Transubstantiate - Book Club September '10

I’ve been thinking a lot about Transubstantiate lately, and instead of having that brain time go to waste, I figured it best to get these thoughts down, so that you can continue to keep discussion in mind as you read. The discussion doesn’t officially start until September 1st, but I fear losing these discussion points if I were to wait until then.

I think a lot of discussion can be given to the fantastical elements of the story:

• Magical box | What is the true purpose of the mysterious tribal box? We get the feeling that it has something to do with the worldwide virus, but I don’t think we are explicitly told anything?
• Talking chipmunk | What is with Raymond, the talking chipmunk? Why is he able to talk? He plays an important role in the story, it seems (affecting the implants on some characters. And the fact that he gets the last words of the book means that he has to have played a large role, whether superficial or something deeper.
• The cave | This image of the cave seems to demand comparison to Plato’s Allegory of The Cave (as all cave references seem to want). Is this a valid comparison? The cave is very mysterious, often physically transporting people across the island. How does the cave fit into the otherwise realist narrative?

The definition of Noir literature is interpreted many ways. Two recent articles which attempt to focus the discussion of noir are:

• Noir Fiction Is About Losers, Not Private Eyes by Otto Penzler (08/10/10)
• The Dark Heart of Noir by Charles Ardai (08/24/10)

What are your thoughts on the noir genre? How does Transubstantiate adhere to your or the above definitions? How does it stray from these various definitions?

yes, yes, no, no, sometimes...yes

Though the discussion doesn't officially start until tomorrow, I'll be at work most of the day, so I want to offer this final bump to get the discussion top of mind.

In addition to forking from the discussion points above, I thought it would be good to look at some of the current reviews of Transubstantiate to see what sort of discussion they provoke. Here's the ones I could find:
Spinetingler Magazine
Oxyfication.net
Bitten By Books

Beautiful. This is going to be a great discussion. Now get out of here, Richard so we can talk dirty about you and your novel! I'm just playing. So, tomorrow's the big day?

I'll be sure to start compiling responses to the discussion points above, re-reading the book and forming a few more of my own discussion points. There is one particular thing i am dying to talk about. But it's probably not all that interesting to anyone else.

Look forward to the graceful comeback of the book club.

In all fairness, nothing you say is of interest to anybody else Matt... Just kidding!

Nothing is off topic!

Discussion starts today and let's make it kick ass!

@ caleb - yes, thanks for those links, there was one from Jesse too, but the Velvet isn't back to normal, not sure where that review went, but i have it here in its entirety as well - also, there's this one at Rotten Leaves, too:

http://www.rottenleaves.com/review-transubtantiate-by-richard-thomas/

@ matthew - go for it, i'm putting on my thick skin right now, love to hear what your question is, be happy to elaborate on anything here, and that goes for anybody that wants me to answer any questions - i'll try to stay OUT of conversations about the different aspects, so as not to sound defensive, but will certainly answer any questions that are addressed directly to me - my first BOOK CLUB, so not sure exactly what is expected of me - Caleb and Pete, let me know if i need to speak up more or shut up more

@PG - ready when you all are

here's jesse's review:

There just isn't a "home" page at the moment, but the review didn't go anywhere; it's right there in the Reviews forum with all the others.

ah, thanks GDot, I'll fix my link then

Alright then, well, I'm gonna go right ahead and bring up the thing i am dying to talk about. Of course, I will go back to the already posted discussion topics, but i've been waiting for this, rater than just email Rich and getting a dialogue happening that way.

Be aware that i have just arrived home from an extensive drinking session, but i'm confident that i am, at the very minimum, 80% sober.

okay, here it is: The third-person chapter. What the fuck? That tripped me up so hard and--after, what's it been? a month since i've read it--I still can't, for the life of me, work out why Richard decided to do this. It makes no sense to me. It completely pulled me out of the story because i was just thinking 'why the hell would he do this?'. The rules of the structure were set in stone before that, and then continued the same way after it; each character got a mini-chapter and once each character had their mini-chapter that made up the major chapter.

I honestly feel that whole chapter would have been much better, more effective etc. if it continued with the split POV first person mini-chapters. In fact, the whole time i read the third person stuff i imagined what it would've been like in first.

