Interview with Russel McLean

I've read several of your stories as presented in AHMM. They're very noirish especially for a magazine that's supposed to be so cozy -- do these distinctions mean anything to you? I mean as an author first -- do you sit down trying to create one and avoid the other? Then, since you're also an editor, do you have a line that you draw concerning how cozy or how dark a story can be?

A lot of people have been surprised (and I've been surprised at their surprise) at the level of violence and language I seem to have got away with in AHMM. My usual response is that Linda Landrigan (the editor) just doesn't notice because of the thick, Scots accents. In truth, however, I think she's a very canny woman. AHMM is a general crime zine. There's room for all kinds of stories in it, and I think Ms Landrigan is very open to what she considers a good story.

Personally I just write the story I think should be written. I've never sat down and thought, "I'm gonna push the envelope in AHMM" or even "I'm gonna tone myself because it's AHMM" I just ask myself, what kind of story do I want to tell? And I tell it. I am naturally attracted to darker crime stories, but that is because I honestly believe crime is inherently dark. If a story doesn't show me the effect of a criminal act (and most pure cozies don't) then I can't believe in it.

The exact opposite is also true. Sometimes the violence becomes so hyper stylized or the language is just filled with so much bad language (and sex -- these writers always overdo the sex), simply because it sounds cool, that the story becomes weak and ridiculous. It's a line that I've seen many authors cross in submitting to Crime Scene Scotland (where we definitely deal ninety percent of the time in noir). You only use as much violence and swearing and sex and so forth as the story and characters naturally dictate. And if you're a decent enough writer, you'll have a natural feel for that. In Crime Scene Scotland, we've published many stories that made us uncomfortable or have had excessively large amounts of bad language and violence (see anything by a bloke called Chris Morrow or Colin Conway's story Angel) but we always feel these stories are doing something else beyond just the shock value.

On the whole, though, while I will debate what cosy and hardboiled and noir actually mean (I've done this on my blog a few times) I think that all that matters in the end is telling a damn good story.

Tell me something about reading influences -- since the stories are dark, I'm assuming Chandler, Hammett, et al. Since they have a Scottish setting, I also assume Rankin and Mcdermid. A) Am I wrong in these assumptions? Are you thinking "Rankin? Who's Rankin?" B) Any authors I wouldn't expect? and what influence do they have that might show up in your stories?

You're wrong in your second assumptions. I didn't really like Knots and Crosses (the first Rebus novel) when I read it and avoided Rankin for a long time after that. A couple of years ago I was forced to read Dead Souls and really enjoyed it. The later Rebus is far more interesting. I wasn't really weaned much on British writing and to be honest it's only the past couple of years that I've started to come back to the more home grown crime fiction.

My main influences have always been American. Chandler clearly goes without saying. James Lee Burke writes the kind of prose that makes me weep with jealousy and then voraciously read two or three books in a row (Just reading Crusader's Cross and loving it). If I ever write prose half as beautiful as that I'll be a very happy man. Elmore Leonard writes this dialogue that we Brits can only dream of. Lawrence Block's Matt Scudder stories tend to make other NYC detectives superfluous. James Ellroy taught me about the darkness of the soul. These writers taught me (via their books; I have never met any of them) about prose, structure, psychology and dialogue. How clear their influence is, I guess it's up to the reader to decide that. But they're foremost in my mind when I'm looking for some benchmark concerning my own writing. I've still not quite reached that benchmark in my own mind, of course, but I'm gonna keep trying!

The oddest influence, I think, is probably Philip K Dick. Unless you know I started out writing SF. Very bad SF, of course, which is why I switched to crime. But there are a few readable examples littered around the web. I think these days it's hard to see any of his influence in my work, but he was the writer who made me so fired up that I wanted to emulate his work by being in print.

Why is your main character a PI who was a cop? Is there something he couldn't accomplish as a police officer?

I love PI stories and wanted to write one. There aren't that many Brit PIs at the moment. As a lot of people say, they're harder to write because they're not an established part of our modern pop culture (unlike in the US where the myth of the PI is pretty much a standard archetype). But all the same I wanted to write about one. Something a little different, you know? I talked to a real investigator a bit before starting. He told me that a lot of PIs tend to be ex coppers, and that's what made me decide to add that bit of backstory. That and it gave me a source of automatic conflict with the local authorities.

