Today we welcome our guest James Scott Bell to TKZ. Jim is the author of the Ty Buchanan thriller series – Try Dying, Try Darkness and Try Fear (July 09). His latest standalone, Deceived, was called a "heart-whamming read" by Publishers Weekly. He has taught novel writing at Pepperdine University in Malibu, and at numerous writers conferences. In July he’ll be conducting a workshop on suspense dialogue for the International Thriller Writers CraftFest portion of ThrillerFest in New York. Jim is also the author of two bestselling books in the Write Great Fiction series from Writers Digest Books: Plot & Structure and Revision & Self-Editing. A former trial lawyer, Jim lives and writes in L.A. His website is www.jamesscottbell.com
Perhaps you saw the challenge a group of British thriller writers laid down last month. In The Guardian (UK) , Jeffery Archer, Martin Baker, Matt Lynn and Alan Clements declared they are out to end "the reign of the production-line American thriller writers, such as James Patterson, John Grisham and Dan Brown" and return British thrillers to their "rightful prominence."
Talking a little English smack, Archer said, "The tradition of thriller writing should never be allowed to die. Not least because we are better at it than anyone else in the world."
My thought upon reading that was, We whipped ’em in 1781, and we can do it again.
But I set my musket aside and continued reading. Here’s a clip:
Lynn, author of the military thriller Death Force, said that authors such as James Patterson – who writes, with the aid of a team of co-authors, up to eight books a year – have "drained a lot of the life out of the market". "Look at Fleming, look at Len Deighton – they had a quirkiness to them. Yes they were very popular, and had elements of the formulaic, but there was an edge of originality to them," he said. "All the writers in this group believe in bringing that back … Too many of the American thrillers are just being churned out to a rigid formula. Good writing is never a production line."
"We’re trying to say ‘why would you want to read fairly cynical, ghost-written books which are being pumped out by publishers when there are a lot of good new British writers you could be reading?’" explained Lynn. "We feel the genre has been quite neglected in the last seven to eight years … There haven’t been any new writers coming through. It might be because there aren’t any very good writers, or maybe it’s because publishers and booksellers have been neglecting it – they’ve become obsessed with the big names, and because they’ve got a new James Patterson or John Grisham four to five times a year to put at the front of the bookshop, it crowds out all the new British authors who are coming through."
These writers, who call themselves The Curzon Group, have come up with "five principles" for writing a thriller. They believe–
1. That the first duty of any book is to entertain.
2. That a book should reflect the world around it.
3. That thrilling, popular fiction doesn’t follow formulas.
4. That every story should be an adventure for both the writer and the reader.
5. That stylish, witty, and insightful writing can be combined with edge-of-the seat excitement.
Let’s take a closer look.
1. That the first duty of any book is to entertain.
Check. Without that, nothing else matters, because no one is reading you. And note that entertainment does not mean fluff. Being "caught up in the story" can happen in many ways and in myriad genres.
Our top thriller writers clearly entertain. Look at what’s being read on any given plane on any given day. For a read that gets you caught up in the fictive dream, we Americans are certainly holding our own, wouldn’t you say?
2. That a book should reflect the world around it.
I’m not sure what this means. Social comment? Message? Verisimilitude? You can take it a number of ways.
I do think a thriller has to "reflect" the world to the extent it establishes the feeling of reality, that the events in the story could happen. How well you do this is a matter of individual style, and avoiding things that could pull readers out of the story.
But this is SOP for any fiction writer, not just those who do thrillers. I’m not sure this principle moves the debate along.
What do you think it means?
3. That thrilling, popular fiction doesn’t follow formulas.
Here, I disagree a bit. There is a reason we have formulas in this world: they WORK. Try making nitroglycerin out of egg whites or lip balm out of sandpaper. We use formulas every day. We’re lost without them.
What most critics mean by this jab is "formulaic," which is a euphemism for "by the numbers" or otherwise without original content and style.
And we’d agree. Thrillers need formula, but should never be formulaic.
So what’s the formula?
For one thing, somebody has to be in danger of death. (I’ve talked elsewhere about the three types of death—physical, professional and psychological. For most thrillers, physical is on top).