So, to my understanding, writing in third-person is less immediate, less intimate, but even with that in mind, i have no idea why that chapter needed to be less intimate and personal.

I'm interested to see what everyone else thinks about this.

Richard, hold off from answering my query. I want to see what other readers thought of this first. Then when we've discussed it a bit further you can jump on in and defend your decision--which i'm sure is justified. And let me reiterate, I loved this book. Like i have said in the past, even if i am questioning an authors intentions and decisions, at least i care enough to do this. it's better than finishing a book, putting it down and then forgetting about it. Right?

That's a great question, Matthew. I'll keep my mouth shut for once and see what people say about it, Chapter Six. There were obviously some shifts in this book, and some jumps in time, some patterns to what is going on. That's all I'll say for now.

To the bonfire: I'm not sure I every completely grasped what the bonfire was all about. It was a way to gather all the important characters in a single scene, I understand, which is a very important aspect of a story that deals with so many main characters. But the nature of the bonfire itself, I am not sure. Can anyone guide me?

I will say that the novel manages to pull me along quite quickly. I credit not only Richard's skill, but the multiple perspectives as well. A fresh perspective every couple pages made me look even more forward to each coming page.

Good stuff Caleb and Matthew.

I'll add in one clue - 1st person is close, intimate, 3rd person is more distant, observational even. Zoom in, push out. Grains of sand on a beach, snowflakes in a storm, dna, solar systems.

yeah, I agree, Caleb, that it sticks out. It's definitely the sectino of the novel that i have pondered the most, but i fear it's not for the right reason.

I understand that the first person is intimate and third person distances the reader, but i just feel that if you establish the rules of the novel to be split first person narration you should probably stick with it, because having one chapter that is third person simply just to make the scene distant is a bit of a cheat. not to mention how much it sticks out and confuses a motherfucker. And i can appreciate that in a sense that is what Richard was going for, but i'm leaning more to the disagreeing with the decision side of things. I just can't justify the decision, i guess.

however, the scene itself was stunning. I, too, am not sure i'm not completely aware of the significance of the bonfire. i was on edge the whole time. there is so much at play just below the surface. That's one of the best things, in my opinion, with this book. it's one of the things that kept me turning pages faster than i could read them. and it's the very thing that makes me want to re-read the book immediately.

I need to re-read it for this discussion, so it's fresh. i may even take a hilighter to it. but i'll probably just use post-its because i don't want to ruin my signed copy. I'll read it again tonight and hopefully become a bit more enlightened.

I'm going to read chapter six now and see if something else pops in my mind.

Well, in one of the interviews Richard mentions doing something different for every third chapter in the book. That would be the only reason I see for the third person narrative. I'm kinda interested what he says about that chapter because it threw me too.

I'm also wondering what people thought of the 7 deadly sins represented by the characters. (I'm pretty sure that was said in an interview somewhere).

Where are all the people! I got so many PM's about this. Come on people!

I'll give this a bit more time, but will respond to the questions about the use of third person whenever you all are ready. It definitely was on purpose, and if you look at Assigned, and the questionable history/life span of Assigned, and X, there is something in there too.

I particularly liked the third-person chapter, the bonfire one, for several reasons:

-It's necessary to see all of these characters interact as one unit, regardless of how divided, to see how their cog fits in the overall wheel. I think we also get a better sense of the characters themselves seeing how they react to each other. And, too, if there are seven different threads going throughout the novel, we (or I) wanted to get them all together a couple times and see what happens.

-The bonfire setting could have been any number of places, and I don't know that it's particularly integral to the story, but I saw a fire as the best setting possible. There are a number of primal forces at play throughout the book, and a bonfire is the most primal I could think of. Too, with the connotation of fire being the destroyer of life (which prompts creation of life [tying in again to the primal/mystic spiritual threads {with X especially}]) as well as referencing Hell, of which each character is living in their own private one, it seemed to strengthen the overall themes of the book. Plus, it's just fucking cool.

Richard: did you think about any of this during the writing process of just jump in? I've done things like this a few times in my own writing, where I just thought it would be cool, and turned out to be layered with symbolism, none of which I'd really intended.

