My Weblog

Holiday Mishaps!

Beware:  The holidays are upon us! We've all seen videos of
 deep-frying turkey mishaps leading to conflagrations and roof-top 
decoration exploits that end in falls and electrical shorts--and trips 
to the emergency room.  It's also the time of year when the smoke alarm 
may also act as the dinner bell.  There are movies dedicated to holiday 
horrors, and every sitcom imaginable has featured the pitfalls of
 hyped-
up expectations spiraling to a comedic crescendo.



What are your favorite holiday mishaps, Friends of the Femmes--and extra
 points for a heart-warming conclusion!

Dana Cameron has generously donated a copy of her novel, Seven Kinds of Hell, for a drawing. She’ll randomly choose someone leaving a comment — from outside the Femmes Fatales family — to receive a copy. 

Thanksgiving Stuff

By Elaine Viets

Happy Thanksgiving!

Today, southern turkeys are stuffed with cornbread dressing. In the northeast, it’s apple and cranberry stuffing. New Englanders go for oysters or chestnuts and the Southwest may feast on tamale stuffing spiced with a chili pepper or two.

My grandma made traditional Midwestern sage stuffing.

I hear tell – but never ate – gourmet stuffing with pears, bacon, pecans and caramelized onions and or Hawaiian sweet bread, sausage and Medjool dates. There’s even gluten free.

And what do you call that stuff? Dear Abby says "the terms ‘dressing’ and ‘stuffing’ are interchangeable. They refer to a seasoned mixture used to stuff meat or poultry. It makes no difference what kind of bread is used."

Fighting words at some Thanksgiving tables.

What’s in your Thanksgiving turkey?

The Plight of the Writer: How You Can Help

Thanksgiving is a time for family, so when I was deciding who to ask to write a guest blog for the Femmes, I looked no further than my own family. In this case, my husband Stephen P. Kelner. In addition to be an eternally supportive husband and a writer of fiction himself, Steve is a Ph.D. psychologist who carried out a study of writers that became the basis of his book Motivate Your Writing! However, I think this piece draws more from his experiences of being the husband of a writer, and the friend of many more, including the Femmes.

I appreciate this opportunity to spread the word about an important cause: the plight of the writer.

I’ve studied writers from my perspective as a research-trained motivational psychologist, tapping into decades of research into motivation, goal-setting, creativity, personality, and verbal ability. While much work remains to fully investigate this syndrome, we have identified many of the critical issues to be addressed, and you (the reader) have a vital part to play.

 

Reading and writing.

We take reading for granted, but it’s no harder than juggling chainsaws. We certainly did not evolve the ability; the earliest invention of writing language appears to be about 3200 BCE in Mesopotamia - a mere 5,000 years ago or so.  And yet, if you ask someone to read a new text aloud, without preparation, they will accidentally misread words and substitute new ones, which are typically about the same length, start with the same letter, and have roughly the same meaning — without stopping or even really slowing down. To truly appreciate that phenomenon, consider the following:

To read, you coordinate your eyes to make short jumps called saccades (so difficult that many five-year-olds haven’t mastered it yet), recognize the shape of letters and words, assign meanings to words, interpret syntax of sentences, infuse it with emotion, follow the thread of the plot, and “hear” or even “see” the story — oscillating between both sides of the brain rapidly. Should we be surprised that a percentage of the population finds reading difficult? We should be amazed anyone can read at all!

What, then, should we think of someone who writes? Consciously (or unconsciously) crafting all the elements someone reads: plot, character, setting, story; dialogue, description, punctuation, paragraphing. Then writers take and edit their own beautifully crafted prose, to “kill your darlings,” as Faulkner said — admittedly, an appropriate sentiment for mystery fiction. Clearly, something odd goes on here. Fortunately, there are some clear symptoms of Writer Syndrome I can share from formal research, direct observation, and personal experience. This is not a comprehensive list, but a few useful identifiers.

 

Writers write. Constantly. 

Successful writers can’t stop themselves from writing (except when they wind themselves up so much they block themselves — but that’s another story), and often wouldn’t if they could.

They fall quiet in public in order to eavesdrop. Not on the person sitting across from them at dinner, but the person at the next table putting on a scene, or using a fascinating accent, or just sitting there looking funny. They speculate how to use that person or that scene in a story. Sometimes they mine their own experiences with their families, and an unfortunate turn of phrase becomes immortalized.

While reading someone else’s story, they typically dismantle it as they read, that demanding inner critic distracting from simple enjoyment. Many writers can’t even read in their own genre, not because they dislike it, but because it has special power to distract from their own writing, and therefore they avoid it like a dieter dodging the cookie aisle. They read other things — they must read — but not what they love most. When watching a movie, they will wince at bad turns of phrase or scream at plot holes.

Don’t get angry — pity them. They’re always working.And even fun work is work.

 

Writers struggle. 

Writers want to influence people. That is the primary implicit (emotional) drive of the writer: to have an impact on someone else. This gets channeled into making them better — the better you write, the better the impact — but it also makes them vulnerable on the same wavelength.

