Q&A with Joe Schreiber

I used to think of him as one of the great new voices, bu you can't call Joe Schreiber a new horror writer any more. He has four novels under his belt, with another on the way. He is perhaps best known for his Star Wars novel Death Troopers in which dark things happen upon an abandoned Star Destroyer. My favorite is probably No Doors, No Windows, a story about a very nasty haunted house. In his responses below, Schreiber hints that King is his greatest influence. His novels remind me of the early King novels with their flawed characters, excellent use of the supernatural and flat out creepiness. You can follow him at his blog The Scary Parent.

1) What do you think makes the difference between a good horror novel and a bad one?

The same thing that differentiates any novel, I think: the characters and quality of writing. Losing yourself in a work of fiction -- any work of fiction -- requires a certain degree of confidence in the writer. As a reader, you can usually tell in just a few pages whether you trust the guy in the driver's seat, or whether you'd rather get out and walk. At least I can.

2) Your books consistently evoke feelings of dread and fear in me. I particularly like how sometimes you merely suggest what a character sees, letting the imagination fill in the details. How do you decide when it is best to suggest and when it is best to explicitly describe what is happening?

When in doubt, leave it out. Seriously. If you've done your job developing the tension and atmosphere along the way, you can absolutely step out of the way of your own prose and let the reader's imagination do the heavy lifting. It's the most powerful tool in the horror writer's toolbox -- it's working even when the reader's not actively reading the book.

3) Your Star Wars novel, Death Troopers, blends elements of the science fiction and horror genres. Did the science fiction setting lead you to write this book differently than you did your other novels?

Not really. If anything, I had to resist the temptation to "write different" and focus on getting myself involved in the story. As soon as I was there onboard the Destroyer with my characters, I relaxed, because I was having fun.

4) Eat the Dark is set in a hospital, a setting you are familiar with thanks to your work as an MRI technician. Does personal experience inform any of your other novels?

My first horror novel, Chasing the Dead, was based on some very uncomfortable days as a 30-something dad returning to school so I could support my new family. I got up very early in the morning, when it was still dark and cold, and drove a half-hour to radiography school and work, and drove home in the dark sixteen hours later. If a cold dead hand had reached up from the back seat of my Olds 88 at any time while that was going on, it would have made perfect sense, in a horrible sort of way.

5) What would you say is your favorite book and how, if at all, has it influenced how or what you write?

It's probably safe to say that, without Stephen King's The Shining, I would probably be writing greeting cards, if anything.

Kingmaking and author Q&A

In modern genre terms, the Arthur stories straddle two categories. With the magic, the Grail Quest and the Lady in the Lake, there are clearly elements of fantasy. With the semi-historical roots, there is also a basis in historical fiction. In her soon to be re-released Kingmaking, Helen Hollick shifts the story squarely into the realm of historical fiction. Not only has she dispensed with magic, she has also moved the story out of the chivalric age and into the original basis in the Dark Ages following the decline of Rome and the rise of the Anglo-Saxons.

The book is the first of a trilogy and tells the story of Arthur's rise to power. His Britain is beset by numerous conflicts including the encroachment of Teutonic invaders on British lands and the conversion, resisted by Arthur and many others, of Britain to Christianity. Early in the story, Arthur is forced by circumstance to offer his allegiance to his enemy, the King of Britain. The King is willing to accept his help on the doctrine that it best to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. As such the story is driven by political intrigue as Arthur and the King seek to undermine one another. As part of the political game, Arthur weds the Kings's daughter Winifred which of course causes problems for his relationship with the one he loves Gwenhwyfar.

The realistic treatment of the subject matter is what sets this book apart. For fantasy fans, Arthur is less Jordan's Rand al Thor than he is a lost cousin from GRRM's Lannister family. He is capable, ambitious, brave in battle and given to casual cruelty. He is what you would expect a Dark Ages aristocrat to be. The settings are also realistic, the battles are brutal and sad and Hollick's depiction of the sack of London by Saxons is appalling. Fans of historical fiction will certainly want to add this to their reading list.

Ms. Hollick was kind enough to answer some of my questions about the book, which you will find below.

1) The Arthur you have created is quite different from that of popular culture. How would you describe him?

Rough, tough, hard. The sort of man you either love or loathe. But he is also honourable, loyal to his men and intent on his purpose. Inwardly though, he is insecure and often doubts himself. He adores his first and only love, Gwenhwyfar, but as both of them are highly passionate people with volatile tempers, the sparks often fly. He is not always faithful to her, but he would die for Gwenhwyfar, not for any one else.


