine years. And there were times when I thought I would become a professional artist. I was an editorial cartoonist for the school paper at UCLA during my undergrad years; I used to do a painting or two between books on a regular basis; and I've sold several of my works. I've also been an art collector for many years. And I've had a lot of friends who are gallery owners. So I've become very familiar with that world. Contemporary artists lead a very tough life. Comparatively speaking I'm incredibly lucky. I write a book and my agent pitches it to the publisher. If the publisher buys it and puts it out, it's mass produced and exposed to a wide audience. Art is a "one-off." As an artist you invest a lot of time and emotion in creating your individual works and, for the most part, only a fairly limited audience will ever see them. After the gallery takes its cut there's often not much left for the artist. A few make it but it's a tough row to hoe.
Q: At one point in the story, Delaware reflects on the decade of clinical work he had done early in his career on the cancer wards of a pediatric hospital. He describes himself as a "too-young, newly minted psychologist, pretending to know what he was doing. Seeing too much, too soon, feeling like nothing but an imposter." How closely do those feelings reflect what you were feeling during your early career as a psychologist?
JK: I was very, very young back then. I got my Ph.D. at age 24 and then did a postdoctoral fellowship. By the following year I had a medical school professorship and a job at Children's Hospital in Los Angeles where I specialized in treating kids with serious illnesses. We were doing experimental things in the sense that these were kids who were put in isolation (environmental bubbles and so on) to treat their cancer. I was in charge of monitoring their psychological health. This was 1975. I once asked one of my bosses, "What's the research analogue for what we're doing?" He said, "There is none. We're inventing the wheel." It was a great experience. It turned out well and we helped a lot of kids. In fact we recently celebrated the 25th anniversary of the program team started at CHLA. As part of the celebration I got to meet a man whom I treated as a 9-year-old boy. He's now 34 years old, married, healthy, and doing great.
It was a great experience. But it was also very scary. And of course you can't look scared because you're supposed to be helping people; you're the authority. What you learn to do is fake the self-confidence and put your doubts aside. Nevertheless, I remember feeling like an imposter. And to make matters worse, although I was 25 years old I had something of a baby face so I'm sure I didn't look a day over 20. I ended up growing a mustache in 1976 because I got tired of people asking, doctor, how long have you been doing this? In retrospect I did a decent job but I was also scared out of my wits. I don't think it's a situation that was unique to me. I've spoken to a lot of health care professionals who went through the same thing early in their careers. When you become a doctor or nurse it takes a while to get comfortable in your own skin.
Q: What inspired you to make Milo Sturgis, Delaware's partner in crime solving, a gay homicide detective?
JK: I never liked the notion of an amateur detective coming in and showing up the cops. I felt a psychologist who worked with the cops was much more plausible. Once I figured that out I knew I had to have a policeman in the story and I wanted to avoid the boring cliché of the gruff, grizzled veteran detective. This was back in 1981 and I knew the LAPD officially had no gay officers. So I thought making Milo gay would create a certain amount of tension. Ironically, one of the guys who wanted to be the next police chief here is a gay associate chief. That shows how far things have come at the LAPD. But back then a gay homicide detective was a revolutionary concept and certainly played against stereotype. For the same reason I had Delaware's first girlfriend working with power tools while he was the one dealing with emotions. What interests me in the world are the exceptions rather than the norm.
Q: In one article I read the following: "Kellerman admits it can be difficult for a straight writer to portray a gay character." What's the most difficult thing for you in writing Milo and what sort of feedback have you gotten from readers --- gay and straight --- regarding your portrayal of this major character?
