Crime Fiction Dossier

Happy Holidays!

I hope everyone is enjoying this holiday season, as we move through Christmas and Chanukah and into the New Year. I'm trying to tell myself that it's okay if I don't read as many books during this time of year, given how busy and distracting life becomes. But it's hard!

(I'm also under strict orders from James O. Born to read fewer books and watch more TV during the holidays. And he's a cop, so I have to listen. I'm trying, Jim.)

Here's hoping that 2006 is a great year for books, even better than 2005. It looks like most of our favorites will be back, plus I'm looking forward to a handful of killer surprises from authors both old and new who blow me away. Finding those books is really my favorite part of being a reader. (I don't know who they are yet, of course, but I'm sure they'll be out there.)

In the meantime, if you don't read as much during the holidays, that's okay. As soon as the new year comes, though, it's time to get back to work. There are 2000 mysteries published in this country each year and someone's got to read them. It might as well be us.

So best wishes to everyone! I hope that you'll be safe and happy and prosperous in the months to come. Be well, my friends.

Review of James Sallis' Drive

My latest review ran in the Boston Globe today, a piece on James Sallis' superb crime novel Drive. This was one of my favorite books of the year.

I know you might be thinking: "Didn't that book come out months ago?" Yes, it did. And I wrote the review months ago. Sometimes these things get backed up, though, and take a while to actually run in the paper. I'm glad the editor there (who is a wonderful fellow) was able to squeeze it in, as it's a great book.

Michael Connelly's 2006 Books

In a follow-up to yesterday's post, Jane Davis, the manager of Michael Connelly's website, wrote in to confirm what Mike's publishing plans are for 2006.

Connelly will have two books published next year, but only one of them is a novel. So I guess that means I won't have to smite him.

Echo Park, a Harry Bosch story, will be released in September or October. The other book (Crime Beat) is coming in May, but it's not a novel. It's a collection of newspaper stories from Connelly's days as a crime reporter.

(In case that sounds familiar, the latter book came out in a limited edition earlier this year. His publisher liked it so much they decided to release it wide.)

End of the Year Recap

2005 is almost over. There were approximately 1500-2000 mysteries and thrillers published in the United States (not counting the vanity crap) and I saw most of them. I only managed to read 150 or so new books, but even that ought to earn me some kind of medal.

Overall, it was a good year for crime fiction, but not a great one. The last quarter of the year, in particular, was soft. Looking over my reading list, the last 2005 book I read that might qualify for my Top 10 list was published in September.

Speaking of Top 10 lists, I still haven't made mine yet, but there are several solid contenders. Nothing that really stands head-and-shoulders above the rest, though. This was a year of many good books, but few great ones. (I would be hard-pressed to single out a 2005 book and call it great.) We'll have to wait to see if any of them have the staying power to become great ones later on. So far, I have my doubts.

This was a lukewarm year for debuts. There were some good first-time books, but the overall pool was pretty shallow. (So many of them were just downright bad, too, making me wonder how they ever got published in the first place.) I suppose this is probably true most years, but maybe I'm just noticing it more this time since I'm a judge for the ITW's Best First Novel Award. It's been no easy task, believe me.

The best thing happening in the genre right now is that there is a steady and reliable core group of authors who publish a book each year that you can almost guarantee will be good. People like Barry Eisler, David Morrell, Joseph Finder, Laura Lippman, Denise Hamilton, Lawrence Block, George Pelecanos, Julia Spencer-Fleming, Lee Child, Stephen White and Daniel Silva once again put out excellent books that show why they're the dependable professionals they are. All of them should be bestsellers.

A handful of promising, relatively new writers like James O. Born, Harley Jane Kozak, Dylan Schaffer and Duane Swierczynski demonstrated why they're likely to become tomorrow's stars of the genre. I look forward to reading them for years to come.