-Trying to give my thoughts without any spoilers for people who haven't read... With the talk of the cosmic chess game between two characters/entities, I saw this third-person chapter as from the viewpoint of the one who set up the board and brought the two players to the table. I think Assigned says something about zooming out several solar systems, then zooming in. This felt like the puppeteer hand of the Chess Board Maker, and the distance of the third-person perspective was intended and necessary.

So... how'd I do?

Oh yeah, and fuck off for making me a rapist (just joking [and wait til you get a copy of STAY GOD {heh heh heh}])

@nik - FAILED rapist, and you're in good company there too, bunch of misfits

yes, nik, you nailed it, pretty much touched on everything that i was going to address, all of those things - to do it in first person, would have been filtered through the eyes of each of them, i didn't want that, i wanted a neutral (or biased) third party to chronicle this meeting, and it also has that feeling (IMO) of an entity watching over it all, puppetmaster/chessmaster, etc.

when you have an omniscient third person perspective, it often has that "God-like" sense of knowing all, and that's what i wanted here, and more than just the standard third person, but that chessmaster, that higher being even on top of X/Assigned

every three chapters i did something to add to the narrative, and it was indeed on purpose, another way of giving you character, emotion, and experiences

ch3 - flashback
ch6 - 3rd person/omniscient + flashforward
ch9 - correspondence (letters, postcards, email)
ch12 - all of them in one room, 1st person, overlapping experience

as far as the symbolism, the mythology and the bonfire - yes, for sure, this was the perfect place to have them come together, it ties back into the whole nature vs. technology thread, and it is a visually compelling scene, i think, hypnotic, the flames flickering - there is indeed a heaven/hell feel to this book at times as well - it's one of those moments where you get the idea, and for me it came from the physical geography of HOW to get them all together, and then when i started to see all of the layers that were developing, it just further supported my belief that this was the right way to do it, a cool scene, with all five senses, drama and tension, The Darkness stumbling through the woods, and i even revisit the same place later, with Roland, and he inspects the carvings on the totem poles - death/birth, out of the ashes, second chances, redemption, etc., all at play here

thanks for your comments nik, right on the money

I can see that. definitely. But it only happens once. maybe if there was a third person chapter every few chapters it would have seemed like a valid stylistic choice, for me. like, if you're going to go with the 'it's good to have all the threads together' thing, then i would've liked to have seen one of the last scenes in third as well. The scene where they're gathered at X's, in particular. I'm curious as to why Richard decided to only pull the threads together that once and not repeat it again. any ideas why he would do that, Nik?

I agree with you here. I'm not questioning the scene. at all. I loved the scene. and yes, i think the fire was probably a solid and deliberate metaphor for the themes of life, death and creation. which is kickass and completely tight, clever writing.

again, i agree with you, Nik. i think the chapter was definitely meant to be a puppeteer-style, god-like thing. My major concern is that it never happens again. there is always that looming feeling of someone controlling everything. the big brother feeling. the god feeling. assigned plays a huge part in all of this. what if the book was written in third-person but with assigned's interjections every now and then.

speaking of assigned: i loved all of its chapters. and at first, i didn't read too much into them. in fact, if i'm to be completely honest, i skimmed through them, and found them a bit tedious. at first. and then i started seeing these little clues and hints in its narratives and from that point i got excited about assigned's chapters.

This is a very interesting point. I have to say, i didn't pick up on it. But why it is so interesting is because it just ties in with the religous/spiritual theme that seems to hold this whole books together. Sure, there's a lot of other stuff at play, but i feel like those themes played a major role. They were building a modern day Eden, damnit! i almost feel ashamed in myself for not picking that connection up.

so, let's do this. who would be what?

Lust: Marcy

Envy: Roland?

Wrath: assigned?