JK: To be honest I don't remember saying that. There's this belief out there that you can't write about people who aren't you. I think that's silly. If that were the case, I'd be writing about middle-aged Jewish guys all the time. Perhaps that quote reflected my thoughts on the way some readers were responding to me writing him. When I created Milo he was a somewhat revolutionary character. He was one of the first gay cop characters out there. I would get these nice letters from readers saying, "Thank you so much, I love crime novels but they always seemed so homophobic. I really appreciate what you're doing." Then it became, "What does Kellerman, a straight man, know about the gay experience?" and even, "If Delaware were such a good shrink he'd realize he's really in love with Milo." I don't find it difficult writing Milo. I just made him a person. I don't ignore that he's gay but that aspect of his character is not the main issue of the book. I'm not out to write gay fiction. I like to think, after doing this for most of my adult life, that I can write about all kinds of people. One of the advantages of working in a hospital for all those years was that it gave me exposure to an incredibly wide range of ethnicity, culture and human experience that I might not have had in other lines of work.
Q: Prior to the 1985 publication of your debut novel --- the first in the Delaware series --- you spent fourteen years writing a slew of novels that ended up being rejected. What changed for you as a writer that allowed you to make that breakthrough?
JK: There were a couple of things that changed. In 1981 I realized I needed to approach fiction writing more professionally. I had always used writing as a catharsis. Well, if you want to do that you might as well write for yourself and stick your work in a drawer. If you want to write for other people you need to approach it as you would a job. I began writing with a lot more discipline. I outlined and polished and honed and rewrote. In other words I worked a lot harder at my writing and took it much more seriously. By that time I also had much more to say because I had had some interesting life experiences. When I won the Goldwyn award at age 21 I was the epitome of callow. I wasn't experienced enough to have anything significant to offer. But by the time I was in my early thirties I was a veteran psychologist. I had worked in the trenches long enough to have something to say about human misery. That enabled me to write a more interesting story.
Q: Up until that time you had worked very hard at keeping your identity as a psychologist separate from your fiction. Why?
JK: Essentially it was cowardice. I was afraid to reveal anything about myself. On some level all fiction is biography. If you're going to succeed as a fiction writer you have to be willing to put yourself on the line. It took a long time before I was ready to do that.
Q: What is it about Los Angeles that so fascinates you?
JK: I've always been fascinated by the extreme disparities between the haves and the have-nots in this town. They've become much more acute over the years and helped turn Los Angeles into a Third World colony. They also lead to anger and tension and frustration and hunger, which in turn breed crime and extreme behavior. And although Delaware does solve mysterious puzzles, what he's really exploring is human behavior under extreme circumstances. I'm also fascinated by the influence of the film industry here. I've lived in Los Angeles since I was a kid --- since 1959 --- and over the years I've watched this city become more of a company town than ever before. Los Angeles used to have a much greater range of businesses. Today it is permeated through and through by the film industry-not just economically but in its entire zeitgeist. There's a blurring of reality and fantasy here that's almost palpable.
Q: Do you ever go back and reread your earlier novels?
JK: Very rarely. In my down time the last thing I want to do is read my own work. I'd rather read the works of other authors and spend time with family and friends. Except for the occasional need to check a fact or two, I rarely go back to my previous works. When I write a novel I live with it every day for about a year. And during that process I tend not to be too introspective. I think to some extent introspection can be the enemy of productivity. One reason I've been able to write so many books is I focus on each project to the exclusion of all else. I have no doubt that if I did read my earlier books I'd spot things I wouldn't necessarily do today. That notwithstanding, on those few occasions when I do leaf through an old passage the work seems to hold up pretty well. WHEN THE BOUGH BREAKS came out nearly 20 years ago and still sells at a steady pace. Apparently when people pick up a new Delaware novel they often decide to go back and check out the older ones. I get a big kick out of that. It's a very gratifying feeling.
Q: Writers often talk about finding their "voice." How do you describe your writer's voice?
JK: I don't think about it much. It's just the way the words come out of my head. I'd much rather write than talk about writing. What people say they like about my books is the sense of place and the memorable characters. And they like the psychology --- the insights they feel they're getting. They like that peek into another world. My voice in the Delaware novels tends to be somewhat hardboiled. There's an element of cynicism in it. It's the outsider, the observer, looking in. And that's what a psychologist is. The stories are rarely about Delaware himself but rather about what he sees and the people who talk to him. The voice is that of the observer offering comments to others or, more often, to himself. Much of the story in these books takes place in Alex's head. That's why they're not turned into movies. A lot of what goes on is internal.
