The Bitter End

By Allison Brennan

I’m not talking about typing THE END—one of my favorite moments of writing. I’m talking about the final end, the end of days: death.

Or in the timeless words of John Cleese in Monty Python’s skit:

He's not pining! He's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he 
rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he'd be pushing up the daisies! His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the 
bucket, he’s shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Apparently, Alex and I are on the same psychic wavelength once again because while I planned on writing about death, she was planning on making me an ex-writer. All I ask is that she waits until I’m done with my current book!

My mom has been organizing my office for me and last week she found hidden in my bookshelves a morbid little book called THE WHOLE DEATH CATALOG. My editor sent it to me because I’m a fan of Harold Schechter, who wrote one of my favorite research books, THE SERIAL KILLER FILES.

In college, I took a Philosophy class to fulfill a requirement, and I absolutely hated the segment on Death and Dying. Odd, perhaps, because I write about murder and criminal psychology and a lot of people die in my books. I’m more interested in the whys of death—homicide or natural—than in the process of dying. This probably explains my fears as well—death (as in the final outcome) doesn’t bother me. It’s the path to being dead that I don’t like to think about.

So I’d forgotten about THE WHOLE DEATH CATALOG until my mom found it. I picked it up and flipped through it. There’s a lot of interesting, albeit morbid, trivia and a lot of research about how people viewed dying across time. What makes it almost fun is the author’s voice, illustrated well in this paragraph from the introduction:

“Concerned that you lack the necessary skills to throw a truly memorable funeral, one that expresses the unique, inimitable (albeit now defunct) you? Not to worry. A new branch of the mortuary business has lately sprung up, composed of experts who, taking their cue from professional party planners, will help you arrange the perfect going-away-forever affair, complete with specialty catering, appropriate music, and even giveaway “funeral favors.” Sort of like a really top-flight wedding or bar mitzvah, only with a cadaver as the guest of honor.”

Some of the fun tidbits from the book:

The motorcycle hearse. Schechter’s research uncovered that the first known biker burial was in the UK immediately after WWII. Now, the practice has spread to the US and if this is the way you want to go to your grave, check out Biker Burials.

Then the question: To Burn or Not to Burn? The history of cremation. The different types of caskets explained, including some of the not-so-successful ideas in coffin-making: the glass coffin, the cement coffin, and the rubber coffin. I really didn’t need to read the history of embalming; however, I did have a spark of an idea for a future book. 

One of my favorite stories was about (surprise) serial killers William Burke and William Hare. Prior to 1830, it was extremely difficult for medical schools to obtain cadavers for anatomical study, according to Schechter. Some people became grave robbers, digging up freshly buried corpses and selling them to “anatomy schools.”

Not so for Burke and Hare. When an elderly lodger of Hare’s died owing money, Hare sold the corpse to an anatomist. When he saw how much money he could make, and disliking the “difficult, dirty, and dangerous business of grave robbing,” Hare and Burke opted to create their own cadavers. First hastening the deaths of the elderly in Hare’s boarding house, until they were all dead, they next preyed on prostitutes and the homeless. Fifteen people died this way before they were caught.

There is even a chapter on Death in the Movies and another on Death Lit 101, perhaps of more interest to Murderati readers.

For example, the “Most Emotionally Satisfying Death” according to Schechter?

Dirty Harry (1971). Few, if any, other moments in cinematic history are as profoundly gratifying as the climax of this two-fisted classic, when Clint Eastwood’s heroic police officer puts a well-deserved .44 Magnum slug into the worthless carcass of the sniveling long-haired psycho killer after asking, “Are you feeling lucky, punk?”

 “Most Shocking Death in a Classic Film Noir”

Kiss of Death (1947). In a scene that still shocks with its brutality (even in our age of Saw, Hostel, and other works of cinematic “torture porn”), a cackling psychopath named Tommy Udo (Richard Widmark) ties a crippled old lady to her wheelchair and hurls her down a flight of steps—basically just for the fun of it.