Another ingredient: an opposition force that is stronger than the Lead. If not, the reader won’t care about the stakes.
And the Lead has to be a character we care about deeply. Not perfect, and not necessarily all good (think: Dirty Harry). We just have to care, and there are things you do and don’t do to forge that reader connection.
What keeps a thriller from being by-the-numbers is the freshness you bring to it by way of character, voice, style, and the arrangement of plot elements.
Take A Simple Plan by Scott Smith. A tried and true formula: innocent man finds forbidden treasure, succumbs to greed, disaster results (the death overhanging this novel is psychological death, which the Lead and his wife suffer by the end). That story’s been done over and over. But Smith brought to it compelling characters in complex relationships, and a style that drives you relentlessly from chapter to chapter.
Or the film The Fugitive. Innocent man on run from the law. Formula! But what they did with both Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) and especially Sam Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones) turned it into a classic thriller. We’ll never forget Sam’s line, "I don’t care!" Or the beat where Kimble, trying to get out of Cook County Hospital without being recognized, puts his own troubles on hold to help a kid in the emergency ward.
When the film was over, and Sam does care, we’ve been taken on an almost perfect thrill ride.
4. That every story should be an adventure for both the writer and the reader.
Check. For the writer of thrillers, that means taking a risk in each book, somehow. Stretching the muscles. For example, I love that Harlan Coben has taken Myron Bolitar international in his latest. I’m sure you have your favorite examples, too (what are they?)
No adventure in the writer, no adventure in the reader.
5. That stylish, witty, and insightful writing can be combined with edge-of-the seat excitement.
Who is going to argue with that?
I’d aver, however, that style cannot overcome a weak story construct. So while I’m at it, let me put in a good word for Patterson, who has been castigated by so many. His concepts are terrific. He knows story at the fundamental level. His books wouldn’t do nearly so well without the solid scaffolding of the basic premise.
Before I can start outlining or writing, I have to have a logline that excites me, that calls up all sorts of possibilities in my mind. That’s something Patterson, Grisham and Brown also have as the baseline of their books. And so do all successful thriller scribes, as far as I can see.
Our team, the American thriller writers, do pretty well after all. So if the Brits want to have a contest, I say: Bring it.
I’m in.
Any other takers?
And what do you think of the five principles?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coming up on our Kill Zone Guest Sundays, watch for blogs from Sandra Brown, Steve Berry, Robert Liparulo, Thomas B. Sawyer, Paul Kemprecos, Linda Fairstein, Oline Cogdill and more.
Great Post JSB. My head hurts, so I learned something. Welcome to the Zone.
Jim, thanks for being our guest today. I agree with the 5 principles, but common sense tells me they should apply to any well written novel, thriller or otherwise. Perhaps the British authors taking this stand should not be focusing on American writers so much as they should be addressing the distribution and marketing of their own publishers. I see this whole topic as a simple matter of supply and demand. There’s a reason that Patterson, Cussler and other franchise-oriented U.S. writers sell the number of books they do—their fans can’t get enough.
This post reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjC3R6jOtUo
Hi James, great post! (I also believe in letting rusty muskets lie, but do want to point out that we whipped them again in 1812, or at least wore ’em down to a stalemate!).
Seriously, when they’re writing at the top of their game, I don’t think that Patterson, Grisham, et al are outshone by any UK counter-thriller authors, however fine and worthy. True, some of the celebrity authors “overdo” by turning themselves into ghostwritten production mills. But hey, isn’t excess practically an American virtue? And in this publishing economy, it’s writer-against-the-machine. So sue us (or in this case, them–no celeb status in my household, last I checked). Which brings me to your question about the UK Cabal’s Point #2, James:
“That a [Thriller] should reflect the world around it.”
Perhaps this point is to make sure that thrillers are distinguished from science fiction? Except…that the best science fiction does reflect the world around us, only in a transformed state. So…where does that leave us with Point 2?
Oh Yikes. Now my head is hurting, just like John’s. I must have also learned something! Really loved reading it!