Q: Your wife, Faye Kellerman, is also a well-known best-selling author. What's it like to be married to a fellow writer? Do you talk about writing or give each other feedback on story ideas?
JK: It's great being married to another writer. One of the nice things about our situation is we don't compete with each other because we were married for 12 or 13 years before we got published. And neither of us came to writing from an English department background. (Mine was psychology; hers was theoretical mathematics and dentistry.)
We don't trade ideas but we do read each other's books. It's a great luxury having an in-house critic who's really constructive and on your side. We used to read each other's work in progress every week or so but over the years we've gotten more secure in our own abilities. Nowadays, instead of looking for help from each other we basically say, "read it and have fun with it." Fortunately we enjoy each other's stuff. When we do "talk shop" we tend to focus on the business side of publishing-which can be very strange-as opposed to the creative side.
Q: What do you consider your greatest strength and your greatest weakness as a writer?
JK: Sometimes I think I get a little too wordy. I'm always trying to rein myself in and say more with less. At the start of each day's writing I always go back and revise my work from the day before. I consciously try to make sure I'm not over-writing. Perhaps my greatest strength is the psychological insight I bring to my fiction. I like to think there's a certain unique quality to what I do but that's up to other people to judge. I also think I have a pretty good sense of place. And people tell me I'm a very vivid writer; that there are scenes and characters that stick out in their minds. I also like to think I bring a sense of compassion to my writing. I'm basically an optimist. I don't want pat happy endings but I also don't see a need to write an ending that's morose. People should be entertained when they read. Arguments over whether a piece of writing is entertainment or literature are nonsensical and pretentious. If we don't stray too far from our caveman ancestors sitting around a fire telling stories, that's okay. Some of the world's most enduring classics are simply great stories at heart.
Q: What's the most important thing your reading public should know about you?
JK: How much I appreciate them. Like most writers I write for myself and not an audience. But at the same time I have a profound appreciation for my readers. It's a great thing to take a project from initial concept to finished book, put it out in the public, and have people not only buy what you've written but also come back again and again for more. I couldn't do this without them.
© Copyright 2003, Random House. All rights reserved.
Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.
Back to top.
A Conversation with Jonathan Kellerman, Author of THE MURDER BOOK
Q: Where did the idea for THE MURDER BOOK come from?
A: This particular novel grew out of my desire to learn more about Milo. When I wrote my first Delaware novel, WHE THE BOUGH BREAKS, I never thought it was going to get published let alone that I would write a series. I followed it up with two more Delaware stories and then a non-Delaware novel. At that point I said to myself if I'm going to do more books about this guy I want to learn more about him. So the next novel in the series, SILENT PARTNER, featured Delaware as the protagonist. He wasn't just a professional solving a problem for others; he was the focus of the story. I did the same thing again in BAD LOVE. THE MURDER BOOK takes that same approach for Milo. He has been a major character of the series since the beginning—to some extent as important a character as Alex himself—and I wanted to further explore his life. The story also grew out of my desire to write a book that resonated beyond the crime story. THE MURDER BOOK explores Los Angeles in greater depth than previous books in the series. It's a classic novel of corruption that spans several decades. I know that's been done before but I thought I could put a unique slant on it.
Q: You're already well known for documenting the social and economic climate of Los Angeles. How is this book different?
A: It's not different in type as much as in degree. While I always go back in the past—I'm enough of a psychologist to believe you can't escape the past, you have to deal with it— THE MURDER BOOK provides more of a historical perspective on Los Angeles by going back in time and dealing with changes in the city over a twenty-year period. I've always considered Los Angeles a character in my books. I'm often identified as a writer of psychological thrillers. But reviewers have also noted these are very much LA novels, and that's how I see them. With the exception of one book all my novels have taken place here. I think that puts me well within the tradition of Southern California hardboiled detective writers.