There is certainly individual satisfaction from a successful creative effort: “It makes you feel like God on the Seventh Day — for a bit, anyhow,” as Dorothy Sayers said through her mystery writer character Harriet Vane. But even the love child of Shakespeare, J. K. Rowling, and Stephen King couldn’t please everyone. Writers crave the sensation of having had an impact on others, but there is a huge difference between “I loved this book,” and “It’s good except for…” That Godlike feeling wears off fast when they face negative feedback, or possible rejection by an editor, or even their spouse’s first reading of a story.

Writers tell you they ignore critics and reviews. 

They lie. 

They may not read published reviews, they may avoid those comments on Amazon or Goodreads, but their antennae always point towards any kind of reaction to their work. 

It’s not always pretty. I see writers fuming about a comment more indicative of illiteracy than critical judgment — but there it is, that one-star review on Amazon. It doesn’t matter that it means nothing, that anyone with sense will ignore it. That may be true for readers, but if writers had sense, they wouldn’t be writers.  It’s not an easy way to make a living.

Even when they do a great job, then they can get obsessive “fans” who feel they own the story and the characters. Some of these people seem to forget that these are made up by the author. Talk about good news/bad news! Authors love making their characters compellingly real, but not getting criticized for it. How much braver, then, must they be to put out their characters, catalyzed from experience, study, sweat, and soul, and hurt them for the good of the story? It’s like beating yourself over the head: it feels so good when you stop. And then you let other people do it for you.

 

How you can help

Research shows that the most motivational balance of feedback is at least three positive to one negative  — the “kiss to kick” ratio, as one colleague of mine put it. If you want writers to stay productive, keep that positive feedback coming! Sadly, there appears to be no cure for writing, but with sufficient positive feedback and book sales, they can live relatively normal and highly productive lives.

Thank you for your time.  And please — give generously.

 

 

 

A Good Condolence Guide

No one really wants to be in the position to write one – like no one wants to know the best way to get bubblegum off a wedding dress – but if you’re unfortunate enough to become an expert, you have to pass on what you’ve learned.  It’s really just making lemonade out of life’s biggest lemon.

So here’s what I discovered a couple of months ago after my sister died.  Probably no one reading this blog needs to see it, but maybe you can add your own insights or help me hone mine.

 

 1. CODO

Just as the Golden Rule does for most of life, most condoling is covered by the marvelously pithy CODO rule.  That’s “comfort-in-dump-out”.  A death, like any tragedy, has circles of people around it.  Some very close, some further away.  What CODO says is that everyone needs to comfort, support, be kind to, be gentle with, listen to and help anyone closer to the tragedy.  If anyone needs to dump a rant, give  advice,  chew the fat about when it happened to them, air their views about methods of dealing with it, or change the subject, they should do it to people farther away.

This is such simple genius.  Let’s take a less painful example than the death of a loved one.  Say your neighbour falls down a hole and breaks her leg.  You can say sorry, ask if it hurts, bring casseroles, tell she’s brave and looks great in her stookie and that is all.  CODO says you can’t: describe when you broke your leg a few years back; tell her she should be walking on it/resting/rubbing it with snake oil; share your opinion that she’s over-grumbling and should look on the bright side.

Nope, CODO says you need to hold that thought until you’re with someone who doesn’t have a broken leg.  Then you can go for it.  Tell your whole book group that she’s whining over nothing and if she’d only take the name of your favourite chiropractor she’d be fine.   If you do that, you’re still a blue meanie but you’re a CODO-compliant one.

 

2.    Send a card.

In the past, I’ve hesitated, wondering whether it’ll seem intrusive.  Now I know.  Send a card.  Cards from close friends, distant acquaintances and near strangers were about the only bright spots sometimes. 

But should it actually be a card you send?  In the UK, (I’d love someone to tell me if it’s the same in the US) letters of condolence are posh and cards of condolence are  . . . what’s the best word . . . Dandy Gilver would say “vulgar”.  I say, send a card.  They look pretty propped up all around the house and it means you don’t have to dust.

  

3. Write your number down

When you offer to help, as people do – aren’t people lovely? – write your number down.  Grief is exhausting and the effort of finding someone’s number is not small.  So . . . write your number down.  Write it in your condolence card, or if you’re visiting write it on a piece of paper and put it where stuff get puts in the house you’re in.  Every house has that place; find it and tell the bereaved family that your number is there.  Of course, you could punch it into everyone’s mobile’s but that breaks the CODO rule.  Asking bereaved people to hand over their phones and help you find their contacts list is a no-no.

 

4. Pop in.

On the subject of visiting.  Do visit, but don’t stay too long.  How long is too long? I bet you’re expecting me to say something vague and useless, right?  Well, you’re wrong.  I’m going to be very specific.  In the UK, forty-one minutes is too long.  Forty minutes allows greeting, hugging, the boiling of a kettle, the drinking of tea, some talking, some silence, hugging  and goodbye.  I don’t know how the US tradition of lemonade/ice tea affects this.  Maybe thirty minutes is long enough if you don’t need to boil a kettle.