There were also some authors who've been around for a while whose books took me by surprise (in a good way). Jonnie Jacobs wrote a thriller that I really enjoyed, and I was quite pleased with Reed Farrel Coleman's latest. I read my first book from the Burke family (one by Alafair) and was impressed. David Ellis wrote a thriller that unfolds in a reverse chronology that was both daring and entertaining. Paul Levine made a very welcome return to publishing -- I missed him the first time around, but loved his new book.

Of course, there were disappointments as well, with books by Robert Crais, P.J. Tracy and Elmore Leonard that let me down. There were also several highly hyped books ("The next Lee Child!" "The thriller debut of the year!") that I tried and didn't like, but that always happens.

Michael Connelly managed to have two books out (The Closers and The Lincoln Lawyer) that could qualify for Best of the Year status. Amazing. I've heard a rumor that he'll also have two books released in 2006. If true, I think I'll have to smite him.

Of course, Dean Koontz also had two books released in 2005 that could make my Top 10 list, but he does that every year. He's currently on a streak of 6 books in the last 3 years, all of which have been amazing. I don't know that anyone else could accomplish that.

The one book that really did blow me away this year isn't even out yet, even though I read it back in September. Robert Ferrigno's Prayers for the Assassin was probably the best thing I read all year, and it still won't be published until February. This is one of those books that gets in your head and just won't go away. One of the things that I particularly appreciated about it is that it tries to be something special and ambitious. (And, of course, it succeeds, which always helps.) I really hope people read it.

I finally read The Guards this year and learned why Ken Bruen is the favorite among crime fiction fans and writers that he is. I also finally met Ken after having just seen him across the bar at various functions for the past couple years. He's far too kind and generous a man to write that well.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the incomparable J.K. Rowling, whose latest Harry Potter book was once again one of my favorite reads. I know she has nothing to do with crime fiction, but that woman is amazing and I stand in awe, both of her talent and her success.

I re-read 9 books by Ross Thomas, my favorite thriller writer, over the past year and they were all wonderful. (A few of the early ones don't hold up quite as well, but they're still very enjoyable.) Thomas' body of work is unmatched in this or any other genre. I miss him a lot.

Finally, 2005 was also a year in which we lost some wonderful writers, including Evan Hunter (aka Ed McBain), Trevanian (aka Rodney Whittaker), John Fowles, Edward Bunker, A.J. Quinnell, Charlotte MacLeod and my friend Dennis Lynds. All of them will be missed.

Here's looking forward to a great year in 2006. Happy reading!

p.s. If I forgot an author or a book, please forgive me. The lists above aren't intended to be exhaustive.

Latest Chicago Sun-Times column

My December column ran this morning in the Chicago Sun-Times, including the latest books from Max Allan Collins, Eleanor Taylor Bland, Dean Koontz, Linda L. Richards and Matthew Reilly.

Good stuff all around.

A Letter to Book Biz Santa

My Letter to the Book Biz Santa is now available for reading over at M.J. Rose's blog, Buzz, Balls & Hype.

Enjoy!

Holiday gift suggestions

Here are some suggestions for books to give as gifts to the readers in your life. I've listed them in categories in order to help you select the right one. Really, though, they're all good books that are sure to please.

