With the publication of Books To Die For John Connolly and
Declan Burke have jointly edited one of the most widely anticipated books this
year. Despite their busy schedule, I
managed to persuade the two of them to answer a few questions for Shots on Books To Die For and the task they took on.
How did you come to the list / narrow
down the list of authors you wanted to approach for a contribution?
DB: “Picking the list of
contributors was pretty straightforward, in theory at least. We just wanted the best living crime writers,
so we set out to get in touch with them all.
I have to say that I was astonished by the response - I know that crime
writers have a reputation (and well deserved) for being pretty helpful to one
another, but the reaction to our proposal was amazing. I guess that is in part, because every writer
is at heart a reader, or is a reader first, and if you’re really serious about
your books there’s no more enjoyable question than, ‘What’s your favourite
book?’ That’s a question that could
conceivably take hours to answer.”
JC: Most authors did seem to
get it straight off, and those that didn't never came around to the idea, to be
honest. We had a bit of back-and-forth with a couple, but I think we both
rather sensed that any hesitancy was likely to translate into a 'no'. I
guess my view was that we shouldn't ask anyone whose work we didn't respect.
Once we established that as a benchmark, it became fairly easy to create
a wish list.
Would you have been able to guess the
books chosen by the individual authors?
DB: “That’s an interesting
question. I suppose the knee-jerk
answer, before we began, would have been a cautious ‘Yes’. I mean, I had a pretty good idea, having
interviewed him last year and spent about half the interview in a very
enjoyable digression chatting about Raymond Chandler, that Michael Connelly
would pick a Chandler novel. That said,
I was very surprised that he picked the one he did - if I’d been writing about
Chandler, I’d have picked two other titles before I picked Michael’s choice. But that was one of the real joys of the
process for me, the fact that the contributors’ choices were so personal to
them, and the way they talked about the impact a particular book had on them on
an emotional level, say, or the way it spoke to them at a particular age, or a
period in their life. Linwood Barclay’s
piece on Ross Macdonald is a good example of that, I think. The contributors aren’t just talking about
books that they believe to be technically brilliant, or a master-class in style
/ language, etc. They’re talking about
books they love. And when it comes to
something like picking your favourite book, I’ll take passion over perfection
every time.”
JC: I was surprised by some
of the choices, but not that many. Rita Mae Brown's decision to write on A TALE OF TWO CITIES by Charles Dickens
raised an eyebrow, I must admit. I think she makes a valiant effort to
justify it, but she's one of the authors - Julia Wallis Martin on Poe is
another - who used the choice of book or writer as a springboard to dive into
other issues and concerns. Most of the choices were, if not anticipated,
then not unexpected. I knew, for example, that Paul Johnston regarded
Philip Kerr's A PHILOSOPHICAL
INVESTIGATION very highly because we'd discussed it - and disagreed about
it - over the years. Similarly, I knew that when I asked Chris Mooney,
he'd pick either Stephen King, Thomas Harris or Dennis Lehane, and I felt that,
given their shared Boston background, he'd do the best job on Lehane's MYSTIC RIVER. I called that one
right, as that's one of my favourite essays in the book. In that sense, I
suppose we sometimes had contributors in mind for particular titles or writers,
but we didn't pressure anyone to pick a particular author or book. That
said, it took a long time to find someone to write on Dorothy L. Sayers, for
some reason. I guess she was one of those writers who was greatly
admired, but perhaps didn't inspire passion in everyone. Lauren Henderson
in her Rebecca Chance guise did a lovely essay on Sayers in the end, though.
Were there any surprises or
disappointments?
DB: “Well, I was very
pleasantly surprised at how readily and enthusiastically the contributors
responded to the idea. That was the
first thing. In terms of their choices,
certainly, there are plenty of surprises in there, for me at least. One was how popular an author Josephine Tey
remains - at one point it seemed as if every second writer was offering to
write about a Josephine Tey novel. Another
very nice surprise was the way some entirely unexpected patterns started to
emerge as the pieces of the jigsaw began to fit into place. It became possible to chart the evolution of
the crime / mystery novel as it responded to various social and cultural
changes over the last 150 years or so, which was an unexpected bonus and very
gratifying. I was also nicely surprised
by some names popping up that I’d never heard of before, Kem Nunn and his ‘surf
noir’ being a very good example, and a writer that I’ll be checking out once
the dust settles on this project.