Hi, Jim. Welcome. And thanks for the great post.
My thought when I first read about the gauntlet thrown down by Archer and company was that they were whining a bit. And who among us doesn’t? “I’m at least as good an author as X,” we say. “If I could get the kind of [promotion, advertising, advance, publicity, styling . . . pick one] I could be a mega-seller too.” And I’m sure there’s some truth in that.
But there’s a fair amount of self-delusion, as well. John Grisham, Stephen King, Tom Clancy, Dan Brown, Patricia Cornwell and other brand-name authors either created subgenres where they did not exist before, or at least breathed new life into existing subgenres that were moribund. Did they get a lot of marketing support? Sure; but if the product hadn’t scratched an itch in the marketplace they never would have succeeded the way they did. Wasn’t it Tom Peters who said that nothing kills a bad product quite as thoroughly as good marketing?
I think is all boils down to the first rule: that the primary role of a thriller is to entertain. No one can argue that the cited francise authors don’t do that. I’m not sure that they improve our world or make many lasting philosophical points that will be quoted for generations, but that’s okay. Perhaps profundity comes at a price that’s measured in millions of copies sold.
I think it’s interesting that Jeffery Archer and company seek to change the desires of their audience, rather than to adapt to them. I don’t know any of them personally, so I can’t speak to their actual motivations, but as a distant third party, the complaints smack of a certain intellectual laziness. Reading between the lines, I hear them demainding the right to stay within their own comfort zones while blaming a degree of market rejection on the public’s inability to recognize their brilliance.
As for Patterson’s franchise “drain[ing] the life out of the market,” I think that’s a short-sighted view. Any Patterson fan who gazes at an airport news stand in search of a book for their upcoming flight will know that his book will be finished somewhere between New York and Denver. To fill in the rest of the flight, the Patterson buyer will then reach for the next Gilstrap (or Bell or Miller or Moore or even Archer) book. Anything that brings a customer into the store is a good thing.
Reading is a lifestyle; it’s not a zero-sum game. I personally think we need to celebrate every author’s success–even the ones whose works we don’t particularly enjoy.
“I personally think we need to celebrate every author’s success–even the ones whose works we don’t particularly enjoy.”
Well said, John! We should never begrudge another writer’s success. If nothing else, it proves that the marketplace is alive and well.
Thanks for having me on TKZ, and for the great comments. Mickey Spillane (who was actually a flat out good writer) once said, “If the public likes you, you’re good. Shakespeare was a common, down-to-earth writer in his day.”
There’s something to that.
I also don’t think that a top author who starts to “mail it in” is going to stay on top if he or she keeps that up.
Which is why I’m glad to be challenged. It’s good for the blood. Good for the writing muscles.
I remember snorting out loud at the arrogance of the “Curzon Group” when I read their little manifesto (not the least absurd of which was lumping Dan Brown in as a “production line” writer. I’m sure no one, particularly his publisher, would call Brown prolific. And he obviously writes his book without outside assistance, otherwise we would have had a dozen Da Vinci Code follow-ups by now).
I actually thought the more successful British thriller writers had most cause to be offended by what they said. I suspect R J Ellroy, Ken Follett, and numerous others would bridle at the proposition that their books aren’t being given their “rightful prominence.” Sounded like sour grapes from some writers who haven’t broken through and are trying to shamelessly garner publicity to me.
Thanks very much for taking the trouble to discuss our initiative.
I don’t think its fair to accuse us of whining. We’re all debut authors who’ve had tremendous support from our publishers. We’re not trying to criticise American thrillers, although it may have come across like that. We are merely trying to carve out some space and attention for a particular, British literary tradition – Buchan, Fleming, Deighton etc – that has got a bit lost in the last decade. Obviously, the five principles apply to pretty much any thriller. The point, really, is that any author has to shout about their own work – because there is so much noise out there, it is sometimes the only way to get a hearing.
Aw heck. Now I feel like breaking out my Hillary Clinton panstuit and matching beads, and pulling us all together for a cross-the-pond group hug and pot of tea. Mattlynn, you’re absolutely right that we writers need to shout about…er…promote our own work. Hey, wouldn’t this topic make a fun panel at a conference, by the way? All in good humor, of course!