I’ll bet this next bit is the same everywhere, though.  If someone else turns up, you’ve had it.  You don’t get your forty.  Their forty starts and you need to skedaddle.  Perhaps the most unexpectedly tiring experience in new grief was how impossible it is to deal with guests who stay until subsequent guests have left.  I bet bereavement counsellors could explain it.  I can’t, but it’s for real. 

 

 5. Move along there, folks.

On the subject of skedaddling . . . at the funeral, in the reception line, when you’re filing past, keep it short.  This is not the moment for shared memories – that’s why there’s a wake.  If you’re not going to the wake, then tough brisket – you don’t get to share your memory.   If someone does an ancient mariner routine in the reception line, not only are they lengthening the time the family has to stand there but they’re making the person behind them have to think of things to say to the next bereaved family member along until the ancient mariner winds up.  To be fair, hardly anyone seems to do this, but I bet if a funeral director offered an extra service where they hook someone’s collar and drag them offstage, there’d be takers.

 

6. You’re in my . . .

I can’t imagine that Richard Dawkins himself could possibly be offended if people said he was in their prayers.  Apart from anything else, it’s a statement of plain fact.  People pray.  Likewise, I can’t imagine that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be offended if non-religious people said he was in their thoughts and didn’t mention praying.  But remember CODO!  Don’t sneak in snippets of your personal philosophy if you know it’s not shared by the one you’re condoling. 

 

7. A vase, a vase, my kingdom for a vase.

And finally, perhaps the most important condolence tip of all.   If you send flowers to the bereaved family (and it’s wonderful how many people do this.  Even the few surfaces not covered by cards get covered with bouquets of flowers and you can say that any specks of visible dust are actually pollen.)  BUT – send arrangements that come already in a vase.  It puts a lot of pressure on a family’s vase collection if everyone they know suddenly sends flowers. 

I ended up being chief arranger when my sister died and there were some tense moments: those lilies had at least another day in them so the big crystal vase was tied up till tomorrow; the secateurs wouldn’t go through the rose stems, so the new bouquet was too tall for the white basket; CODO meant I couldn’t pester my mum; all the plain vases were full of flowers that looked good for a week (curse those packets of stuff that keep them going so long); and even in the most informal of families you can’t saw the top off a milk carton and fill it with freesia when so many visitors keep popping in.

 

This is my good condolence guide.  What would you add?  Oh, and by the way – CODO is over: if you don’t agree with something I’ve got here, have at me!

An interview with Dr. Karen Ross

by Charlaine Harris

Dr. Karen Ross received her medical degree from the University of Louisiana. She’s worked in three high-traffic places: at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences/UT Southwestern Medical School/Dallas County Medical Examiner’s Office, the Jefferson Parish Coroner’s Office, and New Orleans Forensic Center (Orleans Parish Coroner’s Office). She’s performed roughly 4,000 autopsies and has supervised many more. Dr. Ross now runs her own consulting business (Ross Forensic Medicine and Pathology Consultations Inc., LLC).

I’ve known Karen for many years, and though our paths don’t cross often, I’m always glad when they do. Karen is ferociously intelligent, unprejudiced, and (surprise!) a mystery reader.
 
1.  How do you handle the disconnect between the grim nature of your job –or more accurately
 knowing what people can do to each other – from your everyday life?

Good question!  I try not to think about the nature of the crime while I am doing my job – reviewing the investigative information, determining what evidence needs to be collected and other procedures undertaken like X-rays, documenting the injuries and other findings on the decedent, collecting specimens from the body of the decedent for toxicology and DNA and then making notations of all these things so that I can prepare a report that is of use to the people who need it whether family members, law enforcement, attorneys or insurance companies.

While I am doing this, my attention and energy are focused on the job. I don’t allow myself to think about what the person (perpetrator) was thinking or how the decedent was feeling as in some cases they must have known their death was imminent. Even after the autopsy is finished and the report finalized, I try not to think about the circumstances in a personal way because often times the job is not complete –court room testimony may be required. While I believe that I am an emotional and compassionate person, I don’t ever want those things to be used in a negative way in the courtroom, so I just don’t allow myself to think about the feelings and thoughts of either the perpetrator or the victim.  The most important thing I can do for the victim of a heinous crime is to maintain my professionalism and composure so that justice may be served for them. To do this I cannot personalize the crime.

Now I am telling you this as someone who has been doing this for over 20 years full time, but honestly, as emotional as I am – I was forbidden from watching Lassie when I was young because I would get so upset every week when Lassie was in peril – I do not think I have ever been overwhelmed by feelings of disgust, loathing, fear or whatever you can imagine one might feel while doing a case where a child comes in with a butcher knife sticking out of her head or someone’s nude body is left in an abandoned area after being violated or a mother, her child and grandchild are executed with multiple gunshot wounds. The reason is that I have a job to do – a job I chose knowing the things I would see  - and it is my obligation to do that job to the best of my ability.  I cannot do that if I am distracted by negative thoughts/feelings about the perpetrator of the crime.  That being said I must confess that I try to be very safety conscious and I live in a building with very good security!

