Thoughts on Q & A with Robert Rotenberg on Stranglehold

My last two posts are about Stranglehold by Robert Rotenberg. On Sunday I posted a review of the book. On Tuesday it was a Q & A with the author. Tonight I pass on some thoughts about the answers from the Q & A. I have put my thoughts in italics.

            1.) In the book DiPaulo has a sign in his office

            from Anatomy of a Murder:

                 A trial was after all a savage and primitive battle for
                 survival itself.

Do you also view Canadian criminal trials as bloody combat? In my experience in Saskatchewan criminal trials they can be intense but I would not characterize them as “savage”. While sometimes “primitive” I think most trials involve sophisticated work by the lawyers.

Savage might sound a bit extreme, but it is the perfect quote. (Hint, I used it at the front of my second novel, "The Guilty Plea," which in some ways was an homage to that novel and great film.)

But I do it is true. When we strip back all our civility in Canadian courts (and thank goodness for that civility) the core of what we are dealing with are the most basic…savage…of emotions. How else can you describe someone shooting, stabbing, or strangling another human being. (And thank goodness they do, or how would I make a living as a lawyer or a writer!)

Is a trial a savage and primitive battle for survival? Actual trials can feel stilted at times because of the formal civility. Lawyers in Canada in court will refer to each other as their friends or learned friends. Yet at the core of the trial will be fierce emotions. Whether freedom, money or reputation are in issue the witnesses and parties to the court action are involved in matters for which they have strong feelings. Words can be fought just as fiercely as swords.

3.) Has it become perilous to be the Head Crown Prosecutor in your books with Ralphie Armitage going to jail and Raglan being murdered? Or is it perhaps a defence counsel author exacting a subtle revenge upon the Crown?

Crowns have a good life. No client calls in the middle of the night. Paid vacation. Pensions. Sick days. (I haven't had a sick day or a paid vacation ever.) So if one gets killed and another ends up in jail, I say: "suck it up."  

Robert is a committed defence counsel. I fear for the future of Crown counsels in future books. I expect Crown counsels of his acquaintance would have something to say to him about the benefits of defence counsel such as being able to choose clients, not having to deal with unreasonable police officers and able to withdraw from cases as counsel.

4.) The book has an interesting bail hearing but no preliminary inquiry. Have you decided to avoid prelims in your books? If so, I would be interested in knowing why the prelim, often held in most major criminal proceedings, is not in the books.

I try to switch things around. If I wrote a book with a bail hearing, a preliminary inquiry, a trial, an appeal, another appeal to the Supreme Court, a retrial…well you get the idea. Damn boring. 

Indeed, in "Old City Hall" the prelminary hearing is about to take place.

But the bottom line is a "prelim" as we call them is usually deadly dull. A judge once told me it was like baby-sitting a sleeping child.  

Prelims can be boring in real life if the questioning is perfunctory. No verdict is given at the conclusion. Only rarely will there be a dismissal of the charge. Normally there will be committal to trial. Yet I have been able to use the chance to question witnesses at the prelim to establish the evidence needed to convince the Crown not to go to trial or set the framework for the defence to be argued at trial. It is a subtler drama to set up a case for trial through the questions in a prelim.

5.) On some websites it is now the Ari Greene series. How did that happen? I still think of it as a unique series with equally powerful police and lawyers.

Thanks. I agree. This is a marketing thing I guess that I have no control over. Note, none of the books use this phrase.

I have never thought of this as an "Ari Greene Series." I'd say for example, that the third novel "Stray Bullets" is really Nancy Parish's book. 

I've always been interested in writing about a whole cast of characters. In fact, Ari kind of appeared on the scene a bit by accident in Book One, "Old City Hall" and just kept hanging around.

But I do see him as the moral centre of the series. And knowing Ari as well as I do, I'm sure he wouldn't want his name on it. That's for sure. 

There appears a compulsion to market a series by identifying it through the lead character. Rotenberg’s books are not suited to such an approach. There are continuing characters in the series but who will be most important varies from book to book. In a comment exchange with Margot Kinberg from Confessions of a Mystery Novelist I said I thought the series should have a name comparable to the 87^th Precinct series of Ed McBain. I keep trying to think of a suitable name but none seem appropriate. Toronto Law seems routine. Toronto Courts is apt but far from catchy. Toronto Justice is but alittle better. I invite readers to add their own submissions for a series name.