And in “Death Lit?” Most of us have probably read many of the entries: Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Masque of the Red Death,” William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily,” Evelyn Waugh’s “The Loved Ones”, and Katherine Anne Porter’s “The Jilting of Granny Weatherall.” Schechter also writes about W.W. Jacobs’s “The Monkey’s Paw” (one of the scariest stories I have ever read!):

“Playing on a proverbial theme—be careful what you wish for—this classic tale of terror (arguably the scariest ever written) serves as an effective reminder that the very human impulse to pray for the return of a deceased loved one might not be such a hot idea.”

Season 6 ArtIn SUPERNATURAL, one of my favorite television shows, it would have done the Winchester Brothers (and their dad) some good to read “The Monkey’s Paw.” In the season two opener, the dad John agrees to exchange his life to save his son Dean. At the end of Season Two, Dean makes a deal with the crossroads demon and gets Sam’s life back (he’d been dead a couple days, but didn’t seem to suffer the decomposition process—I had to put aside the disbelief on that one) in exchange for his own. Dean has one year, then he’s going to Hell. Season Three is spent trying to get Dean out of his deal, but to no avail. He goes to Hell. (He comes back in Season Four.) And one of my favorite characters, who’s only been in two or three episodes, is Death (played by Julian Richings.) Creepy and perfect for the role. A lot of death and afterlife (afterdeath?) in this television show!

Julian Richings as "Death" one of the Four HorsemanWhat is one of your favorite movies or books with death as a central theme? Something that made you laugh or reflect—or both. And if you can’t think of one, what kind of funeral celebration do you want? Somber and traditional, a lively wake, or maybe hire a party planner so your friends and relatives will talk about your funeral for years?

Realignment

By Allison Brennan

Several friends recommended Detroit 1-8-7 as one of the best new television shows out this season, so I downloaded Season One thus far and will start watching it while wrapping Christmas presents this week. It's an ABC show, and I think I avoided it when it started because I rarely watch network TV anymore. Castle (ABC) is my guilty pleasure, and Law and Order SVU (NBC) has been a long-time favorite. But looking at my iTunes directory, there are no other network shows. I grew quickly bored with Criminal Minds, stopped watching CSI years ago, and NBC ticked me off when they cancelled LIFE after two incredible seasons. As far as I'm concerned, network TV is no better--and often worse--than cable television. The pluses are that when they are good, they have the money to really produce a top show--with solid writing and great actors and no skimping on the budget. But unless I hear from people I trust--like I did about Detroit--I won't invest the time or money in network TV.

FOX launched in 1986, and brought with it some innovative programming. The WB and UPN were merged into The CW a few years ago, but the WB in particular had some great shows. X-Files came from FOX and one of my favorite shows (SUPERNATURAL) is on the CW. The formerly small networks are now competing with the big guys and I think it's to the advantage of television fans to keep the creative competition thriving.

Enter cable TV. It used to be, at least for many people, that cable television was blah--unless you had paid premium cable like HBO and Showtime. To me, ten years ago cable television was all boring documentaries and some good kids programming (like Nickelodeon.) But over the last few years, I've found that cable is bringing me my favorite new shows. And while in the past cable networks weren't widespread or you had to buy specific packages, now there's more universal cable programming. And even better for people like me, if you don't subscribe to premium programming, you can still buy many of the shows on iTunes to watch only a few hours after they air. But it's still the basic cable programming that is really shining for me.

Take F/X. JUSTIFIED is my new favorite show of 2010--and I'm thrilled Season Two is starting in two short months--sometime in February. It's edgy, fun, witty, dark, with some of the best characters on television today. US Marshal Raylan Givens is based on an Elmore Leonard character, and Leonard is involved in the show. 

And I've been enjoying THE GLADES (A&E) and am glad it's returning for a second season. The show works because of the protagonist, Chicago transplant to South Florida Det. Jim Longworth played by Matt Passmore, and his best friend, the forensic pathologist Dr. Carlos Sanchez (Carlos Gomez.) It's not JUSTIFIED, but few shows are. But it's fun, and Longworth is a great character.