2. Has some evidence you found ever changed the course of an investigation?

Certainly there are autopsy findings that have guided the course of an investigation. Sometimes things as routine as the range of fire of a gunshot wound – that is how close the muzzle of the weapon is to the person’s skin (or overlying objects like clothing) at the time the weapon is discharged – can confirm or refute statements made by witnesses (or perpetrators) to the detectives.

At other times, deaths that are presumably natural or accidental may be uncovered as suicide or homicide by the autopsy findings and subsequent investigation. One such case I observed was that of an elderly female who was found dead in bed face up by her family. This case was presumed to be due to natural causes but upon examination at autopsy she was found to have petechiae of the conjunctivae (small hemorrhages on the whites of the eyes and inside the eyelids) and congestion of the face (redness due to engorgement of the blood vessels).  While these findings are not diagnostic, they are suggestive of death due to asphyxia which occurs when the body’s cells can not receive or use oxygen properly – especially when pressure is applied to the neck. 

Further investigation (specifically, an interview with the family members who found her) confirmed that she had a scarf wrapped around her neck and secured to the bed post at the time she was found.  She had essentially hanged herself because just the weight of the head against a noose around the neck is sufficient to cut off the blood supply to the brain. The manner of death was suicide. The family had tried to alter the scene and pass her death off as natural, but the body is evidence and we all know evidence doesn’t lie. 

On another occasion a family member altered the scene of a death but in this case the reason was more sinister. I received a call about the death of a young woman in a bathtub with water in the tub and a curling iron present in her hand. Because it was a busy day, I did not have the opportunity to review the scene photographs prior to the autopsy, but had spoken to the death investigator and the detectives at the scene so I began the autopsy. 

One of the first things I noticed was that she had a prominent foam cone from her nose and mouth which is due to pulmonary edema fluid most often seen in drownings and sometimes in drug overdoses. She WAS found in a bathtub with water in it and there was a water line on the body, but the water line was below her nostrils and just below the corner of her mouth – so the level of the water line indicated that her nose and mouth were not below the water which was inconsistent with drowning. She also had petechiae of the eyes and a faint abraded contusion on the left side of her neck, but there was no other evidence of injury to indicate a struggle.

I was suspicious based upon those findings and when the investigator arrived to show me the photographs of the decedent as she was found, these suspicions grew. A full length mirror was propped against the toilet facing the bathtub. The curling iron was resting under the fingers of her left hand on her lower abdomen and she was tilted to the right and slumped down, but her nose and mouth were not underwater. There were also hair curlers present in her hair and in the tub.  I called the detective who was at the scene and told him I thought there was more to this than it initially appeared.  He also had concerns based upon his attempts to interview the decedent’s husband. 

Subsequent investigation included analysis of the curling iron (which was still operational), interviews with numerous women about which hand they used to hold a curling iron and whether they would ever do this in a bathtub or when using other curlers, and interviews with other family members and neighbors. The woman was right handed and from all accounts a responsible adult who had never been known to style her hair with a curling iron in the bathtub. Several discrepancies in the husband’s story about their relationship and his activities on the morning of her death were also discovered, but he never confessed to altering the scene or killing her.

Based upon the autopsy findings including a negative toxicology and the investigative information I had received, it was my opinion that her cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and/or drowning with the possibility of terminal electrocution, but it was not an accidental electrocution as it had been staged to appear. He was eventually charged with her murder and took a plea to 40 years for manslaughter. He never gave details regarding the events of that morning but said that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty. I believe he grabbed her legs and pulled them up so that her head was underwater and she drowned. The neck injury may have occurred when pressure was applied there when her head was underwater. She would not have been able to defend herself in that position. While I cannot say with absolute certainty what happened, it was my opinion that she did not accidentally electrocute herself with the curling iron as the scene was staged to appear. 

Another time that the autopsy findings contributed significantly to the criminal investigation actually involved homicides from 2 different jurisdictions which occurred hours apart. Both autopsies were performed on the same day and both decedents were killed with the same type of ammunition  - a type of ammunition which is very uncommonly used in homicides and which can create a distinctive pattern which was noted at autopsy. The perpetrator in one of the cases was known, so the knowledge of the common ammunition led the investigators of the other case to investigate that person as the perpetrator in their case as well. That’s a story for another day though.

3. Do you think there is still a prejudice against female forensic pathologists?

I do not  - -- certainly no more so than in the world in general. There are so many women forensic pathologists and also so many women in forensic science overall that even the most sexist person will eventually have to deal with one of us and hopefully that experience will be positive and help to overcome any residual sexism.  On the contrary, I have worked with many men who have been involved in law enforcement or death investigation for sometime and have been accustomed to working with men and these men were very complimentary.  They were anxious to hear my opinions and thanked me for taking the time to talk to them.   I can’t recall having specific problems related to this in court either – but I reserve the right to amend my answer in the future if I think of any!

4. What group is the most difficult to work with – families, police or attorneys?

Attorneys  - and the vast majority of them are not difficult. They are doing their job just as I am doing mine. Sometimes the attorney who is on the “other” side tries to portray me as something I am not and/or imply that I have a vested interest in the outcome of the trial. I tell them my answers are the same no matter who is asking the questions. I guess it is the adversarial nature of the court system and civil is worse than criminal at least so far in my experience.  

