Building Your Base

 by Catherine Dilts

The annual Ultra running event 24 Hours of Palmer Lake began at 8:00 the morning of September 28. But preparation began long before racers crossed the starting line.

An Ultra is a footrace that exceeds the marathon distance of 26.2 miles.

I registered months before. My younger daughter says her puppy is a food motivated dog. Will behave for treats. I’m a goal motivated runner. I need a running event to work toward, or I start slacking off on my training.

In Sue Grafton’s alphabet mysteries, Kinsey Millhone simply dashes out the door for a three-mile run when she can squeeze it in between solving crimes as a private investigator. That’s the way many folks approach their running. Catch as catch can, and the same workout every time.

At my older daughter’s urging, I joined the Women’s FIT Team in 2016. Coached by accomplished runner Judy Fellhauer, this club changed my running life. And those changes spilled over into the rest of my life.

Judy’s Principles of Training involve building a base, a concept echoed by Sakyong Mipham in Running with the Mind of Meditation. This foundation requires gradually increasing time and distance, followed by recovery periods. Consistency is essential, but not the consistency of doing the same thing over and over, like Grafton’s heroine. Training is progressive, followed by a recovery week of less running – but not no running!

Coach Judy retired last year to spend more time with her husband, and their growing and far-flung family. I’m grateful I was able to receive Judy’s coaching. Her lessons soaked in.

What does my running journey have to do with my writing?

When I first had the dream of being a fiction writer, without knowing I was doing it, I built a base. A college degree in English literature, joining writing groups, and reading how-to books. In critique groups, I read others’ writing, and had my own reviewed by peers. This led to my ultimate goal: publication.

Like running a race, crossing that finish line left me with a “what next” feeling. A runner doesn’t simply enter one event, then walk away, never to run again. Nor does a writer complete one novel, then walk off into the sunset. (Okay, there are exceptions to every rule.) 

I applied Judy’s principles to my writing. Consistency – working on a regular writing schedule. Progressive stress – trying new projects and genres. Recovery – giving myself permission to slack off on the hours I work – but only for a limited time.

Now back to the 24 Hours of Palmer Lake. The stats: the first place male runner completed 123 miles, and the first place female 110.7 miles. The least miles accomplished was 1.64. Very few people participated for the entire 24 hours. My daughter and I left at 3:30 am (19.5 hours after the start of the race).

In my first Ultra event success, I completed 32.81 miles. This was my daughter’s fourth Ultra. She completed 42.64. Neither of us trained properly for these distances, but had a solid base due to Coach Judy’s influence. And both of us are amazed we could do those distances.

I’m not a sprinter. I’m a distance runner. In my running and my writing, I’m in it for the long haul. Both require building a strong base.

Kinsey Headed for TV?

by Thomas Kies

 I read an Associated Press article in my daily newspaper this morning that I found jarring.  

Yes, most news stories I read, see, or hear are pretty disturbing, but I found this one particularly upsetting.  The headline reads, “Sue Grafton’s alphabet mysteries headed to TV.”

Most writers would celebrate when their book or series of books are picked up for the silver screen.  I have several writers who are friends who have been lucky enough to get deals with studios for their mystery/thrillers. I know I’d love to see my protagonist, Geneva Chase, played out on the screen. 

But Sue Grafton, recalling her unhappy experiences writing for television movies before becoming a world celebrated novelist, made a vow that her Kinsey Millhone series would never become a television adaption. 

In 1997, Sue Grafton said in January Magazine, “I will never sell Kinsey to Hollywood.  And I have made my children promise not to sell her.  We’ve taken a blood oath, and if they do so I will come back from the grave: which they know I can do.  They’re going to have to pass the word on to my grandchildren: we do not sell out our grandma.”

That sounds pretty definite. Sue Grafton passed away in 2017 and to my knowledge, never changed her mind about her alphabet mysteries becoming a TV series.  When announcing her death, Grafton’s daughter, Jamie Clark, publicly reaffirmed her mother’s vow. 

And yet, A+E has acquired the rights to the Kinsey Millhone novels. Steve Humphrey, Grafton’s husband, and according to the Associated Press is also the executive producer of the series, makes the claim that “the times-and the medium- have changed.”