• John Grisham fans or Legal Thriller lovers: Michael Connelly's The Lincoln Lawyer
• People who like Bestsellers: James Patterson's Mary, Mary
• Fans of Indiana Jones: Matthew Reilly's Seven Deadly Wonders
• Horror lovers: David Morrell's Creepers
• People who Like Good Sex: M.J. Rose's The Delilah Complex
• Parents of Teenage Girls (or anyone else who knows one): Laura Lippman's To the Power of Three
• Thriller lovers: Joseph Finder's Company Man
• Admirers of Hard-boiled Heroines: Denise Hamilton's Savage Garden
• Carl Hiaasen fan: James O. Born's Shock Wave
• Mafia aficionados: Max Allan Collins' The Road to Paradise
• Action fans: Lee Child's One Shot
• Romantic Comedy fans: Paul Levine's Solomon vs. Lord
• Hit Man with a Heart lovers: Barry Eisler's Killing Rain
• Elmore Leonard fans: Charlie Stella's Cheapskates
• Cat lovers: Clea Simon's Mew is for Murder
• Chick Lit fans: Harley Jane Kozak's Dating is Murder
• Antiques Roadshow watchers: Elaine Flinn's Deadly Collection
• PI Novel lovers: Lee Goldberg's The Man with the Iron-On Badge
• Car lovers or Jim Thompson fans: James Sallis' Drive
• Pulp Fiction fans: Duane Swierczynski's The Wheel Man
• Lovers of Unconventional Thrillers: David Ellis' In the Company of Liars
• Anyone Who's Sad that Alias is Going Off the Air: Greg Rucka's Private Wars

On Book Reviewing, Part 2

Following up on last week's post, here are the rest of the questions and answers I did earlier this year discussing book reviewing.

3. What does an editor want from a book reviewer (e.g., meeting deadlines, satisfying writing guidelines, etc.)?

If you can’t meet deadlines, you’re not going to last very long as a reviewer. Editors like people who are reliable and pleasant to work with. They don’t like writers who make their job harder. Anything you can do to help out an editor will make you look good in their eyes, whether that means suggesting books to review, or just turning in flawless copy on time.

One thing that I’ve learned after doing this for a while is that good writers who meet deadlines and play by the rules are going to be much more successful than great writers who do not. You may not be able to control how great a writer you are, but you can definitely control how efficient and reliable you are.

Always remember: being pleasant, courteous and dependable go a long way in this (or any other) business.

4. What do you think is the “proper” format and structure of a book review (or is there one)?

Book reviews should strike a balance between summary and analysis. At most, they should contain around 50% summary, and in many cases less is preferable. Reviews should avoid revealing key twists or surprises (the dreaded “spoilers”).

If I could offer general advice, it would be:

Reviews should start by introducing the book and/or the author, and giving a brief overview of your critical analysis. The piece should then summarize the book, giving only what information is necessary to inform the reader. It should then conclude with more in-depth analysis and a final summary of your critical opinion.

This ain’t brain surgery. Simple and straightforward is usually the best policy.

A review should not be 3 paragraphs of summary and one sentence of fuzzy analysis.

On a side note, I don't really see the need for citations from the text in book reviews, but I suppose some people might like them. (I tend to think reviewers just do it to fill space and up the word count.)

5. Should a reviewer insert personal feelings and information into a book review, and if so, how much?

This should be done on a very limited basis, if at all. (And this is probably the number one mistake that rookie reviewers make.)

Reviews that say things like, “I felt this book was good because...” tend to mean very little to me. We all know that a review is an expression of your opinion. That’s a given. So just tell us what that opinion is – and try to back it up.

Taking your review from the individual ("I think this book is good because...") to the general ("This book is good because...") makes your critique more authoritative and useful.

Write like you’re an expert, even if you’re not. Be confident and declarative in your language and tone. The use of qualifying statements and wishy-washy language ruin a review. If you can’t state a firm opinion and justify it, you have no business writing a book review.

Above all, remember that the reader isn’t particularly interested in you; they’re interested in the book and the author. So leave you out of it and focus on the book.

The effect of reviews on book sales

Yale professors Judith A. Chevalier and Dina Mayzlin (Economics and Management, respectively) have released the results of a study they did analyzing the effects of "word of mouth" (in the form of customer reviews) on book sales at Amazon and BN.com. (You can also read a draft of their final paper here.)

Their methodology was not as rigorous as one would ideally wish for (since it's nearly impossible to get hard sales data), but they did come up with some interesting conclusions.

