Friday Fun: Final Nazis, this time in Space!

Okay, not to make this the 24/7 improbable conditions for Nazis blog, but I just saw a movie trailer to round out our frozen-zi and zombie-zi offerings. Yes, indeed, space Nazis.  And this stylish, irreverent film looks like a heckuva good time, but there is some swearing in the trailer.  (And that's what I'd do, too, upon learning the 3rd Reich was on the dark side of the moon.)

So here's the trailer from IRON SKY, which will premiere in about two weeks at the Berlin Film Festival. (not kidding)

Short Story Confusion/Question/Bleg

(A bleg is when you beg for something on a blog.)  Since I'm incredibly fortunate to share WoM with such talented authors, not to mention our blogpals and commenters, I'm sharing my current confusion to get your opinions.

Our own Anita Page once said wisely--I think, like many good authors she might have restated wisdom she'd picked up from another writer, but I don't recall whom--in a short story, you have time to handle in-depth any 2 among your plot, character, or setting.  (There was also a nifty comparison to taking a hot air balloon ride that I can't quite flesh out from memory, but maybe she'll help with that.)

Anyway, I'm working on a short story that will likely end up around 5k.  My plot isn't complicated, and setting is minimally described, but the character revelation is crucial. Here's where I'm getting worried. I'm using a less-linear structure, revealing the characters and the truth of their underlying relationship in slices. These slices are exposed through 3 alternating POVs:

Present day, experienced in first person (Guy1 decides, then tries, to steal something from Guy2.)
Their past, limited 3rd person (When Guy1 met Guy2 in their youth.)
Documentary (The quoted Q&A from a contemporary magazine interview, answers given by Guy2 which Guy1 reads)

I hope I'll avoid confusion, because the story stays centered on these 2 guys. The only other serious speaking part is a woman, and she's subsidiary.  Now, I think that may be heavy enough for my story's balloon, but I have another opportunity that I seem to have written in unconsciously, and it leads to my question.

I could easily allow Guy1 and Guy2's identity to be confused with each other's until the end of the first act--around the 1,500 word point--once readers got a dose of each of the POVs above. In this case, discovering who's really in what position to whom would provide the Act I's hook.

In principle, would that irritate the crap out of you as a reader?  Having read 4-5 pages and then having your preconception upended (might not even happen, since crime readers are innately suspicious of making assumptions) or perhaps having your vague suspicions confirmed, would that be satisfying and enticing?

Keeping in mind that the relationship and power between the two men IS the story, is that a strong enough reason to try to execute this triple toe-loop? Am I making too much trouble for myself in a way that's likely to diminish the final product?  Do you find linearity and immediate clarity is a clear preference of short crime readers? How well do you think such maneuvers work short?

That's my bleg!  All feedback gratefully encouraged.

Culture Shock

We interrupted our at-home Western film festival this week for a nice fat dose of Lord Peter Wimsey. Talk about culture shock.

This adaptation of Dorothy Sayers’ The Nine Taylors, part of the 1970s series starring Ian Carmichael, opens with the theft of an emerald necklace at a house party at which Wimsey is a guest. The thieves flee; Wimsey unsuccessfully pursues. Fast forward to the trenches of World War I, and the rescue of Wimsey by the man we’ll come to know as Bunter—a scene that I don’t think occurs in the book (correct me if I’m wrong), though we learn about it in retrospect. Fast forward again. Wimsey and Bunter find themselves with a flat tire in the very village where the theft took place many years earlier. (Speaking of coincidence, Leigh!) Now comes the mystery: the reappearance of one of the thieves, the still-missing necklace, a mutilated body in the wrong grave. Here, too, comes our education in the change ringing of church bells, and the meaning of the title. The Nine Taylors refers to the nine strokes of the tenor bell, called Tailor Paul, that announce the death of a man.

Watching The Nine Taylors reminded me how much I loved Sayers, and Wimsey and Harriet Vane (this book predates her appearance in the series), and how pleasurable it was to be drawn into a world of afternoon tea and butlers, and a gentleman detective who sets the world right after it’s been disrupted by murder.

Tuesday Twosome

I've been reading D.C. Dead by Stuart Woods this week and found he used coincidences at several points to move the story along. Most editors say that a no-no for novels, but I disagree. They happen in real life, and we should be able to use them in stories.