And I'm still watching SUPERNATURAL, now in Season 6, on the CW. The show is about two brothers battling supernatural forces--the standard demons and vampires and ghosts, as well as less common creatures like the djinn, tricksters, and ghouls. I was skeptical that it would survive without its creator, the amazing Eric Kripke, and when the season started my first thought was, "Damn, they should have ended on a high note." Kripke had a five season story arc for the show, and it was pitch perfect. But still, I continued on, until two weeks ago when they aired "Appointment in Samarra" and I thought, "It's back." In summary? Dean, the older brother, agrees to be the Horseman Death for a day if Death will get Sam (the younger brother's) soul out of Hell where it's trapped with Lucifer and Michael. If they keep up this storytelling, SUPERNATURAL will return to being one of my top two shows. I'm only disappointed that it took them half a season to regain their footing.

And then there's FRINGE, a FOX program. Season one? Terrific. Season two? Awful. I don't know why, but I really didn't like it at all. It just didn't click for me. But so far, Season three is fantastic. I hope they keep it up.

To me, there's sort of a realignment going on in television--and possibly all media. The big guns are no longer the big guns per se, but when they get it right they do it right. But the cable networks -- even with small budgets and shorter seasons -- are creating some amazing new programming, focusing largely on quality character development as well as edgy storylines, without being unbelievable. So while I'm looking forward to ABC's DETROIT because my friends tell me it's amazing, I'm truly looking forward to seeing what cable comes up with next. Another fun thing about cable shows is that they often launch mid-seasons, with fewer episodes but original programming when so many other station are putting up re-runs. 

Now, there's no new trailers for JUSTIFIED, but I found this on YouTube and I thought those who love the show would enjoy the minute of clips from Season o ne, and those who haven't seen it will get a taste of a terrific program.

 What mid-season premiere are you most looking forward to returning? Here about anything new coming up that sounds like great television?

But That's MY Idea!

By Allison Brennan

What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun. Even the thing of which we say, "See, this is new!" has already existed in the ages that preceded us.

Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

I had one of those "Damn! That's MY idea!" moments tonight.

Six years ago, I came up with the initial spark of my Seven Deadly Sins idea. I started the book in August of 2003, but shortly thereafter, THE PREY (which was then titled THE COPYCAT KILLER) finaled in an RWA chapter contest. I hadn't finished the book, so thinking I had a great shot at getting an editor to read me, I put aside the book I was then calling THE COVEN and finished THE PREY.

While the editor ranked me second in the contest, she said that the chapters she'd read (50 pages) were great, but not something she'd acquire. Emboldened, and sensing that this book was IT, I terminated the relationship with my then-agent, cleaned up the manuscript, and queried 12 top agents. I sold THE PREY, and in hindsight I'm glad I didn't focus on the Seven Deadly Sins series , because I didn't have the skill to pull it off the way I wanted.

But the book haunted me.

I sold the series in 2008, and the first book--now called ORIGINAL SIN--will be on sale 1.26.10. I finished the revisions Friday night and sent them off to my editor. The book goes into production on Monday. I am alternately excited about this book and scared to death: it's a pure supernatural thriller and unlike anything I've written. It's exactly the way I wanted to write it . . . and I am forever indebted to my editor for helping pull the meat of the story from the mess of my first draft, showing me the potential, and giving me the palette back to paint the story my own way.

But because I've been thinking about this story a long time--and even had 150 pages written (none of which made it to the final draft)--I began to get frustrated when I saw themes and ideas I had show up in other books and media.

Now, I'm not the first person on the planet to come up with the idea to write a series based on the seven deadly sins. Lawrence Sanders had a whole series on the theme; Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman starred in the fabulous and terrifying movie SEVEN; and stories about lust, greed, pride and the rest have been created from the dawn of storytelling. 

I did think that my story was a different take on an old theme. The Seven Deadly Sins as demons on earth. I have always loved the supernatural, classic supernatural stories. New paranormal trends don't interest me. I can't wrap my head around the idea of a vampire who is good. TWILIGHT is a huge hit--yeah Stephanie Meyer--but really, where are the animal rights people when you need them? Seriously, if I ever wrote a vampire book, vampires would be portrayed as the evil bloodsuckers they are. Demons? They're not heroes. They want your soul, as painfully as possible. So I was kind of out-of-step with what was selling. But honestly, my idea was not blazing any new paths--but rediscovering favorite roads

While the story was cooking in my head, a television show started called SUPERNATURAL. I love it.