Q: What is it about Los Angeles that so fascinates you?
A: I've always been fascinated by the extreme disparities between the haves and the have-nots in this town. They've become much more acute over the years and helped turn Los Angeles into a Third World colony. They also lead to anger and tension and frustration and hunger, which in turn breeds crime and extreme behavior. And although Delaware does solve mysterious puzzles, what he's really exploring is human behavior under extreme circumstances. I'm also fascinated by the influence of the film industry here. I've lived in Los Angeles since I was a kid—since 1959—and over the years I've watched this city become more of a company town than ever before. Los Angeles used to have a much greater range of businesses. Today it is permeated through and through by the film industry—not just economically but in its entire zeitgeist. There's a blurring of reality and fantasy here that's almost palpable.
Q: Prior to the 1985 publication of your debut novel—the first in the Delaware series—you spent fourteen years churning out a slew of novels that ended up being rejected. What changed for you as a writer that allowed you to make that breakthrough?
A: There were a couple of things that changed. In 1981 I realized I needed to approach fiction writing more professionally. I had always used writing as a catharsis. Well, if you want to do that you might as well write for yourself and stick your work in a drawer. If you want to write for other people you need to approach it as you would a job. I began writing with a lot more discipline. I outlined and polished and rewrote and honed it. In other words I worked a lot harder at my writing and took it much more seriously. By that time I also had much more to say because I had had some interesting life experiences. When I won the Goldwyn award at age 21 I was the epitome of callow. I wasn't experienced enough to have anything significant to offer. But by the time I was in my early thirties I was a veteran psychologist. I had worked in the trenches long enough to have something to say about human misery. That enabled me to write a more interesting story.
Q: Up until that time you had worked very hard at keeping your identity as a psychologist separate from your fiction. Why?
A: Essentially it was cowardice. I was afraid to reveal anything about myself. On some level all fiction is biography. If you're going to succeed as a fiction writer you have to be willing to put yourself on the line. It took a long time before I was ready to do that.
Q: To what extent do you draw on specific experiences from your years as a hospital psychologist in writing the Delaware novels?
A: I've never drawn on my list of patients to depict specific individuals or families in distress. And I never will. But I certainly know what it's like for families or individuals to be under stress. During my time as a hospital psychologist I treated thousands of children suffering from chronic and terminal diseases, birth defects, handicaps, and injuries. I also dealt with the aftermath of alcoholism, drug abuse, homicide, suicide, divorce, rape, physical abuse, sexual molestation, and grinding poverty. I like to think what I learned in those years imbues my writing with emotional authenticity. I also benefited from the fact that Children's Hospital was multi-cultural in the strictest sense. I was dealing with people of every conceivable background: paupers and the idle rich, educated and uneducated, Black, White, Hispanic, you name it. I couldn't have found a better training ground to be a writer if I had tried. In retrospect I'm glad I was a rejected writer for fourteen years. It gave me a chance to learn.
Q: Do you ever go back and reread your earlier novels?
A: Very rarely. In my down time the last thing I want to do is read my own work. I'd rather read the works of other authors and spend time with family and friends. Except for the occasional need to check a fact or two, I rarely go back to my previous works. When I write a novel I live with it every day for about a year. And during that process I tend not to be too introspective. I think to some extent introspection can be the enemy of productivity. One reason I've been able to write so many books is I focus on each project to the exclusion of all else. I have no doubt that if I did read my earlier books I'd spot things I wouldn't necessarily do today. That notwithstanding, on those few occasions when I do leaf through an old passage the work seems to hold up pretty well. WHEN THE BOUGH BREAKS came out more than 20 years ago and still sells at a steady pace. Apparently when people pick up a new Delaware novel they often decide to go back and check out the older ones. I get a big kick out of that. It's a very gratifying feeling.
Q: Writers often talk about finding their "voice." How do you describe your writer's voice?