JC: Like Declan, Tey was the
big surprise for me. She seems to be as iconic as Chandler is for a couple
of generations of female writers, but I had never read her. I took THE DAUGHTER OF TIME with me to South
Africa, and then ended up giving it away before I'd finished it. It
wasn't because I wasn't enjoying it, but I was telling an audience about Tey,
and I mentioned that particular book, and a man came up to me afterwards and
said that he didn't read fiction at all, but he was intrigued by the sound of THE DAUGHTER OF TIME. By
coincidence, he was in a wheelchair, having contracted some terrible virus
while working in Africa, and had spent months immobile, staring at the ceiling
of a hospital room. As THE DAUGHTER
OF TIME begins with Alan Grant hospitalized and staring at the ceiling of
his room, it seemed like one of those moments when a particular book was meant
to be with a particular reader, so I gave my copy to him. I hope he
enjoys it. I have to buy another copy now just to find out what happens
at the end.
DB: “In terms of disappointments, well, I guess we knew before we began that
the book couldn’t accommodate every single book we’d have liked to have seen in
it. It simply wouldn’t be possible. But then, the book isn’t supposed to be a
kind of sterile list of every crime / mystery novel you could possibly imagine,
and nor is supposed to be a list of my favourite books, or John’s. It was always intended as a labour of love,
and not just on our part, but also on the part of the contributors. And as I said before, love is an imperfect
thing at the best of times, and it has its fair share of flaws and
disappointments. Ultimately, though, any
small disappointments were far outweighed by the quality of the contributions,
and the way in which the contributors engaged with their subjects. I’ll be honest with you, I felt pretty
humbled by the time we got through with this book.”
JC: In a way, it would have
been easier if we could have put a gun to contributors' heads and said,
"You must write about..." David Goodis and Horace McCoy are two
omissions that rankle with me, but nobody picked them. Someone agreed to
do Eco's THE NAME OF THE ROSE, and
then never responded to emails afterwards. I wish someone had written on
Joe Wambaugh too. By and large, though, there are very few grating
absences among the subjects, and those significant authors who were unable to
contribute, or who just didn't want to, were covered in essays about them by
other people. For example, Jim Burke declined very gracefully, but I knew
that someone would write about him, and if they didn't then I would.
Similarly for P.D. James and Ruth Rendell. If I had to confess to one particular
disappointment, it would be that I'd have liked it if more writers from outside
the Anglo-American tradition had been willing to participate. At one
point, I was engaged in negotiations with writers from South Korea and Japan,
and trying to hunt down someone in India, but all those efforts came to naught.
We also had great difficulty in getting a French writer to contribute.
I'm not sure why, but every author we contacted seemed to decline.
It may be that it was easier to convince Anglo-American authors, or Irish
authors, because we knew a lot of them personally, and therefore there was a
degree of trust there from the start. When it comes to authors from
outside that tradition, though, the only place to meet them is in passing at
book festivals abroad, and often there are language barriers, or you simply
never get to spend any significant time with them. Then again, the book
would have swollen to an unmanageable length. It's big enough as it is.
DB: If I can indulge my
personal wish list for a few moments, I’d have loved to have seen William
Goldman’s MARATHON MAN in there. A seminal thriller, I think. And I love Alistair MacLean’s WHEN EIGHT BELLS TOLL. I’m also a big fan of Barry Gifford’s Sailor
and Lula story-cycle. I think Horace
McCoy’s KISS TOMORROW GOODBYE is an
omission, and I’d loved to have seen Edward Anderson’s THIEVES LIKE US in there. The
Jim Thompson book, if I’d been writing about him, would have been THE KILLER INSIDE ME … and so on, for
pages and pages. THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE.
BUILD MY GALLOWS HIGH …
Would you work on a similar project
again?
DB: “Never. Not a chance.
You have NO IDEA how difficult John Connolly is to work with. The man’s a complete diva … “No, I’d
definitely work on a similar project at some point in the future, once I’ve
forgotten how much time and effort this one took. I wouldn’t mind so much, but John did pretty
much everything except design the cover.