Greed:

Sloth:

Gluttony:

Pride:

anyone care to take over? i'm having trouble choosing.

well, let me make this point: if you were to run across say a diary, in a story, a character picks up a book, or a letter or some sort of correspondence, and it was in third person, observational, it wouldn't throw you, would it? that's basically what i did for that chapter, it's observational, like this giant eye watching, recording, maybe staying out of it, maybe interfering...and that may be somewhat literal as well

as for Assigned, i'm so glad to hear that...i know that it seems almost irrelevant, those chapters, but there ARE hints in there, so it's very cool that you did pay attention at some point, did go back and read over it...Assigned is a rather polarizing character, i've found people either love or hate those sections, nothing in between

the seven deadly sins is funny, because i found some old notes, old legal pads and journals from the beginning of this novel, and i'd totally forgotten that i'd loosely based the characters on those sins

marcy-lust, that's an easy one, for sure - that one is correct

trying to find my notes on the rest

yeah, Marcy was an easy catch. she was a sexy little disgrace. damn she was hot. i totally would've tried to bed her if i was on the island. some of her sex scenes: geeeeee whiz! i tell you, Rich, you did a good job of writing sex. i think i might've even had a semi at one point.

lol...only a semi? man, didn't do my job then...actually, i was going to ask what you thought of her shower scene, not just the sexual aspects of it, but the emotional

and, what the hell, here's what i think my original seven sins were, and the seven heavenly virtues the hopefully achieved, or at least, made efforts to gain

jacob - sloth (diligence) effort, sacrifice, integrity
marcy - lust (chastity) but really, more like purity, motherly love, honesty, wisdom
jimmy - pride (humility) putting others first (Madison) bravery, altruismm
x - greed (charity) generosity, love, selfless
assigned - (gluttony) failed, never did attain self-control or restraint
gordon - wrath (patience) or peace, mercy, which we see in the final scene
roland - envy (kindness) loyalty and compassion

a couple are close to each other, but i think you can see where i started, and what my goals were for them

oh, definitely. I thought Gordon would be Wrath, but then i kind of thought assigned may have been as well, because assigned was always getting mad and sending the darkness after people when the stepped out of line.

So i was right with Marcy and Roland, but i think they were pretty obvious.

I thought it was probable that X would be greed. it makes sense. same with Jimmy for pride. I was just hoping SOMEONE ELSE (come on people! get the fuck in here. one of your fellow culties has just put out a fucking scorching debut. support a motherfucker) would get in here and put their two cents in.

so, the shower scene: HOT HOT HOT!!! but yes, it had a huge emotional impact too. i think that scene was really Marcy in a nutshell. It showed us so much about her, revealed her, and let us feel compassion for her. it allowed us to feel something deeper than "she's a hot little vixen that loves a good bumming", which was great.

All your characters were solid, Rich.

Having so many split first person POVs was a HUGE risk. especially for a debut novel. but it paid off. none of the characters were static. the were wholesome and after a couple of chapters i didn't even need to read who's mini-chapter it was. the voices were strong.

I still agree with you, Matt. In order for me to put faith in the third person chapter, I think I would have to see it repeated, in some way, at another point in the story. Think if HOUSE OF LEAVES only colored the word "House" blue once. The reader would be really confused. But because we can immediately recognize it as a stylistic choice, and in doing so we can invest in the story, instead of the author's head, we are free to disengage.

But enough with the third person thing (unless anyone has something new to add). There is some much going on with this book to discuss.

The seven sins thing, I didn't pick up on it. I suppose I associate the sins so much with Catholicism, that if I were to go that route, I would be trying to find Catholic imagery in everything. Then my mind would have exploded.

I'm really interested to talk about the magical/fantasy elements of the book. I'm reading Vincent Louis Carrella's SERPENT BOX right now, which features an ornate wooden box throughout, used to represent the mystique of the snake and the church they are a part of. Reading Carrella's version of the mysterious box immediately brought me back to Richard's.

Any thoughts?

Raymond and Bast have some things in common. What?

"if it wasn't for the flowers, i think i'd go mad."

i only have 3 minutes before i'm late for work but this also:
consider the lilies...

A little bump here for good measure.

If you've read it, discuss it. If you are currently reading it, voice a bunch of opinions that you might later regret. We are a nurturing community.

Come on bitches, ask me whatever you want. Bring it. I'm not scared no more.

I broke you in good, huh, Rich.