Mr. Humphrey went on the say in the article, “Television has greatly evolved since Sue was writing in Hollywood in the 1980s.  From her experience then, she was concerned that her stories and characters would be diminished when they were adapted.  But the power of television has transformed over time, so too has the quality from writing and acting to the production values and viewing experience.”

Mr. Humphrey posted that quote on Sue Grafton’s Facebook page and there have been over 2700 comments and the announcement was shared over 900 times.  The responses were a mixed bag.  Many of Grafton’s fans are excited about the adaptation and many are appalled that her husband has gone against her wishes. 

I’ve been a Sue Grafton fan for decades.  My protagonist, Geneva Chase, has been favorably compared by two national reviews to Kinsey Millhone.  A compliment that would be hard to top as far as I’m concerned.  Would I like to see a well-done adaptation of her alphabet mysteries?  Of course, I would.

But the author didn't want anyone to do an adaptation at all.  

A friend of mine, who is well versed in the mystery field, pointed out what a studio did to C.J Box’s Cassie Dewell series—now called Big Sky.  He’s concerned that they’ll turn the adaptation into “Hungarian goulash.  Not to insult any Hungarians.  Or insult goulash.” 

Again,
I have two writer friends who have television deals in the works and I'm thrilled for them, and frankly, a little jealous.

Would I like to have my Geneva Chase novels adapted for television?  Sure, if they were done right.  That’s what I think Sue Grafton’s concerns were.  It saddens me that the family didn’t respect her wishes.  

Challenges facing the contemporary crime-fiction writer, cont….

Rick’s excellent Sept. 18 post “Is it getting harder to write contemporary crime fiction?” has me thinking. He astutely examines the works of Rex Stout and Michael Connelly and wonders if one’s need to keep up with technological advancements dooms writers entering the genre.

Good question.

Part of why I love Robert B. Parker novels so thoroughly is that –– viewed through the lens of which Rick writes –– they are simple. Spenser knows himself, and he knows human nature. And, thus, he solves the crime. “It’s a way to live,” Spenser tells us in Ceremony. “The rest is just confusion.” Sounds like Hamlet, when he utters those wonderful words: To thine own self be true . . .Know yourself well enough, and you can know the world around you. Wonderful. Poignant.

But outdated?

Say it ain’t so.

After all, it’s Connelly himself, in his essay titled “The Mystery of Mystery Writing” (the Walden Book Report, September, 1998) who states:

“The mystery has evolved in recent decades to be as much an investigation of the investigator as an inquiry of the crime at hand. Investigators now look inward for the solutions and means of restoring order. In the content of their own character they find the clues. I think this only bodes well for the mystery novel. It is what keeps me interested in writing them.”

Sounds like a Parker fan to me. I’m not questioning Rick’s assertion here. The passage above is dated 1998, after all. I agree that –– given the authenticity of TV’s cop shows and streaming networks’ crime thrillers –– the writer is better off cursed with writer’s block than to be inaccurate. There is no longer room to fudge details. But we aren’t doomed. The package might have changed. It’s a little shinier, a little spiffier, more precise, and procedurally more authentic.

But the heart of the story –– that heart that Wolfe Nero and Spenser and Kinsey Millhone and even Poe’s Dupin gave us –– remain at the core of why we write, readers read, and even our Netflix binge-watching next generation love this genre: at the heart of the story is the character.

The genre has changed and grown and now demands a level of authenticity of which Poe could never have dreamed. That’s a challenge, but it’s also a sign of evolution.

There’s another challenge we face that concerns me more: The way young readers now experience, learn, and consume narratives will pose the largest challenge to one who wishes to write crime fiction full time.

As many of you know, I work and teach at a New England boarding school. (I’m probably the genre’s only dorm parent to 60 teens.) So I know the habits of the teenage species well. And, frankly, I’m worried about our futures. Speaking to SJ Rozan this week, I mentioned that any writer I know who writes full time right now has their hand in some form of script work, as if TV/film work pays for them to write novels. Maybe that’s the new business model.

Or maybe Shakespeare was just further ahead of his time than I realize. Perhaps the Globe Theatre was supporting his poetry enterprise.