I like Matt’s take on it. Carve out your niche, get attention and then once well attended, if the readers like it they’ll stay on.
For most of my own life it has been UK authors who have grabbed me most. Forsythe, Follet, Cornwall and Higgins being the top…although good ol’ Jack has dissappointed the last couple of rounds.
There are many great American thriller writers as well, but I have a really hard time with most series that go beyond two or three books with the same characters, the same voice, the same situations. Etc. Maybe that’s why I started writing my own.
Perhaps it’s because I am an American with a name more common in UK, and so my long ago heritage surfaces in my book selections. Or perhaps its because they write with a British accent.
At any rate, best of luck at barging your way into the market regardless of the method incurred.
There’s a way to shout about your own work without denigrating the work of others.
Surely you can see how statements such as this, “We feel the genre has been quite neglected in the last seven to eight years … There haven’t been any new writers coming through,” could strike others as arrogant, especially those of us who have been publishing books in that time frame.
Not to mention the fact that it’s simply not true. If that’s what you think, then you haven’t been reading much American crime fiction lately. Chelsea Cain, Gillian Flynn, and others have produced some remarkable new books; not to mention the resurgence of “pulp” novels initiated by Charles Ardai with his Hard Case Crime books.
We’re not all Patterson, and implying that we are, and that it would take a British writer to reinvent the proverbial wheel, is highly offensive.
You’re right- whining wasn’t the right term. It’s much more a combination of arrogance and naivete.
By the way- I can hardly wait to read these masterworks that are going to set the crime fiction world on fire. I’m expecting War and Peace meets Crime and Punishment. Hope I’m not disappointed.
You can read sample chapters of Matt Lynn’s novel at his website:
http://mattlynn.co.uk/page_1205260675383.html
Matt, if you read this: you need to proofread your sample chapters badly.
Thanks to Kathryn and Basil for their replies. The point is, of course, that our comments are directed at the UK market: we aren’t really addressing them at the US at the moment. In reality, the thriller is an Anglo-American tradition, with lots of useful traffic going both ways. We’d just like a bit more emphasis on the Anglo side of it.
To get back to Michelle, when I said there hadn’t been new voices coming through in the last seven or eight years, I was referring to British writers. I think that’s true, and a shame, and something we’re trying to redresss. You really have to be working very hard to take offence at anything in that. In the meantime, I think James Patterson can probably survive a couple of twigs thrown in his direction.
I suspect there are many British crime fiction writers who would disagree.
GREAT POST JSB –
I speak for myself, however speaking to many of my colleagues in London in the Crime / Thriller genre have never heard of this CURZON Group, or the three writers who set this up.
I consider it a tad too jingoistic and smacks of jealously. In fact I first read about during the London Book Fair a few weeks ago – funny that they released their press release / website around the time of the LBF…..good for publicity [but that’s me being cynical…
My notes are below –
http://existentialistman.blogspot.com/2009/04/us-vs-uk-thriller-war.html
Good international thrillers are just that, and having a ‘pop’ at US thriller writers rather silly
Great Post JSB and I enjoyed the comments too!
Ali
I suspect that Michelle is so determined to take offence that nothing I can say will mollify her. Even so, I’d just point out we’ve had lots of support from other British thriller writers, so I’m still a bit unsure who these people are we’ve offended. I haven’t heard from them.
Incidentally, in the UK, crime and thrillers are very distinct genres, unlike in the US. So nothing we say should be taken as a criticism of crime writers. Maybe that is part of the confusion.
I was a bit confused by Ali’s remarks, particularly as I have a huge amount of respect for the work does to promote the genre. His main complaint seems to be that he hasn’t heard of us before. But, er, we’re new writers…..
I also think it unfair to use a tired accusation of jingoism. I know there are some people who will always object to any use of the word ‘British’. But it is no more jingoistic than, say, Gordon Ramsey trying to get people interested in British cooking. We just want to get people interested in some great writers of the past, and take a look at the work of some writers trying to keep that tradition going.