2) The Britain you describe is in cultural flux with the British fighting the Teutonic invaders and the Christian church seeking to supplant the old religions. Arthur is on the defense in both cases. Does that add to his appeal or create any challenges for you as a writer?

To me it is his appeal. This is Britain in the Dark Ages – the Roman Empire has just collapsed and the administration of government has been withdrawn – Britain was under Roman rule for over four hundred years, that left a huge power vacuum to be filled. The Anglo Saxons were settling along the eastern coast of what is now England, settlers from Ireland were pushing into Scotland; the Christian Church was young and not very dominant, certainly it was not powerful in the 5th – 6th centuries. Maybe among the elite, the nobility, but not among the ordinary farmers and workers who were close to the land who remained pagan – and not for many soldiers who still worshipped their war gods.

This is still a time when pagan was blending with Christian – when the Christian Church began using the pagan festivals; Saturnalia and the Winter Solstice was incorporated into Christmas; Eostre, the Spring festival was turned into Easter etc. How many of us realise that holly and ivy at Christmas are from the pagan beliefs – as are Easter eggs and the celebration of the renewal of life? The two beliefs blended so well and so easily.

I was determined to make Arthur non-Christian as I wanted to move entirely away from the idea of him as a Christian Chivalric King. I also wanted to create conflict with some of the other characters who were Christian (with his Uncle, Ambrosius Aurelianus for instance.)

I quite enjoyed the challenge of combining the two in a believable manner – for instance, there is a scene in Pendragon’s Banner where a priest gives Arthur a brooch to wear to protect him in battle. It is of a woman dressed in blue. The Priest believes it to be the Mother Mary – Arthur accepts it, pins it on his cloak, and does not disillusion the priest by telling him that actually the portrait is of the pagan Mother Goddess. He sees quite clearly that to a pagan she is one thing, to a Christian she is another. Which is the whole point of the change between pagan and Christian in the Dark Ages, the one subtly blended into and gradually became the other.


3) In the book, you are not afraid to depict a moral universe quite different from our own. Did you make any changes or adjustments for the modern reader?

I suppose you could argue that maybe I have depicted Gwenhwyfar as a modern, feisty woman who had a mind of her own and was determined to get her own way – a feminist. BUT Celtic women were independent. They were not mere cooks there to fetch water and bear children. In Celtic times it was the women who taught the children to fight, they had a right to chose their own husband – could divorce if they wished. Saxon women, too, had a certain amount of freedom. Sadly it was the 11th - 12th Church that repressed women, when the Church was becoming more powerful and I have to say, greedy for supremacy, domination and wealth.


4) In addition to his bravery, Arthur's leadership is marked by his innovative use of cavalry. What led you to choose that particular innovation for him?

Two reasons; one I am a horse person, I started riding when I was 4 (I am now 56) and my daughter has horses. So horses are a subject I know a lot about. The other reason is that I became interested in Arthur because most of the legends say he used cavalry. My two interests naturally merged together. I also believe that if Arthur did indeed move around the country, fighting battles in different areas, he would have had to have used cavalry.


5) What is your favorite of the traditional Arthurian stories?

I don’t actually like any of them. I have never enjoyed the traditional Medieval tales. For one thing they are not real history – there were no knights in armour, towered castles, round tables or quests for the Holy Grail in Dark Age Britain. (Would anyone tolerate stories of Henry VIII living in a tower block, wearing jeans and driving around in a sports car? The Medieval stories are the same equivalent!) I dislike Lancelot, Gawain and the other knights because they are all so “goody goody” (give me a rough, tough, rogue any day – much more fun!)

Add to that these Medieval tales are Norman, and I’m afraid I am very much pro-Saxon, hence my novel Harold the King, the Battle of Hastings (1066) from the English point of view. The Normans had no right to England, William the Conqueror was a usurping tyrant…

The one story I do like is the “loathly lady” where one of the knights is pressured into marrying an old hag. It turns out she is actually a beautiful young woman, but she is under a spell and can only be beautiful by day or night, not both. The knight has to choose – would he have her beautiful to himself at night and ugly to others - hence shaming her in public. Or beautiful to others and ugly by night – not wanting her beautiful for himself. Frustrated he shouts that he does not know what to choose, and impatiently says she is to have her own choice. And the spell is broken for he answered the riddle – “what is it a woman most desires?” The answer, her own way!

This is actually a very old pagan-based story, and I decided to use it with my own twist for the characters. (You will come across it later in the trilogy).