Families frequently want or need to speak to the forensic pathologist because we are the last person to touch their loved one. If they want to talk to me, I talk to them – even if I am just expressing my condolences which I think is very important and I try to do with every family with whom I interact.  Even if I am not giving them any more information than the administrator or the death investigator did. – if they want to talk to me I talk to them.  Their loved one - the decedent -  is my patient and I am their final physician. If I can help their family by talking to them I will and I do.

Police are in need of information from the autopsy and those with whom I interact understand that I rely upon their information as well to determine the manner of death especially. This doesn’t mean they dictate the way I classify a death, but there is no autopsy finding you can interpret in a vacuum and reach the appropriate manner of death determination. The exceedingly rare times there have been difficulties with the police have been deaths where I could not call them homicides based upon the autopsy findings and investigation as presented to me. That has happened only twice in 20 years.

5. It would seem that testifying in court would call for a whole different skill set from performing an autopsy. Do you find this true?

Absolutely. Someone may be a brilliant physician and do a wonderfully thorough autopsy and discussion, but if that person cannot explain the findings and their significance in laymen’s terms so that the people who use the autopsy can understand it, the success of that person as a forensic pathologist will be limited. When I write the autopsy report I try to use the medical term and then follow that with the laymen’s term in the conclusion. When the family or a detective or attorney reads the report they don’t have to call a physician or other medical personnel to interpret it.  Of course that leaves the body of the report and the findings to be interpreted, and there are some terms that become so second nature in our line of work that you forget that everyone doesn’t know what for example exsanguination  (blood loss resulting in death) means.  In those circumstances pre-trial meetings or phone conferences or appropriate questions at the time of the investigation or testimony can clarify and aid in the understanding.

In addition to the ability to formulate the response to the questions forensic pathologists are asked is the ability to relate to people in general. Having been a teacher helps a great deal in this area though I guess teaching and doing this were really concurrent for me, but just the practice of speaking in front of other people to whom you are trying to explain things is invaluable. In court for example I try to speak to the jurors when answering the questions, first because they are the people who are going to make the decision(s) regarding the case so they need to understand the information, and second because I want to see if they understand what I am saying. I try to make eye contact with each of them at different points during the testimony and in almost every trial there are at least a couple of people who are nodding when I am speaking or demonstrating the injuries on the body diagram or photographs assuring me that they do understand.  As in life there are varying degrees of medical knowledge among jurors and I have rarely noted a juror mouthing the words as I am saying them so I guess that indicates they understand what I am saying!!

The Femmes thank Dr. Ross for agreeing to be interviewed!

Where were you?

Today the Femmes welcome Lesa Holstine as a guest-blogger. An Indiana library administrator, Lesa is the author of the "Mystery" chapter in Genreflecting: A Guide to Popular Reading Interests. Lesa's Book Critiques is her blog, where she discusses books and authors, emphasizing mysteries. A contributing book reviewer for Library Journal, Mystery Readers Journal, and ReadertoReader.com, she was the winner of the 2009 and 2010 Spinetingler Awards for Best Reviewer.

For those of us of a certain age, November 22 marks the anniversary of the greatest mystery of our lifetime. Who was behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? Most people are sure Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. Others, like my late husband, are convinced we never knew the whole story about the assassination. Fifty years later, the story still plays out on television and in the numerous books on the subject.

It seems everyone from Stephen King to Bill O'Reilly has a Kennedy book. If you're a Kennedy buff, a conspiracy theorist, or a librarian, you've seen all kinds of books in the last couple years leading up to the anniversary. As a public librarian, I'm guessing the most popular nonfiction topics in the U.S. are the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, World War II, and John F. Kennedy. We're fascinated by tragedy on a grand scale. And, assassinations that affect the entire country certainly are on a grand scale.

I know we don't have every book, but there are ninety-five nonfiction entries under "Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963-Assassination" in the online catalog at the library where I work. There are books that theorize that LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, the mob, or the CIA were involved in the shooting, including some ideas so strange that maybe the books should be fiction. There are also some fascinating compilations such as LIFE The Day Kennedy Died: Fifty Years Later: LIFE Remembers the Man and the Moment by The Editors of LIFE or The Kennedy Years From the Pages of The New York Times, Richard Reeves, General Editor.

Looking for fiction? The biggest one (in more ways than one) is Stephen King's 11/22/63. Jim Lehrer's latest book is Top Down, a novel about a journalist and a Secret Service agent. Don DeLillo's 1991 novel, Libra, is still well-known. Even Columbo was brought into the assassination arena in a 1993 novel, Columbo: The Grassy Knoll by William Harrington. And, I have to say, my husband would have loved all the theories and books. He would have read every one of them.

I'm one of the youngest people who still remember November 22, 1963 fifty years later. I was six. We know where we were when we heard President John F. Kennedy was shot. For me, the memory that lingers came later. I was home with chicken pox the day of the funeral. I remember the sound of those drums. The echo of those drums over the years still symbolize the tragedy of a nation.