A: I don't think about it much. It's just the way the words come out of my head. I'd much rather write than talk about writing. What people say they like about my books is the sense of place and the memorable characters. And they like the psychology—the insights they feel they're getting. They like that peek into another world. My voice in the Delaware novels tends to be somewhat hardboiled. There's an element of cynicism in it. It's the outsider, the observer, looking in. And that's what a psychologist is. The stories are rarely about Delaware himself but rather about what he sees and the people who talk to him. The voice is that of the observer offering comments to others or, more often, to himself. Much of the story in these books takes place in Alex's head. That's why they're not turned into movies. A lot of what goes on is internal.
Q: What inspired you to make Milo Sturgis, Delaware's partner in crime solving, a gay homicide detective?
A: I wish I could say it was some great sensitivity on my part. I never liked the notion of an amateur detective coming in and showing up the cops. I felt a psychologist who worked with cops was much more plausible. Once I figured that out I knew I had to have a policeman in the story and I wanted to avoid the boring cliché of the gruff, grizzled veteran detective. This was back in 1981 and I knew the LAPD officially had no gay officers. So I thought making Milo gay would create a certain amount of tension. Ironically, one of the guys who wants to be the next police chief here is a gay, Jewish associate chief. That shows how far things have come at the LAPD. But back then a gay homicide detective was a revolutionary concept and certainly played against stereotype. For the same reason I had Delaware's first girlfriend working with power tools while he was the one dealing with emotions. What interests me in the world are the exceptions rather than the norm.
Q: Among the secondary characters in THE MURDER BOOK are several Los Angeles real estate moguls. Are they based on anyone in particular?
A: No. That's always been a point of pride with me. The fun of writing fiction is in making things up. And because I came to fiction as a psychologist I was always careful not to betray confidentiality. That made me a better writer because it forced me to use my imagination. In SILENT PARTNER I had a Howard Hughes-like character. I viewed him not as a person but as an icon, a metaphor, and a larger than life figure. In FLESH AND BLOOD I had a character that was a colleague of Hugh Hefner. But he was quite different from Hefner. These guys were made up of a whole cloth, as are all my characters. Each time you write a book you're creating new people. It's a godlike illusion.
Q: A well-known quote about writers suggests they hate to write but love having written. Is writing easy or hard for you?
A: That's a tough question to answer. In one sense it's very easy. I never get writer's block. Words just seem to flow out of me. But that's because I outline compulsively in order to get a firm grip on my stories, which tend to be very plot heavy. It's not that I love plotting but I believe a writer should never cheat the reader. That plotting process is hard work. The writing I find most difficult is non-fiction, which requires you to aim for clarity and elegance of style. Fiction writing allows you much more leeway because you're creating a whole world.
Q: Your wife, Faye Kellerman, is also a well-known best-selling author. What's it like to be married to a fellow writer? Do you talk about writing or give each other feedback on story ideas?
A: It's great being married to another writer. One of the nice things about our situation is we don't compete with each other because we were married for 12 or 13 years before we got published. And neither of us came to writing from an English department background. (Mine was psychology; hers was theoretical mathematics and dentistry.) We don't trade ideas but we do read each other's books. It's a great luxury having an in-house critic who's really constructive and on your side. We used to read each other's work in progress every week or so but over the years we've gotten more secure in our own abilities. Nowadays, instead of looking for help from each other we basically say, "read it and have fun with it." Fortunately we enjoy each other's stuff. When we do "talk shop" we tend to focus on the business side of publishing—which can be very strange—as opposed to the creative side.
Q: Twenty-five years ago you helped found a psychosocial rehabilitation program for kids with cancer at the Children's Hospital in Los Angeles (CHLA). The program endures to this day and is considered one of the finest of its kind in the country. Are you still actively involved?