Thank you for inviting me onto your blog
Helen

Interview with Pamela Druckerman

I recently interviewed Pamela Druckerman, author of Lust in Translation. In the book, she examines how people in different cultures and countries cheat, and how they and their spouses feel and react to adultery. I reviewed the book here.

What was the greatest challenge in researching adultery?

Not having an affair myself! Seriously, my biggest problem was finding
reliable sex statistics. There are a lot of bad statistics out there - put
out by condom companies, women's magazines, and self-described sex-experts. Most of these numbers have no statistical significance, they're really just for fun. I had to search very hard to find scientific data. And even those numbers are suspect, because you can never be sure people are telling the truth about what they do in private. And in many countries, including most in the Muslim world, there are no statistics whatsoever.

You note the different approaches to adultery found in different cultures. Has the reaction to your book differed in different countries as well?

Because the book is about infidelity, a lot of Americans assumed it's a self-help book, and were disappointed to discover that it's more of a neutral, sociological look at the topic. Reviewers on Amazon.com posted warnings like, "PLEASE do NOT look to this book for help...DO NOT TRUST Pamela Druckerman." At book readings, women asked me how to find a partner who'll be faithful. (I suggested avoiding traveling salesmen and men from Togo, which has the highest known level of male infidelity).

Outside the U.S. there wasn't even a whiff of moralizing, and no one seemed
to expect the book to guide them in real life. An Argentine reporter wanted
to know if there might be a link between adultery and global warming. A
British newspaper labeled me "Mrs. Infidelity" and had me pose for glamour
shots. There was a lot of interest in Ireland, because I think people there
are really eager to talk about their new sexual freedom. People everywhere
also wanted to hear more about our odd adultery culture in the U.S. I think
the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal created an appetite for this.

Was there any sense that any globalized sexual culture is emerging?

I did notice some trends, but they don't always apply to even the middle
classes in every country. In Asia I noticed a Western-style shift to
women wanting (and sometimes even getting) more equality in their
relationships. This was particularly true among university-educated
women and those with professional jobs. In Indonesia I had dinner with
a group of early 30-something women who model themselves on the women
from Sex and the City. They definitely looked the part and had the
right handbags. But in the course of the meal, it emerged that one of
their worries was that their husbands or boyfriends would become
polygamists. I think there are some shared ideas floating around, but
they bend to meet the local rules too.

The wide variety of countries and cultures in the book made for greatreading. Were there any cultures or countries you hoped to cover but could not or ones that ended up not making the cut?

I didn't go to India or Brazil. If there's a part-two, I'll head to those places first. I couldn't go everywhere, so I tried to find a good mix of countries. I also went to places where I had friends or contacts, or where I could at least get by in the local language. I hadn't been back to Japan since I studied abroad there while I was in college!

Did any of the other countries show the range of sexual cultures you identified in the United States?

All of them did. Sexual cultures change according to age, social class, profession, ethnicity, even neighborhood. I spent some time trying to carve this up and understand it in America, and I could have done the same in Russia, England, China and elsewhere. But to make the topic manageable, and to make sure my samples of people around the world were comparable, I mostly looked at middle-class people in cities. Believe it or not, not that much had been written about these populations. Anthropologists studying sexual cultures tend to look at college students or native peoples, not dentists.

In your epilogue you raise the hope that the U.S. might learn from other countries to make adultery less traumatic. Do you think the marriage industrial complex will help or hinder such a shift?

Most therapists aren't really moral innovators. They reflect the biases of
the culture in which they work. For instance, they're often comfortable with
the idea cheating will end a marriage, whereas a therapist in another
country wouldn't accept that idea so easily.

There's even a movement now in American therapeutic circles to identify
therapists who are specifically pro-marriage, rather than agnostic about
whether the couple stays together. The idea is that couples in crisis need
someone to give them hope and guide them toward the light, rather than
having a neutral arbitrator. But that's a small group.

Finally, you note that the post-World War 2 generation had a much different view of adultery than which prevails today. How do you see it changing in the next 20 years?

I think Americans are becoming more accepting of the idea that it's natural
to be attracted to someone other than your spouse, and that this doesn't
mean your marriage is flawed, or that you're slipping down a chute toward
adultery and divorce. After all, idea that cheating automatically triggers
divorce is new. It only really started in the 1970s, when it got easier to
divorce, and women started working more. By the 1980s divorce was really out
of control. We're cooling off from that period, and realizing that it's
possible to work through even really big problems. We've seen the
alternative, and it's often worse.