My only comment so far is that I think I need to re-read it now. I'd followed the change to 3rd person for that impartial viewpoint, but I'd missed that each 3rd chapter did something different, and totally missed the seven sins thing - which surprises me as I tend to notice that. Now you've said it, it seems blindingly obvious.

I'm going to speed through it again & come back here to try and contribute, I think.

@matthew - yep, brother, you done woke the beast

@thesslian - it's kind of funny, because i've done a lot of interviews about this book and even I forgot about the whole seven deadly sins thing until I was going over a stack of old legal pads, with notes about the early part of the book, so it's pretty subtle - even the every three chapters thing was just an excuse to try something different, break up the format, and force people to pay attention, while working in back story - thanks for the interest and support, though - i appreciate it

I have two questions/statements.

First - what were you thinking with Assigned? In the beginning I felt lost (in the flashback chapter mostly). Assigned was just a big heavy box. And then towards the end. I don't know. Usually I don't like too much information. I like trying to figure things out. But I wish I could have had more information with Assigned.

Second - In an interview you said that you feel your voice is similar to Baer's. You said that when you felt you were getting off track, you would pick up Kiss Me, Judas. Now I do the same thing with Jesus' Son and Kiss Me, Judas too. But I personally don't feel like your really had his tone at all. It was all your own voice telling the story (which is a good thing). I feel like no matter what - if you use an author to push you in the right direction - after editing and rewrites and everything else, the voice is ultimately your own. Thoughts?

Third (I lied about two) - I kept having this whole Lost thing going through my head the whole book. You a fan of the show? Did anything in the show spark ideas? Or was it a coincidence? Was it more of Lost or Lord of the Flies or neither?

Am I rambling yet?

Assigned - I'm not really sure where Assigned came from. I remember the phrase "ghost in the machine" as I'm an old Police fan. At some point I wanted to mix technology with nature, and when I realized that Assigned was much older than I originally thought, and that X is also possibly quite ancient, it seemed to fit. There is the influence of HAL, as well, the idea of AI or a sentient computer. I wanted this sense of something watching over it all, and it evolved from there. I feel like a lot of the history of Assigned is in the flashbacks, the scene in the jungle, and there is a lot of the information in there. It's a spirit, a God, an entity, good or evil, call it what you want. It has to inhabit a space, sometimes it was something in nature, like a tree, other times it was in a computer, and then later, in a person and/or animal. Not sure if I can give you more than that, aside from referring you back to the book for clues as to the origin and identity.

Baer - well, I didn't say that originally, I think it was Tietz, but I took the compliment. In Transubstantiate it probably isn't as evident as in my next book, Disintegration, which is much more like Baer, but in the Gordon passages perhaps, or really, in the style, the idea of the hallucinatory perspective at times, the rich setting and senses, that may be what I was referring to. I do use Baer as a touchstone or lodestone at time, but again, much more so in Disintegration, than Transubstantiate. There is the first chapter of Disintegration up at my website http://www.whatdoesnotkillme.com if you want to take a peek.

Lost - yes, for sure, I'm a big fan of Lost, and Lord of the Flies, sure, that's in there too. I never made a conscious effort to study Lost, the format, the pacing, but it was always in my life, in the background, so I'm sure it had an influence. There's the island of course, but the biggest difference is that my island wasn't the influence that it was on Lost, it wasn't alive or interactive, just a setting. I loved Lost. The Truman Show, was also an influence, and later, The Prisoner, a BBC show, which I'd never heard of until I was well into the book.

Thanks for the questions. Anything else? Anybody else out there?

No, I asked about how you felt about being in the same league as Baer (genre-wise) or something like that...then you blushed and got all shy and stuff. Having read some Baer now and being able to compare one to the other, I still maintain that your stuff sounds more like King than Baer (or anyone from the trinity, for that matter). Again, it's probably the scale and the syntax. Next book might be completely different for me.

Right. There aren't that many authors that call themselves "neo-noir" so there was that. I'll take the King reference too. Like I said, you'll see it more in Disintegration, the Baer effect. Or in short stories that I have coming out like "Stillness" but especially "Victimized" in Murky Depths 1/11. Heck, I'd say you could see it in "Transmogrify" that vampire story, which was in that collection, as well as the audio CD for Transubstantiate.