But dammit, some of their ideas are MY ideas.

No, I don't think Eric Kripke can read my mind, but for awhile I was worried. For example, long after I wrote my initial proposal, and three years after I wrote my first 150 pages, Season 3 began with the episode "The Magnificent Seven." Yep, the Seven Deadly Sins as demons.

See. Me. Bang. Head. I almost abandoned my idea. Then I realized that it was one episode and they didn't explore a fraction of the subject matter. It wasn't a continuing theme.

But then last night, when we watched the recorded Season 5 premiere, we learn that the only way for an angel to enter your body (a "vessel") is if you invite it.

See. Me. Bang. Head. Again.

There are no angels in my book--no easy solutions (though in SUPERNATURAL they are handling the demons and angels thing brilliantly, IMO.) If there's around, it's just to give signs, but not consciously written. It's up to free will human beings to discern what the signs mean, and to stop the Seven from causing (more) problems on earth.

But I do have a "rule" in my world that to be a vessel (and yes, I used "vessel" as well!) you have to willingly agree. (The "vessels" are not for possession by angels--or demons--but essentially human sacrifices through which the demons are brought forth or contained.

I think I swore at the televisions. My book is DONE. 

I have over 40 books about witchcraft, the occult, exorcisms, prayer, spiritual warfare, angels, and major religions. So much of what is in SUPERNATURAL comes from history or mythology--which is also where I'm basing my world "rules."  So it's natural that we're going to come up with similar ideas. 

I've heard unpublished authors say that they dumped an idea because another popular author wrote a similar idea in THEIR book. Well, hello people. There's nothing new under the sun. It's all been done before. Get over it. Write the book.

I guarantee it'll be different from anyone.

I'd bet if I gave the same story idea to the 13 other Murderati members, that they'd all write a completely different book. And each one would be damn good and stand on its own.

I've heard unpublished authors give up on ideas because television or the movies recently had something similar. Hello! Capitalize on the interest. BTW, it'll take a couple years before your book hits the shelves and by that time the subject matter could be hot. 

Recently, an unpublished writer asked on a writing loop if she should copyright her unpublished book before she submitted it to agents, because they might steal her idea and give it to one of their authors to write. Um, why would they do that? Agents are not looking to take ideas from unpublished authors. They have plenty of good submissions to sort through. They WANT to sell books, and they WANT more than one client. Amy Berkower doesn't just represent Nora Roberts--she has other clients. And really, like I need someone else's idea? Believe me, I have plenty of my own. Not all of them good, not all of them sellable, but plenty.

It's not just this current series that had me knotted up. A movie called UNTOUCHABLE about a guy who kills people on-line that came out three months before my book FEAR NO EVIL that had a girl kidnapped and the bad guy was charging people to watch--and they could pay and vote on how she dies. My book was already in production before the movie was released. Episodes of both SUPERNATURAL and CRIMINAL MINDS had people hunting other people for sport. So did my book THE HUNT--which came out long before either show--it again highlighted that there are many common themes, even similar ideas. And what about that movie (the name escapes me) about the rape victim who turns around and kills the men who raped her? She hunt them down. Stories connect us because they come from our common foundation as human beings and that MOST of us have the same basic fears, the same basic desires, the same basic internal struggles as everyone else. So that many of us have stories that stem from the same core idea is not surprising; that we all write completely different stories is a testament to our individuality.

So have you ever had an idea and it seemed that you saw it everyplace after that? Have you noticed that there seem to be cycles of a bunch of similar movies/books/themes all coming out together? Am I the only one who has noticed that sometimes, blogs all cover the same general subject matter?