• Overall, reviews are overwhelmingly positive at both sites, and slightly more positive at BN.com.
• Amazon has more reviews, and they are longer and more detailed.
• Prices for the books in their sample were "significantly higher" at BN.com than at Amazon. (This is not apropos to the discussion at hand, but I found it very interesting nonetheless.)
• The addition of favorable reviews at one site increases book sales at that site relative to the other retailer.
• Negative reviews carry more weight with consumers than do positive reviews.
• The impact of a negative review is more powerful in decreasing book sales than a positive review is in increasing sales.

In short, positive reviews boost sales and negative reviews lower sales -- and the effect of the negative reviews is stronger than the effect of the positive reviews.

This was particularly interesting to me since it differs from the traditionally perceived effect of print reviews, where both positive and negative reviews are thought to boost sales. But it just shows the differences in the model when you're looking at a single entity that combines both reviews and sales.

When customers can see the review at the point of purchase, it obviously has a different effect than if they read it in a newspaper, for example, and then subsequently see the book in a store or online. In the latter case, the negative effects of a pan might be more ameliorated, and the book might actually benefit from the increased level of recognition and attention.

If scientists had access to more hard data we could get an even better understanding about the effects of reviews on book sales. (One of the fundamental challenges of publishing is that the publishers don't have the data and economic analysis to support many of their practices.) But this is interesting to see in the meantime.

On Book Reviewing, Part 1

A year or so back, someone wrote to me with a series of questions for an article they were writing about book reviewing. I’ll confess, I don’t remember who the person was or what they were writing the piece for. (For some reason, I think maybe it was an academic thing.) I did, however, save the questions, and my responses to them. Here are the first two, for your reading pleasure.

Question 1: If someone wants to be a book reviewer, where do they start?

The first step is to read as many books as possible. I think it’s advisable to focus on a particular area or genre of books (e.g., mysteries, science fiction, American History). If you try to read and review books from across the spectrum, your chances of becoming sufficiently proficient in any one area are very small. There are just too many books published and too much going on in the different genres.

After you begin to read books in your area, you need to start thinking about them critically and analytically. You should ask yourself questions along the way: What works in this book and what doesn’t? What parts do I like and what parts do I not? Are the characters believable and well developed? Is the plot familiar or original? Does it strain the suspension of belief too far? Is the pacing consistent or does it drag? Does the author tell or does s/he show? (There are a million others.)

The key is to be able to determine what the book’s strengths and weaknesses are, both in terms of the story and the craft, and then be able to explain them in such a way that is intelligible to someone who hasn’t read the book.

Once you can do that, you’re ready to write a review. It’s important to note that writing the review is the more perfunctory part of the task. It’s the thought behind it that’s most important. We're assuming here that any potential reviewer has at least adequate writing skills. Therefore, this is the factor that separates a good reviewer from a mediocre one.

Question 2: How do you write a book review?

I believe that the purpose of a book review is to give the reader a sense of what the book is about, and to offer a reasoned opinion as to its relative merits and demerits. A review should help guide the reader into deciding whether or not the book in question is one that they would like to read themselves. Ideally, it will also give the reader some things to think about with regards to the book.

A review should provide a concise summary of the book’s plot, characters and themes, being careful not to reveal too much. A skillful review will usually incorporate analysis into the presentation of the summary, thus accomplishing two things at once.

The balance of a review should be composed of analysis of the book, including what was good about it and what was not, what worked and what did not. A good review will often place the book in some context, whether in terms of literature as a whole, the book’s genre or the author’s career.

Although there are some exceptions, any review that is an unqualified rave or a merciless pan should probably be reconsidered. Remember, balance and perspective are crucial. Above all, reviews should be fair, reasoned and give justification for their positions.

Too often the things I see masquerading as book reviews are really just book reports, the kind of things we used to write in high school. They’re long summaries of the story finished off with a very brief critique that usually reads something like “I thought this book was really good because…” That’s fine for what it is, but it’s not a book review.

To be continued...