As an example, there was a story in the news about a family vacationing in Honduras and their sightseeing plane crashed. It went down beside a leisure boat and the passengers dove in to help rescue the plane's occupants. They needed immediate medical attention and another boat came by that happened to have two doctors on board, and they began treating the victims immediately, saving their lives. Coincidence, maybe; a miracle, yes!

Here's one of Stuart's scenes. Stone Barrington and Dino Bacchetti are in D.C. to investigate a murder at the behest of the president and his wife. They're examining the year-old crime scene for the first time:
Stone followed her gaze. Dino was standing next to a flower bed, holding a flat piece of granite. "What have you got there, Dino?"

   "The murder weapon, I think." He walked over to where Stone and Fair stood. "It's an edging rock, and it was out of line with the others. It appears to have blood and hair on it and what looks like a lipstick smudge." He pointed to the smear of pink.   "And it was still there after a year? And with blood, hair, and lipstick on it?"   "It was stuck in the ground," Dino said, "under a bush. Evidence can sometimes last like that."

Later in the story, they take a break to visit the Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian when they're interrupted by a call informing them a murder victim's cell phone is live:

   "Let's see. It's moving right past the Smithsonian Institution right now. Seems to be stuck in traffic outside the Air and Space wing."   "Holy shit! That's where we are!" Stone grabbed Dino's arm and ran for the door. "Come on!"

Highly unlikely? Sure. Believable? Absolutely.

What do you think about coincidence in a story? Do you use it? Do you dislike it?

It's A Mystery

This week’s New York Times Sunday Book Review had a short article at TBR: Inside the List by Gregory Cowles noting that 13 out of the 16 books on the list were mysteries or thrillers—headed by Private: #1 Suspect by James Patterson and Maxine Paetro. It went on to state that thirty years ago, just 2 books on that week’s list could be considered mysteries: Gorky Park by Martin Cruz Smith and Red Dragon by Thomas Harris while the majority were travelogues and epics such as Nobel House by James Clavell.

As a mystery writer, I was delighted to see that the genre I love was flourishing and it gave me a little extra hope that one day even I might see my name on the list. It got me wondering if readers were choosing mysteries not just for the thrills and chills they provide, but also for the quality of the writing. Do mysteries now compete more favorably against and sell better—unlike thirty years ago—than literally fiction? Do readers recognize and appreciate that it takes the same, if not more, work and thought to write a well-crafted whodunit as it does a work of literary fiction? Or, have tastes merely changed?

Let me know what you think because honestly, it’s a mystery to me.

Visit me at www.cathistoler.com to read an excerpt of my novel, TELLING LIES and check in on my latest news and events.

The Bethlehem Writers Roundtable Short Story Award

The Bethlehem Writers Roundtable Short Story Award is accepting submissions for short fiction and memoir (up to 2,000 words), with a deadline of February 15, 2012. The first place winner's story will be considered for publication in the Bethlehem Writers Group, LLC's upcoming anthology, Seasonal Pursuits: Sweet, Funny, and Strange Tales, and will be awarded $200. There will be prizes for Second and Third Place, and Honorable Mentions.

Final selection of winners will be done by The New York Times best-selling author, Jonathan Maberry. Finalists will be notified by March 15, 2012.

Stories must be previously unpublished. Multiple entries may be submitted. The entry fee is $10 per story. For further details, visit here. You can find @BethelemWriter on Twitter and Facebook. Jonathan is on Twitter -- @JonathanMaberry.

Come follow me on Twitter @katcop13.

All I Need While I Read: My Own Frozen Nazi Zombie!

I, too, enjoy a variety of reading material, from fully-realized, complex tapestries of characters and language to frank trash.  It depends upon what else I'm doing in life, what else I'm writing of my own, and the vagaries of my mood.  So sue me.  Building off the commentary in Laura's post about what she wants in a book--sentiments to which I wholeheartedly ascribe--I want also to suggest that during those times when your my reading material is unabashedly rotting rotten, it might be cool to have this commanding little friend and his ice-bound coffin at your my side.

But not too close to my marshmallow cocoa, because this incredibly detailed figurine from the ZomBee Toy Company comes with "Exclusive Artificial Zombie Sented Smell Odor !!"  Mmmm, whiff that awesome literature!