Neither This nor That . . . or Both This and That

By Allison Brennan

Genre is important. So important that publishers market to genre expectations and authors write to genre expectations. Not because they are selling out, but because they want people to know--in a moment--what type of story they're getting. If it's a mystery, there needs to be a crime or puzzle to be solved. If it's a thriller, there needs to be a fast, page-turning pace and high stakes. If it's a suspense, there needs to be high, page-turning tension. If it's a romance, there needs to be a happily ever after. If it's a paranormal, there needs to be fantastical elements--be them grounded in the "real world" like Kay Hooper's psychic FBI series or urban fantasy like Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake vampire huntress or true fantasy like Tolkein's Lord of the Rings.

Genre blending is popular with both authors and readers because we like to take common, accessible story elements and twist them a bit to make something just a little bit different. Romantic suspense is a blended genre that has become it's own separate genre from which other genres can be blended.

In romantic suspense (or romantic thrillers--same thing, just romantic thrillers, IMO, focuses more on the thrill than the romance and romantic suspense tends to be more romance driven. But that's just my personal definition.) Anyway, my knee-jerk definition of romantic suspense is, "A thriller with a hero and a heroine who both live and are together at the end of the book." But the truth is, there is a broad range of romantic thrillers, with very light on the suspense (my very good and talented friend Roxanne St. Claire writes the incredible Bullet Catchers series which has a suspense subplot, but the romance--with hot guys--take center stage) to very light on the romance (such as one of my all-time favorites--even before she gave me a quote for my FBI Trilogy--Lisa Gardner who writes thrillers with relationship subplots, such as her Quincy/Rainey series or Kim/Mac.) Some authors are very well balanced, such as the incomparable Linda Howard.

With the wide range of romantic thrillers, it's no surprise that those of us who are writing them start incorporating other elements.

JD Robb's futuristic romantic suspense novels, her IN DEATH series, is one of the strongest out there. Set in 2059, she has a compelling mystery, strong characters, and a constantly developing and growing relationship between the richest man in the universe (Roarke) and New York City's top cop (Eve Dallas.) I remember Kay Hooper as one of the first to write a back-to-back-to-back trilogy, in 2002 I believe, with her SHADOW books, introducing psychic FBI agents. Real life crimes solved by real life FBI agents--who had a six sense. It added an interesting twist on an established genre.

In 2003, before I sold, I had sent out a bunch of queries for what ended up being my debut novel, and while I was waiting for responses, I came up with an idea I really loved. While it was still vague in my head, I wrote a few chapters. What if an evil coven releases the seven deadly sins into the world? What if the seven deadly sins were demons? Who could stop them? How?

I ended up selling my romantic suspense, and I put the seven deadly sins series on the back burner. Partly because I knew, in my heart, that I didn't have the skill to write the story I could picture in my head. Nor did I have the discipline to write it. This isn't to say that romantic suspense is easy or formulaic, but there is a comfort in writing genre fiction. I KNOW that my hero and heroine are going to live. I KNOW that the crime is going to be solved. I may not know anything else about the story, but the two musts of the genre keep me focused toward the goal. And I'll admit it's really fun to throw lots of danger in the mix and figure out how on earth these characters are going to survive.

Twelve romantic thrillers later, and I am on the verge of completing the first of my Seven Deadly Sins series. ORIGINAL SIN will be released on January 26, 2010. I'm excited and scared to death at the same time.

Genre is like comfort food. You always go back to it because it makes you feel good. It's there when you need it, it's satisfying, it's rich and full and thoroughly delicious. You know what to expect. This is good.

As Alex said yesterday (and no, we didn't plan to blog on similar topics!):

The challenge of genre is delivering something unique and compelling within a proscribed form.

Now, I happen to be grateful for a proscribed form, because it gives a shape to a story from the very beginning, and let's face it, when you first embark on a project, story is a vast and amorphous mass, or maybe that's mess. Any signposts in that chaos are lifesaving.

Amen. This is why I love forensics. When I get stuck in a book, I focus on the evidence. What do my characters know? What is my villain doing? What does the evidence show? It's a signpost that keeps me focused on the GOAL which is solving the crime in (hopefully) a "unique and compelling" way.

In all fiction, but paranormal in particular, worldbuilding is crucial. One definition:

Worldbuilding is the process of constructing an imaginary world, usually associated with a fictional universe.