I really like books that make you feel like you're starting in the middle of the action. Fuck set up in my opinion. I like trying to figure out who or what somebody is running from. Or why is somebody crying.

So I thought the beginning of the book was really successful drawing the reader into a large cast and almost making you feel like part of the family.

But I can see how some people might have had a problem getting sucked in right away. Some people tend to be turned off by the in the action openings or vague openings that slowly feed you information while in the action.

I'm interested to see what people thought about this.

You tell me who invented the term "neo-noir" and I'll tell you about "pop transgressive."

Just fuckin' with ya...but seriously, the neo-noir pool seems to be a small one, and I don't see too many authors touting that...perhaps because it's too niche or most people would be like, "What the hell does that mean?" I'm still coming to grips with this genre you've selected as it doesn't seem to fully represent the sci-fi or dystopian elements...and "neo-noir-fi" just sounds stupid. Have you encountered anyone yet who read it and had that "this isn't what I thought it would be" sort of reaction?

My main criticism (and probably only true criticism of the book) is with book withholding important orienting details under the guise of suspense. I think this caused more confusion than necessary. I think the reader should have known a lot more early on about what is happening. To really be suspenseful, the reader has to both yearn for more and be encouraged by the withholding of information. Here, I'm not sure I have either.

Again, though, other than feeling disconnected to the story, I think Richard does some great things with characters and general plot.

@PG - yes, "in medias res" is one of my favorite Latin(?) phrases that I like to trot out, that and "deus ex machina" - i hate starting at the beginning, and then wading through all of the crap...let's just start out story where the action is - i had hoped with this book that i would have people sucked into the story by chapter three, the big flashback, but that's a risky way to open a book

@Brandon - i haven't had anybody complain that the book wasn't "neo-noir" enough but somebody did post up at the Transubstantiate Facebook page saying that the opening blurb, which was truncated off of the full blurb, by SGJ, wasn't really accurate in depicting what the book was about, or even, that she read the full synopsis and then got a better sense of what was going on...and i kind of have to agree, i didn't select that quote (watch Richard throw OWP under the bus here) and wouldn't have, if i had been given the choice, simply because it's pretty vague - don't get me wrong, i love SGJs blurb and his words, his language, damn, he's always impressive, but it might go over the head of some - i do usually use the word "speculative" when describing this book, as a neo-noir speculative thriller, whereas the next one is a neo-noir transgressive thriller, and i do think there is a big difference between the two - there is for sure a bit of horror, SF and fantasy in Transubstantiate, and in Disintegration it's pretty straight neo-noir

oh, and here's two links to some great info/discussions on neo-noir - it came out of film, i do believe, which is kind of where noir did (film noir) and obviously builds on classic noir - neo-noir started in the 70s, i think

http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/NeoNoir.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-noir

and here's your answer to the question:

http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/film/reading_room/93.what_is_n...

[neo-noir] A term coined by Todd Erickson and first discussed at length in the second edition of Film Noir, An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style (1987), neo-noir began with films like Polanski`s Chinatown (1974), Coppola`s The Conversation (1974), Scorsese`s Taxi Driver (1976) and Kasdan`s Body Heat (1981).

I can understand that, for sure. I'd say take a look at Lost though, a show that inspired this book. For a long time we don't know much of anything. They crash land on an island. They try to survive. Strange things are happening. We don't really understand what is happening for a long time (some may say, we never do get all of the answers).

If anything, if I screwed anything up, it's probably not getting you to sympathize enough with the characters fast enough. I mean, aside from probably screwing up a LOT of things. That's part of why I did the jump at Chapter Three to show their back stories, these lives they were in, these decisions they made, who they were, and why they did the things they did. That was my intent, anyway.

It's kind of like with my next book, Disintegration. I can come out and say that the main character is a killer, a serial killer, I guess, and let you go along for the ride (kind of like in Dexter) and that's one story. OR I can pull you in, and let you figure that out over time, in maybe three or four chapters instead of putting it there in line one. It's a choice, a risk, to withhold information. I hope that in time my audience will trust that I'm not going to make them read a novel and not give them the goods at the end. Hopefully, in the end, it's worth it. Some people like suspense, and figuring things out over time, others want it all up front. I know I can't please everyone, but I hope that I'm entertaining enough that they'll go along for the ride.