"Black Friday" is the day after Thanksgiving, a shopping day. For many of us who remember, the first black Friday in American history was November 22, 1963. Do you remember where you were?

Carolyn Hart talks classic mysteries

Today's guest is Carolyn Hart, who has won so many awards and accolades I could fill a whole blog post listing them. Long known as a proponent of the traditional mystery, Carolyn has won thousands upon thousands of fans around the world for her various series which fit into the mold popular for over a century. She believes -- and I heartily agree -- that the writers of today can learn a lot from our forerunners in the genre. I asked her to talk about the classics and some of her favorites. WARNING: there might be a spoiler or two!

CLASSIC AND BRILLIANT By Carolyn Hart

Classic mysteries are more than icons in a pantheon. Classic mysteries were - and remain - original, captivating, and, for us, instructive.

These books excite my admiration and emulation:

            THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD by Agatha Christie

Christie is, was, and will always be the world’s greatest mystery author . The denouement was utterly unexpected. From that time forward, she was the reigning queen of taking the reader’s preconceptions and casual acceptance of what is presented and using those blinders to fool the reader and ultimately present an ending that scarcely any of them could foretell. For those who protest at the novel’s conclusion, go back to the passage where Dr. Sheppard stands at the study door and wonders if there was anything he had left undone. The genius of that paragraph should inform all of our work.                

TEN LITTLE INDIANS (aka AND THEN THERE WERE NONE) by Agatha Christie

In her autobiography, Christie said she was pleased with this book and that only she understood how difficult it had been to write. Her amazing accomplishment here was to create the perfect characters to exemplify their counterparts in the nursery rhyme. The entire book would have collapsed upon itself if she had not succeeded in bringing to life the particular persons who would behave in just the right way for her plot to succeed. Everything that happens in a mystery depends upon the character of those involved. This is a simple concept. It is a hugely difficult challenge. In a manuscript I just completed, I struggled early on because I couldn’t get the theme to mesh with the action. I realized I had miscast a main character. I went back to the first and Lorraine became the woman she needed to be for the book to work. 

            THE CIRCULAR STAIRCASE by Mary Roberts Rinehart

An instantaneous success, Mary Roberts Rinehart was the first author to write a humorous mystery with a female protagonist. Life is real, life is earnest, but a great deal of good fun can be had in a mystery. The woman in jeopardy became a staple of crime fiction from then to now. Rinehart’s wry observations entertain. Engaging readers in a character’s survival and knowing when to entertain readers are lessons we can learn from her.

            THE CASE IS CLOSED  by Patricia Wentworth.

Patricia Wentworth combined romance and mystery with a series sleuth, Miss Maud Silver, whose ability to engage anyone and everyone in conversation helped her ultimately to sift from casual comments revelations that reveal a villain. In this particular book, she also put appealing people in devastating circumstances and the reader roots for them to prevail.             

          CAUSE FOR ALARM by Eric Ambler

Ambler excelled in authenticity. He knew the background, he knew the terrain, he knew what he was talking about. To experience immediacy with the events that led up to WWII, Ambler provides not only first rate excitement, he gives today’s readers a view of how those involved in the run up to war understood the world around them.

            THE FRANCHISE AFFAIR by Josephine Tey

Two women are accused of a crime. The accusations are damming, the evidence presented apparently incontrovertible. Tey creates an oppressive atmosphere, pulls us ever deeper into the despair of the accused women. The characterizations are compelling; the resolution riveting. Making a mystery intensely personal is one of Tey’s great achievements. Her gift to us is the realization that the homeliest background can be spellbinding if we care about the characters.

These authors have in common the ability to create intriguing puzzles and authentic characters. We can read them not only to learn, but to enjoy how well they played the fascinating game of the Mystery.

           

             

 

 

DANDY GILVER OUT TODAY!

Happy bookday to me (and Dandy)!

Happy bookday to me (and Dandy)!

Happy US publication day

To Dandy Gilver and me!

 (Can you tell I’m baking, and that I’ve already been eating butter icing off the mixer whisks? )

Anyway, I’m thrilled to announce that today sees the US publication of DANDY GILVER AND A BOTHERSOME NUMBER OF CORPSES.  In celebration, I’ll be giving away a signed hardback copy.  Just leave a comment to have your name put in the hat.

 

I loved writing this book, fell in love with the new characters even more than usual and had a harder than ever time leaving them behind when I was done.  It feels like a proper treat to get to visit them all again in readings and Q&As for the launch.  And it fells like sheer indulgence to revisit the world I made-up.  It’s a very particular little world - St Columba’s College for Young Ladies, Portpatrick, Scotland - where Dandy goes undercover as an English mistress and causes havoc in the classroom.

I did a fair bit of stealing as well as inventing because although St C.’s is an imaginary school, Portpatrick is a real place and the school building is actually the Portpatrick Hotel.

Here are Dandy and Alec rolling up there for the first time.