Okay, I see that . . . but is the world completely imaginary? According to the continuing article it is, including:

It describes a key role in the task of a fantasy writer: that of developing an imaginary setting that is coherent and possesses a history, geography, ecology, and so forth. The process usually involves the creation of maps, listing the back-story of the world and the people of the world, amongst other features.

This is where I diverge. Worldbuilding does not necessarily mean a completely new world. What if we like the one we have? I do. I don't have to create a map, for example, or an entire history. There's enough in our own several thousands of years that will do nicely. I'll just pick and choose what I want, and then adhere to those rules.

So I'm worldbuilding . . . but I'm not.

I created a fictitious town in Central California between San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara. I call it Santa Louisa and it's home of the Lost Mission of California, or Santa Louisa de Los Padres Mission, which was "lost" because it was built too far off the mission trail. 

I've always been fascinated by a noble group of people who band together for the common good, battling evil to protect the many from violent death. Isn't that what crime fiction is all about, anyway? Cops, prosecutors, and others battling personal demons while saving innocent people from violence, solving a crime, and catching the bad guy.

Really, my seven deadly sins series is the same thing. Just not cops, and their battling inhuman evil, not only human evil (though they battle that, too.)

And in worldbuilding, according to several articles, you have to answer a bunch of questions about your world and the people who populate it. Hmm, that sounds a bit too much like plotting, so I skipped it.

But as I wrote the first book, I needed some basic rules. I couldn't just make them up as I went. (okay, okay, I admit it. I made it all up as I went. That's what revisions are for, to clean up the messy beginning.) I grounded everything in the real world. I have a sheriff as a main character, for example, who investigates the crimes as any cop would. But she knows there's something supernatural at work as well. Her theory and focus is that if she can stop the HUMANS responsible for summoning demons, she can beat them. She's grounded in law and order; right and wrong. 

The hardest part of creating this world (read: writing the book) was figuring out the rules the villains had to follow. I couldn't have magicians ala Harry Potter flying around on broomsticks, but in truth, the occult is essentially the practice of magic--controlling physical and supernatural forces.

When in doubt, I fall back to research books. Over the last two years I've lined my shelves with a wide-variety of religious and supernatural and occult books. In my crime novels, I get inside the head of the villains; I had to do it with the coven as well. And I learned a tremendous amount of information about what true witches--magicians--aspire to. It's not about making a deal with the devil--in fact, one author commented that it was the weak magicians who resorted to pacts with demons--it was about amassing enough power and knowledge to gain control over supernatural forces.

That gave me exactly what I needed. Real-life beliefs and mythology (for lack of a better world) that I could build into a fictional occult group. They have immense power because they have honed their skills, but there are physical and emotional limits to their power. This isn't Samantha Stevens twitching her nose, or the Charmed sisters casting spells.

As I finish up book one, I noticed something about how I wrote it. When I got stuck, I fell back into my comfort zone: forensics. The investigation. Trying to figure out how someone died when there is no physical evidence. When I didn't know where the story was going, I went over to the sheriff, my comfort character, to see what she was doing. She's the cop, the real-world foundation. Once, she was interviewing a suspect in his best friend's murder. Oh, an interrogation! I can write that.

And his answers gave my the big break I needed for my characters to figure out what was going on. Wow. I love it when a story comes together.

All this is leading me back to one of Alex's main points: that genre provides a signpost in chaos. And I so needed to hear that right now.

Toni and I have often talked about what happens when you write a book that doesn't fit neatly into the mold. Toni's BOBBIE FAYE series (book two: GIRLS JUST WANNA HAVE GUNS is out as of last week!) doesn't neatly fit the mold of thriller or romantic suspense--it's sort of an combo. And when you already have one established "blended" genre (romantic suspense) it's hard to tack on another genre to "re-blend."

But the book is incredible. One of the most fun series I have ever read. But when you blend too many genres, you sometimes get stuck in the middle of the Dead Zone--also known as the "general fiction" aisle. These are where the out-of-genre books go to (usually) die. At least, commercially die because most commercial readers browse the genre sections first.