A: Not directly. I'm still a Clinical Professor of Pediatric Psychology at USC's School of Medicine and a Clinical Professor of Psychology at USC's Department of Psychology. Although I don't do a lot of teaching I do occasionally supervise grad students, post-doctoral fellows, medical residents, and so on. Some of my students are full professors. I try to keep in touch with the field. Aside from that my main contact now is philanthropic in nature. For example, our foundation recently funded a quality of life research study at CHLA of children with brain tumors.
Q: We've talked about how your work as a clinical psychologist played a major role in what you bring to the Delaware character. Does your work as a writer impact what you do as teacher and psychologist?
A: I don't think it does. When I sit there with a grad student talking about a case, we're just talking about the case. I'm a psychologist again, not a writer.
Q: How does it make you feel to know, twenty-five years later, that the CHLA program you directed and help found has been so successful and changed so many lives for the better?
A: I was there for only a few years but I consider myself very fortunate to have been part of that program. Like most people who become healthcare professionals I became a psychologist because I really wanted to help people. It was a chance to give something back and make a difference in people's lives. I treated a lot of kids and they got better. There's no greater feeling in the world. With perhaps one exception I've always considered the work I did as a psychologist much more important than what I did and continue to do as a novelist because when you get right down to it fiction writing is very narcissistic work.
Q: What was the exception?
A: In 1993 I published a book called DEVIL's WALTZ, a Delaware novel that dealt with a condition known as Munchausen by Proxy, a dangerous form of child abuse in which a parent induces symptoms in his or her child in order to win the attention of healthcare professionals. At the time few people had heard of the syndrome, including most doctors. After the book came out I got a number of calls from doctors and nurses around the country who said, "You know, we have this kid and we didn't know what the hell was going on with him…and now we know." That novel saved lives. It was incredible.
Q: Is there any part of you that misses your old life as a psychologist?
A: No. I like what I'm doing now. But it did take me a while to totally let that old life go. I wrote three books while working full-time as a psychologist. Eventually, however, I had to give it up. The demands were antithetical to what I wanted to accomplish as a writer and what I needed to do for my publisher. For example, it's difficult for a psychologist to just up and leave town. But publishers want you to go on book tours and travel. I decided I was going to try writing full time to see if I liked it and so I eased out of my practice. (It took a couple of years to finish up with the kids I was seeing.) What I really like about full-time writing is the personal freedom. As a therapist every hour of my day was booked up for months. I'd routinely have nine or ten appointments per day. Now I can wake up and say, "Gee, I can do whatever I want." It's very liberating. Fortunately, one of the things I got from my former career was a strong sense of discipline. A lot of people have difficulty dealing with a lack of structure in their lives. If they have too much leisure time they get nothing done. Because of my years as a psychologist that was never an issue for me.
Q: What do you consider your greatest strength and your greatest weakness as a writer?
A: Sometimes I think I get a little too wordy. I'm always trying to rein myself in and say more with less. At the start of each day's writing I always go back and revise my work from the day before. I consciously try to make sure I'm not over-writing. Perhaps my greatest strength is the psychological insight I bring to my fiction. I like to think there's a certain unique quality to what I do but that's up to other people to judge. I also think I have a pretty good sense of place. And people tell me I'm a very vivid writer; that there are scenes and characters that stick out in their minds. I also like to think I bring a sense of compassion to my writing. I'm basically an optimist. I don't want pat happy endings but I also don't see a need to write an ending that's morose. People should be entertained when they read. Arguments over whether a piece of writing is entertainment or literature are nonsensical and pretentious. If we don't stray too far from our caveman ancestors sitting around a fire telling stories, that's okay. Some of the world's most enduring classics are simply great stories at heart.
Q: What's the most important thing your reading public should know about you?
A: How much I appreciate them. Like most writers I write for myself and not an audience. But at the same time I have a profound appreciation for my readers. It's a great thing to take a project from initial concept to finished book, put it out in the public, and have people not only buy what you've written but also come back again and again for more. I couldn't do this without them.
(c) Copyright 2002, Jonathan Kellerman. All rights reserved.
Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.
Back to top.
|
| |
|