“Do you know where St Columba’s is?’ I asked the coachman.  This innocent question set him off worse than ever, a torrent delivered at top speed and high volume of which I understood not a word.  He shook his fists and jabbed the air and, as our gaze followed the way he was so emphatically pointing, up above the roofs of the cottages, up the face of the cliff, all the way up to the headland, we saw a squat grey building, hunched above the village glaring down. I could not believe – once it was noticed – that it had gone unnoticed before.  Almost it seemed to be looming as though with a gust of wind it might topple from its perch and flatten us.

‘I take it they don’t start with a kindergarten,’ Alec said.  ‘I shouldn’t want my precious tot running around up there.’

‘Twelve and up,’ I said.  ‘What a supremely unwelcoming facade.’

Poor hotel!  It’s nothing like as gothic and gloomy in real life as in the story.  And believe me when I say that no school in any century in any country would stay in business if a fraction of the St Columba’s shenanigans was really going on there.  Mistresses are vanishing (five so far) and corpses are piling up (four and counting) but the numbers don’t tally.  Most bothersome

I don’t want to go into any more detail about the plot.  For one thing - S-P-O-I-L-E-R  - and for another the memory of the trouble it gave me is still too fresh and painful.  But writing the setting?  Writing a 1920s girls boarding school?  That was almost too easy to be fun.

To  dream up St Columba's, I drew deeply on my own childhood.  “Wait a minute!”  I hear you cry.  “You’ve always made out you were a working-class kid.”  Well, yes, I was and I went to a  comprehensive school (= US public school (= UK private school (argh!))) of no poshness whatsoever, in a building that says all there is to say about the municipal architecture of the 1970s.

That was by day.  But by night, oh by night, I entertained myself as did many of us (including JK Rowling, I’m willing to bet) with the school stories of Enid Blyton.  

 

In which fearless (ie nutjob) Darrell Rivers and her loyal (ie boring) friend Sally Hope triumphed over disasters, bullies and passive-aggressive mistresses for six years at Mallory Towers.  

These books were so successful that - I don’t think I’m being cynical here – Enid Blyton followed them up with another, unrelated series concerning Pat and Isobel, the O’Sullivan twins (Irish! Diversity!) who triumphed over disasters, bullies and passive-aggressive mistresses for six years at the entirely different St Clare’s.

 

How I loved that world.  The girls had a stately old school on a clifftop, with a swimming pool carved into the rock that was filled with saltwater at high tide.  They had an airy dorm with billowing white curtains and gaily-coloured eiderdowns.  They had midnight feasts out of the tuck boxes their doting parents and jolly cooks sent from home.

Ah yes, the food.   It was the descriptions of boarding-school meals in the vast, echoing dining-room  where the girls sat at four long tables (JK Rowling definitely read these books!) that made me most envious of all.  The steaming, creamy porridge, the vats of stew and mountains of mash, the tall jugs of cocoa at suppertime.

Meanwhile, I lived one fifth of a mile from my high school and one fifth of a mile from my primary school and ate a home-cooked lunch every schoolday for twelve years.  Poor me, I thought then.  Mum: you’re a marvel, I think now.  Home-made soup from home-made stock, home-made bread, home-made cakes . . . I can’t believe I was pining for institutional (not to mention fictional) stew.

So with hindsight, I’m very glad that I went home to my family every night (and lunchtime too) and that those boarding schools were all in my mind.  What bit of your schooldays have you changed your view of with a bit of distance? 

 

 

 

An Interview with Medicolegal Death Investigtor Loan Tran

by Charlaine Harris

Loan Tran, whom I met a few months ago, works at (take a deep breath) the Dallas County Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, Office of the Medical Examiner. She's a Medicolegal Death Investigator, a job commonly mistaken for "CSI." However, in Loan's location (Dallas, TX) Crime Scene Investigators work for the police department and are responsible for the crime scene, while Loan's county job is to process the body of any individual who has died in questionable circumstances. Loan is part of a hard-working team which has handled over 300 bodies this year. Amazingly, after four years on the job, Loan still has a sense of humor. Loan agreed to answer questions posed by the Femmes Fatales, and if readers have questions for her, too, maybe she'll visit again.

1. What's the biggest difference between TV csi's and real csi's? Besides the ridiculous clothes? I've seen you at work, and you don't wear heels and low-cut knit tops.

With Death Investigators, our dress code is business casual with a white laboratory coat. The white laboratory coat is to reduce the risk of exposure to bodily fluids or other hazards we might come across on scene. No way are we allowed to wear high heels, short skirts or low-cut knit tops. I recently saw a show where a Death Investigator and Medical Examiner arrived to scene in trendy trench coats and knee high boots…and I have to say…that is not at all how we dress. I don’t really watch too many shows like CSI. The biggest difference is the technology. In these shows fingerprinting takes one minute but in reality it’s a bit of a process to make a positive ID based on fingerprints. Shows like CSI have really skewed the public’s view on how crime scene and death investigations really work. It’s not as “high tech” as it appears on TV.