I have written twelve romantic thrillers. They are in the romance section of the bookstore. (And there's a reason for that, some good, some not-so-good, but that's a blog for another day.) I'm happy in romance. I have a happily ever after in all my books and the bad guy ALWAYS gets what's coming to him. (If I killed off the heroine and the bad guy sometimes got away, I'd be in suspense, but I'd be depressed and wouldn't write anymore, so that's that.) But it's true that my books tend to lean a little heavier on the suspense side.

Now add on another tag: paranormal. My series is a paranormal romantic suspense.

But there's no genre tag for that.

Which really screws me.

My base is in romantic suspense. Thus, my book is listed as a "paranormal romance." Which really doesn't fit. There IS a romance, but it's a multi-book relationship arc. And there is paranormal, but it's grounded in real-world mythology and physics. For example, one plot point in either book two or three (I'm not that far yet!) is the reality that in America, witchcraft isn't illegal and summoning demons from hell isn't illegal, so if you kill a witch who summons a demon from hell, and you get caught, you're going to stand trial for murder.

I feel like I'm in genre limbo. I'm not trying to write outside of genre, because I love genre fiction. 97% of my fiction shelves are genre. But I'm neither "paranormal romance" or "supernatural thriller"--I'm both. I'm a "supernatural romantic thriller" . . . but there's no code for that in the system.

Sometimes, the system needs fixing. Because creative people can and will mix and match genre to entertain readers. It's what we do.

So, I was thinking about some of my favorite "paranormal" stories. THE MATRIX and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK; SUPERNATURAL and FRINGE; and THE STAND by Stephen King. They all have one thing in common: real, ordinary (or extraordinary) people in the real world with a paranormal twist.

Hmm, is it any surprise that's what I'm writing now?

Do you like the supernatural? What are some of your favorite paranormal movies, tv shows, books? Comment and you get a two-fer . . . two books for the price of one comment. Bawahaha -- you'll get CHARMED AND DANGEROUS by Toni McGee Causey (Bobbie Faye book one) and SUDDEN DEATH by me (FBI Trilogy book one.) 

And a winner! The winner of last week's contest hosted by Toni and open to everyone who commented on the "Dear Summer" entry is Marisa. She did not register an email with us, so Marisa, please contact Toni at toni [dot] causey [at]gmail.com. Thanks for playing!

Music and the Muse

In April of 2007, I bought my first iPod. It was the fifth generation, on which I could watch television shows and movies as well as listen to music and play games. I bought it primarily to watch the second season of my favorite show, SUPERNATURAL, and the first season of HEROES so I didn't have to wait for the DVD set to come out the following fall.

Between my husband and I, we had a lot of records and CDs. Because you are allowed to make an archive version of purchased music, I downloaded my favorite albums onto my iPod. But I didn't actually expect to listen to the music while writing. I first plugged my iPod into my car to listen to the audio version of ON WRITING by Stephen King--read by Stephen King. If you like this book, and enjoy Stephen King, you'll LOVE him reading it. It was as if he was sitting in my passenger seat talking to me like an old friend. And I'm not usually a fan of audio books because I can read faster than I can listen.

I was writing at Starbucks at the time, and eventually started bringing in my iPod without much thought. I realized over that summer that I found I wrote faster when I listened to music. In fact, harder and louder the rock, faster I wrote. So I went home and spent a fortune on iTunes buying favorite songs that I didn't have on CD. My library is now over 1300 songs, though there's roughly 250 that I listen to far more than the rest. (For example, I love Pink Floyd. But Pink Floyd is album music, and you have to listen to the entire album. For some reason, I find this distracting when I'm writing.)

I've realized that it's partly to trick my mind--if my ears are focused on music, I'm not eavesdropping on conversations around me. Or distracted by birds chirping outside my home office. (I found out real quick that there's a big difference listening to music through earbuds and listening through home stereo speakers. Only the earbuds work to focus my writing.)

When I have my earbuds in--and I invested in real nice, clear Bose earbuds--I hear and see nothing but the story in front of me. Amazing when you think of it -- I thought music would be distracting. But I'm not actively listening--the music is simply in my head, giving part of my mind something to do so it doesn't distract me from the story. Sounds strange, I know. I think because I'm so used to multi-tasking--not just as a mom, but in my previous career in the Legislature when I was used to juggling many projects and thinking about one thing while doing something completely different--I find it hard to focus on just one thing. The music helps me do that.