I think the reason Sam struck out on his own was because, a little like myself, he hated the idea of not being autonomously responsible. That is, he felt hemmed in by red tape and having to work with others. He is very much a man alone. If it wasn't for Sandy Griggs and the lovely Ros, he probably wouldn't have much of a social life, either!

I think one of the strongest aspects of your writing is your ability to quickly create fully formed characters that I care about. So... How do you do this? What's the trick? Teach me, Sen-sei.

Now that you've swelled my head, I wish I had a good answer to this. What I can tell you is it's always about dialogue. For example, with Sam I know exactly what he sounds like, the way his speech patterns are, the kinds of things he says. People reveal themselves through how they speak, so that's my biggest trick. It's how I always define characters when I read books. If their dialogue rings false I can't believe in them. It's also where I believe the Americans have had their traditional advantage over us Brits.

Good dialogue is like music. It has a kind of rhythm. And if you hear the rhythm of each character's speech and translate that to the page, then I think you can communicate that character to the audience. In the Sam stories, of course, even the narration is a kind of dialogue, being that it's narrated by our hero.

That's probably my biggest trick; know your characters by what they say and what they do. I'm not really a method actor about it although I know a few writers who are. But I always ask myself whether, as a reader, I would be interested in these people and in this story; are they talking and behaving in a manner that makes me want to spend time with them? Never underestimate the importance of the reader part of your brain when it comes to your writing.

I know you've written a novel, I know you're shopping it. Please tell me that it's a Sam Bryson novel. Also, tell me what, if any, were the difficulties in switching from short story form to full length novel?

The novel will not feature Sam, but it will feature a Dundonian PI. There are reasons for this that have been discussed with various people but I think it's the right move to make: Sam's been a practice run for the new guy.

It's been a big challenge moving to a larger canvas but one that needed to be done. The stories were becoming too big and less focused. A short story is about a climactic moment. A novel is less confined. Philip K Dick said somewhere (I think it's in the introduction to one of his short story collections) that a novel is often more about style and he's right. You need to keep the reader engaged while you spend x-hundred pages setting up for the climax. It's a very different discipline but it's given me room to explore other aspects of my writing and to experiment with style and storytelling techniques I wouldn't have got the chance to use in short stories.

The main difficulty I've had has been focusing the story. With a larger canvas I feel like I can throw everything at it. Which is, of course, a mistake. Luckily my agent has a wonderful editor in her employ who's been reigning in rambling Russel. While editing the latest draft, I had a piece of paper above my desk with these words printed on it: STICK TO THE STORY, STUPID.

As a writer and as an editor, is there any advice you have for the novice? Anything from your own writing practices -- insert writing practices here -- that might help someone trying to get their own ideas on paper?

It probably goes without saying that my advice is as valid as anyone else's. These answers are based on my own experience. Yours may be different. And I'm still learning about this business and the craft. I don't know that anyone ever stops learning, of course.

One of the big things as writer and editor I think I have to say up front is (and it may seem obvious) be nice to your editor. I speak of this from the point of view of a writer whose work has been immeasurably enhanced by editorial comments and as the editor of an ezine who has had more than a few writers come back and tell me that I have no right to comment on their work of genius. Editors aren't always right but they are trying to help and not hinder you, even those of us on the smaller ezines. Listen to editors. Argue with them if you like, but treat them nicely and remember they are not the enemy, even those who reject your work.

One theme I've noticed throughout all my answers here is the notion of looking at your work as a reader. Do this all the time. A first draft, it's not so important. But when you go back to revise you should always ask yourself, honestly, would you read what you've written? Look at it like you would look at any other piece of writing and ask yourself what you're really getting out of it. You should never, ever be satisfied with a first draft.

More than that, write. I know a lot of people who claim to be writers but have never been published because they're too busy telling people about their ideas and not getting them down on paper.

And finally, keep submitting. Listen to criticism if any is offered, but keep submitting work out there. If it fails at one market get it out to another. If it goes round six markets and is roundly rejected consider why. But get something else out there. A writer -- at least a published writer -- is only as good as their last published piece of work.