2. What is the most difficult case you've ever had?

When dealing with death, all cases are difficult whether or not it’s traumatic or natural. However, there are cases that do stand out and are more difficult than others. I’ve had two cases that were very difficult. Both were young children involved in “freak accidents.” In one case a young boy ran through a screen door, puncturing his colon. In the second, an elementary school girl fell onto a handle bar during a bicycle accident and lacerated her liver. (I can only discuss these cases because the cause and manner have been made public and their stories were on the news.) When I interacted with the parents in these particular cases, I was deeply saddened that their children were taken away unexpectedly and so suddenly. They will not celebrate any more holidays or birthdays with their children.

3. Do you find juries have different expectations of your evidence now that TV shows about csi's are so popular?

Death Investigators do testify on occasion but it’s rare. Medical Examiners (medical doctors that are specialized in forensic pathology who perform the autopsies) testify in court. TV shows such as “CSI” have caused juries have different expectations on evidence. On television, difficult homicides or unexplained cases are solved within a couple days. I have worked cases that took months and almost years to solve due to lack of evidence. Television makes it seem very easy to “stumble” upon evidence.

Also, certain cause and manner of death determinations pend for 8-12 weeks for further testing. We can’t spit out evidence in an hour.

Another thing I noticed about TV shows is DNA analysis. It is not as easy and quick to build a profile to “catch the bad guy.” There are many factors that come with DNA profiling and the process could take months. It all depends on the samples that are available and their condition. Not everyone’s DNA is in the “system.” We don’t always get a “hit” on DNA like they do in TV shows.

4. Has something you found ever made the critical difference in solving a case?

Since a large number of my cases are still pending court trials or have not closed yet, I’ll mention past cases. Yes, there have been cases where the Medical Examiner’s findings have lead the arrest of a suspect. There was a case of an elderly gentleman who lived alone. He was murdered in his house. The decedent also had a pet bird that was killed as well. The Death Investigator made the decision to have the bird transported along with the decedent to the medical examiner’s office for an autopsy. During the exam it was discovered that the bird had bitten the finger of the suspect and there was fragment of it in the bird’s mouth. The suspect was identified by DNA from that fragment. Another interesting case was a small piece of a glove that was identified on the body by the medical examiner. That fragment was traced back and the suspect was located. DNA is so very important and it can make or break the case.

5. What do you find most satisfying about your job?

The most satisfying part of my job is helping to bring closure to families. When a person dies suddenly and unexpectedly, families really have a difficult time obtaining closure until the cause of death is released. Also, this is a career that extremely unique and difficult to come by. There is something different and new almost every day.

6. What's the biggest challenge you face in your day-to-day work?

The biggest challenge is not being able to provide answers for cause and manner of death. This includes sudden unexplained infant deaths or sudden deaths of people of any age where autopsy findings yielded no results pointing to the definite cause of death. Cases like this pose a challenge. Also, I do have to make death notifications on occasion and sometimes over the phone. It’s really difficult and emotionally challenging to notify a family member that their loved one passed away.

 

 

 

Murder and Mayhem in Muskego 2013!

by Dana

The Muskego (WI) Public Library hosts one of my favorite events in the writing community.  Murder and Mayhem in Muskego is an annual event with twenty-odd writers doing panels all day on a Saturday in early November.  Organized by the volunteers at the library (notably the wonderful Penny Halle) with the good folks at Crimespree Magazine (especially Jon and Ruth Jordan), the eclectic nature of the event is part of the attraction:  There are crime writers of every stripe, working in subgenres ranging from the traditional mystery to grittiest noir.  More than that, a number of the panelists also work in more than one genre (like yours truly, mixing up the urban fantasy with crime and thriller components) and even in more than one medium, especially comics. 

It is, quite simply, one of the best places to get your geek on, not only about fiction, but non-fiction, and writing in general, and popular culture. 

This year, I was on two panels; the Friday night “Liars” panel moderated by the magnificent Jen Forbus with  Marcia Clark, Sean Doolittle, Chris Holm, Julie Hyzy, and me.  We gave Jen our best anecdotes and she spun them into believable lies, and audience members had to be brave enough to figure out which was the truth, and which was the lies.  For the record:  Yes, I got married with a knife strapped to my thigh.  You can check out video of this panel on Jen's website. 

The second panel I participated on was called  “Riff Raff” (all the panels were named for AC/DC songs).  The most excellent Kate Malmon (you know her from her work at Crimespree Magazine, particularly "Crimepsree on Comics," which she does with the equally excellent Dan Malmon) moderated her first panel—and did a fabulous job of it.  She chose to focus on characters and writing them, which Howard Chaykin, Chris Holm (it's now a rule that Chris and I will always be on panels together), Harry Hunsicker, and Duane Swierczynski.  (Right, you can see that you can get coffee with an axe, or Regular.)

There were some great one-on-ones as well:  Jen interviewed Gregg Hurwitz.  Marcia Clark interviewed Michael Koryta (and vice versa) and (below), there was a terrfic discussion between Kent Krueger and Libby Hellmann.

I can't tell you about the party after the panels—what happens in Muskego stays in Muskego—but I will say that often as not, you will see the other panelists gathering to hear what everyone has to say.  That's how good it is.