When talking to writers, I've found there are just as many who need complete silence or white noise--our Rob is one--in order to write as there are those who need music. And those who need music, there are about as many who can only listen to instrumental and those who need songs with lyrics. I'm someone who needs songs with lyrics. I think this is because instrumental music is distracting because I'm making up a visual story to go with the sound; with lyrics, that story is already there. And because I know the songs so well, the lyrics almost disappear. 

My 5th Generation iPod crashed and instead of getting it fixed, I bought the iPod Touch. I love it. (Well, I love everything about it--the sound, the calendar, the games--except for the sucky battery life.)

To celebrate my new toy, I created a playlist of music from my favorite television show, SUPERNATURAL, largely because the program plays music that I like. I bought some new stuff--songs written in the 2000s. For me, this is huge because I've always believed that no good music was made after about 1983. (I credit my oldest daughter with my ability to expand my musical horizons. She introduced me to some terrific, new rock music. So I can now listen to Led Zeppelin in the same playlist as 3 Doors Down; and Katie is one of the few teenagers who appreciates classic rock. She created her own playlists on my iPod and my husband's iPod so when we drive together, we listen to music we both like.) Some of the songs are not available on iTunes, so I'm debating buying the CD. Some of the songs not available I already had--like AC/DC.

Right now I have 46 songs on this playlist, and I'm adding to it every week. "Oldies" like BAD MOON RISING by CCR; CARRY ON WAYWARD SON by Kansas; RENEGADE by Styx; STRANGLEHOLD by Ted Nugent; and TURN TO STONE by Joe Walsh. And "Newsies" like EVERY ROSE HAS ITS THORN by Poison; SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE by Muse; SPEAKING IN TONGUES by Eagles of Death Metal; and MEAN LITTLE TOWN by Howling Diablos.

I think one of the reasons I'm so tickled about finding new music that I like is because for the longest time I believed that only rap was produced for the last ten years. Lots of people--particularly young people--love rap. Great. But I don't. If it comes on the radio station my teens like, I hit the classic rock station without hesitation. Because while there is some popular music I can tolerate, rap ain't it.

My oldest daughter is a music addict. So much so that she did her science project on whether music had an impact on the behavior of goldfish (I still have two of the four alive in a bowl in my office . . . ) She learned they don't like hard rap music anymore than I do--they swam erratically at the bottom of the bowl. And they love the Righteous Brothers and swam smoothly, using the full bowl. At least, that's our story :)

For fun, I went to my "Top 25 Most Played" songs and was surprised at the rather eclectic top ten:

• Sweet Home Alabama Lynyrd Skynyrd
• I'm Shipping Up to Boston Dropkick Murphys
• We Used to Be Friends  The Dandy Warhols        
• Sunday Bloody Sunday  U2        
• I Hear the Bells Mike Doughty
• Carry On Wayward Son Kansas
• Bohemian Rhapsody Queen
• Rocky Road to Dublin Dropkick Murphys
• Spybreak (Short One) Propellerheads
• Tom Sawyer Rush

Some of the Top 25 surprised me (like #21 "Every Day I Write the Book" by Elvis Costello.) There's one thing that the top 25 songs have in common--they made it onto multiple playlists. And I wouldn't be surprised if they changed over the next few months . . . 

Does music help you work, whether you're a writer or not? What are your top five most played songs on your iPod (if you have one) or what CD is in your player? 

(As an aside . . . recently my husband bought a thingie to plug a turntable into the computer to burn CDs because, alas, we don't have a record player anymore. Can you even buy records anymore new? I don't think so. When my 15 year old came into the room while he was lovingly fondling the ancient vinyl, she asked, "What's that?" And VCR tapes are fast becoming obsolete as well. Does anyone remember 8-tracks tapes? My mom had a car with an 8-track tape player. Yep, I feel old. And I had a black-and-white television until I was five.)