And I’m not entirely sure he didn’t do that too …”
JC: I think Declan is being
far too modest. He was the voice of reason on this. Margie Orford
said to me that it was just as well that Declan was the main channel of
communication with a lot of the contributors, as she didn't think I'd be as
diplomatic as he was. She was probably right. I don't think anyone
will do anything quite this ambitious within the genre again, or at least not
for some time. We've covered a huge spread of the major authors, as both
subjects and contributors. I suppose that there is scope for a volume
that includes far more authors who don't write in English, but I'm not sure
I'll be the one to tackle it. I found doing this absolutely exhausting,
and massively time-consuming. I don't think I realised at the start just
how difficult it would be, from sourcing contributors, to obtaining copy
(deadlines were, by and large, merrily ignored by many of those involved!) and,
ultimately, fact-checking all of those essays. It's hard enough checking
your own work. It's massively, massively difficult checking other
people's. Every detail in every essay had to be checked, and we did it
over and over, yet with every new proofread some previously unseen error came
to light. It almost broke me.
Any editorial disagreements?
DB: “I can’t remember any
disagreements. It wasn’t really that
kind of book, because the vast majority of the contributors were
self-selecting, in that we pretty much went out and tried to get the best crime
and mystery writers working today. And
once that was achieved, it was up to the authors themselves to pick their own
favourites. A piece of cake, really …”
JC: I think that I was more
inclined to be the bad guy when it came to editing. For the most part -
there were maybe only two exceptions, if that - any requests for rewrites were
fairly minor, and the contributors understood immediately what was required.
That's the good thing about dealing with professionals: they're used to
being edited, and they understand that no editor ever made a book, story, or
essay worse.
Any authors you would have loved to have included but
could not for various reasons?
DB: “Well, as I said above, there
were a couple of disappointments. In
terms of contributing authors, yes, there were a few people I’d have liked to
have seen involved, but the timing wasn’t good for everyone. That was always going to be the case and we
knew that from the start. You know how
it is, there were some people we asked who were in the throes of putting their
latest books to bed, for example, and couldn’t risk writing in a completely
different style in case it might affect their own writing. And that’s perfectly understandable, I think. “To be honest, though, I never really looked
at the list of contributors in that way.
It was always about who was involved, and how enthusiastic they were,
and the way in which some of the biggest names in publishing responded to an
idea that started out maybe a little whimsical but very quickly became a very
serious prospect, and all because of the way people answered the call. I don’t want to come over all Pollyanna about
it, but to be honest, for such a supposedly hardboiled crew, the crime writing
community is made up of an incredibly generous bunch of people.”
JC: I wish P.D. James had
said yes. We went through a certain amount of back-and-forth with her
before she politely declined, but she's a perceptive critic, even if I don't
necessarily agree with everything she has to say about the genre. On a personal
level, I'd love to have had an essay from James Lee Burke, but he's always
declined to become involved in anthologies like this, and I can see why he
wouldn't want to start writing for them at this stage in his life. On the
other hand, for every author who couldn't contribute there was one wonderful
contribution from someone who I might have hoped would become involved, but
regarded as a long shot. Joseph Wambaugh was one of those. I've
been an admirer of Wambaugh ever since I read THE CHOIRBOYS as a teenager, but I'd never met him, or even
corresponded with him. He said yes immediately, and delivered a wonderful
essay on meeting Truman Capote, which is an adornment to the anthology.
It all balanced out in the end...
John Connolly is the author (and
is best known) for the highly acclaimed and award winning Charlie Parker
series. He has also written a number of
standalone novels. His latest Charlie
Parker novel Wrath of Angels has
recently been published. More
information on John and his work can be found on his website.
Declan Burke runs the highly
regarding blog Crime Always Pays with “news, reviews and interviews about
(mostly) Irish crime writing”.
His book Absolute Zero Cool
won the Goldsboro Last Laugh Award at Crimefest 2012. His latest book is The Slaughters Hound, which is a sequel to Eight Ball Boogie.
Tom Cook, my favourite lyrical
writer, writes a different book each time.
He can write anything from romance novels to taut police procedurals. However, he is at his very best with
historical mysteries and no more so than with this particular book. BREAKHEART
HILL takes place in a small southern town, Choctaw, Alabama in 1962.
Ben Wade tells how the girl he was infatuated with, Kelli Troy’s body was
found battered and beaten in the mountain woods. The reader knows something terrible has
happened. As Ben asks at the end of the
first chapter, “What was Kelli doing on
Breakheart Hill that day? What was she looking for in those deep woods
alone?” The rest of the novel will
answer those questions and the result will be shocking. Yet, as the
reader progresses through the book, which gives a beautiful portrait of growing
up in a small town and a first romance in high school, the reader cannot forget
the chilling first chapter. We know that
is where we are heading- to a terrible place.
This will not be a happy ending.