This is my first book, I'm still learning, so I don't expect that this will be my best work ever. But I do listen to what people say, and hopefully, if I do create suspense in the next one, I'll give you more up front.

Would Bladerunner classify as neo-noir? Because that's what I keep thinking of when I hear the term.

For sure. One of my all time favorite films, btw. I also think of David Lynch, David Fincher, Christopher Nolan. Films like MEMENTO, MULHOLLAND DRIVE, SEVEN.

Richard,

In an interview you said this book started out as an exercise for one of the Clevenger intensives.

You said he had you start 3 stories each with a different genre in mind (if I remember right). When you started those 3 stories (or maybe after you finished) did you know they were connected? Or did you maybe think that you could make this work? What sparked you to connect them I guess I'm asking?

Also, the book does seem to switch genres per character. Do you want to explain what genre you were going for with each character?

Actually that was in the Max Barry intensive. I can't remember if Max said to specifically pick FOUR different genres, or just write four different openings, I think that I put that challenge to myself, to do the different genres. They could have all been neo-noir if I had wanted them too, or all SF.

I didn't know they were connected when I wrote them. But when I was done writing them, I thought...hmmmm, these could all work together. I'd like to see how they interacted with each other.

I think the intros that I wrote were like this:

Jacob - the first chapter of the book (mystery/literary)
X - the scene where he runs down the stairs chasing the girl (horror) - CH4?
Gordon - the scene in the alley, flashback (neo-noir) - CH3?
Marcy - the scene where she is vomiting in the toilet visited by X (F/SF) - CH?

i'd have to go back and look at my notes or the intensive to get you more information, sorry, my memory is a bit rusty

great questions!

haha I was off on the number and the author. But you got what I was going for.

Actually I'm surprised by the chapters that were the actual "exercises."

What do you mean, surprised by the chapters that were the exercises? Did you think it was just the first four sub-chapters, or were you surprised at which exercises actually made it into the book? I know, they're four fairly different examples, right?

I guess I assumed it was going to be the first 4 sub-chapters. I didn't realize you might have thrown the exercises into the middle of the book.

Writing a middle chapter would be different. It would give you something to write towards. Which would be good because then you at least had a direction in mind. But it could also be limiting because you might have to force your character to go in that direction.

I just find it interesting that you ended up writing those first and two of them weren't in the beginning.

Good points. As for Gordon, his story in the alley being a backstory, it just happened to work out that way. I needed to do backstory anyway, so that fit right in. In some ways, those first four exercises may have shaped the book a bit, given me four moments in time for four characters. What surprises ME is that ANY of them remained the opening chapter. I could have started this book anywhere, so the fact that THAT stuck, well that's surprising. I just always like the opening lines, the idea of the letters we get not seeming real. It drops the conspiracy right in, it's a decent narrative hook, I think, but it doesn't give the whole thing away.

Curious. I have a rough draft of my next book, Disintegration done. I've been told by my prof at MSU, that I should open with a hook that gives a lot away. It's not like you don't know that guy is killing people, I mean, it'll probably be on the dust jacket, and you get that info by chapter three or so, but which would you rather have, no reveal, and figure it out, or give it to you right up front? I think of shows like Dexter, where I THINK you don't know he is a killer in the first sentence/scene, but you get it pretty quickly.

Here's the opening line they want me to use, but I'm avoiding it. It'll appear around chapter three, but you already know this stuff before the line anyway, it just clarifies it, expands it:

Every time I kill, I get a new tattoo. I have a lot of tattoos.

Thoughts? As an opening line it's too strong for me, but buried in the novel, it's a great line, (IMO).

Like I said before - I like really vague openings. I like feeling lost for a while and trying to figure things out. But I also like reading to be give and take. I like to feel part of the experience and not be spoon fed information.

Although I really like that line as an opening line. If it was the first line though - I don't want to see it expanded on yet. Just have it there and leave it. Go into the story and the reader thinks WTF. haha

It's probably better your way though.