6.) There were issues raised in the story that received little attention during the book but were featured in the resolution. As an example, there was a letter received by Greene but never acted upon him. Were there subplots cut from the book?

Afraid I can't agree with you that Greene never acted on the letter. I think that's the whole point of how he handled himself. And the novel.

Beyond that I'd rather not say. I think it's pretentious when authors talk about the deeper meaning or real themes of their books. 

Suggestion: re-read the letter again. Then perhaps re-read the last chapter.

As for the plot and subplot. In this book they are extremely complicated. (That seems to be my way.). But in the end, I think they all fit together. That's the struggle of writing and the real fun of making it work. 

 

It is a hard answer on which to have thoughts for a blog post as I do not want to put up spoilers. I continue to think the subplot was not well fleshed out in the book.

 I agree Robert’s plots are complicated but they are not convoluted. Robert trusts readers to grasp complex plots. I appreciate his confidence in readers.

Even more I appreciate the candour, even bluntness, of Rotenberg. He is not a man afraid to tell you what is on his mind. I believe his writing skill has him poised to become an author of international renown. He has interesting characters both seeking to solve crimes (the police) and fight court cases (the lawyers).

Q & A with Robert Rotenberg on Stranglehold

My last post was a review of Stranglehold, the new book by Robert Rotenberg. I appreciate Anneliese Grosfield  at Simon & Schuster providing me with a copy. I thought it an excellent book. I wrote Robert a letter with some questions that with Anneliese’s assistance I was able to get answered from me. My questions and Robert's answers in bold are below.

****

To: Robert
 

I have enjoyed reading Stranglehold and will be posting a review on my blog Mysteries and More from Saskatchewan next week.
 

I have appreciated past email exchanges and would like to ask you a few questions:

 

            1.) In the book DiPaulo has a sign in his office 

            from Anatomy of a Murder:

A trial was after all a savage and primitive battle for

survival itself.

Do you also view Canadian criminal trials as bloody combat? In my experience in Saskatchewan criminal trials they can be intense but I would not characterize them as “savage”. While sometimes “primitive” I think most trials involve sophisticated work by the lawyers;

 

Savage might sound a bit extreme, but it is the perfect quote. (Hint, I used it at the front of my second novel, "The Guilty Plea," which in some ways was an homage to that novel and great film.)

 

But I do it is true. When we strip back all our civility in Canadian courts (and thank goodness for that civility) the core of what we are dealing with are the most basic…savage…of emotions. How else can you describe someone shooting, stabbing, or strangling another human being. (And thank goodness they do, or how would I make a living as a lawyer or a writer!)

 

2.) When Ari Greene reflects on the murder he thinks there is something about the murder scene that has been arranged to set him up for the murder. He is already suspicious over the timing of the 911 call. I do not recall reading about anything being done in the room to compromise him. Was there something I missed suggesting he was set up beyond the timing of the phone call?

 

I just emailed Ari a copy of your email. He's tough to get a hold of. So if you don't hear back from him about this, don't be offended. Half the time he never returns my calls either!

 

3.) Has it become perilous to be the Head Crown Prosecutor in your books with Ralphie Armitage going to jail and Raglan being murdered? Or is it perhaps a defence counsel author exacting a subtle revenge upon the Crown?

 

Crowns have a good life. No client calls in the middle of the night. Paid vacation. Pensions. Sick days. (I haven't had a sick day or a paid vacation ever.) So if one gets killed and another ends up in jail, I say: "suck it up."  

 

4.) The book has an interesting bail hearing but no preliminary inquiry. Have you decided to avoid prelims in your books? If so, I would be interested in knowing why the prelim, often held in most major criminal proceedings, is not in the books.

 

I try to switch things around. If I wrote a book with a bail hearing, a preliminary inquiry, a trial, an appeal, another appeal to the Supreme Court, a retrial…well you get the idea. Damn boring. 

 

Indeed, in "Old City Hall" the prelminary hearing is about to take place.

 

But the bottom line is a "prelim" as we call them is usually deadly dull. A judge once told me it was like baby-sitting a sleeping child.  

 

5.) On some websites it is now the Ari Greene series. How did that happen? I still think of it as a unique series with equally powerful police and lawyers.

 

Thanks. I agree. This is a marketing thing I guess that I have no control over. Note, none of the books use this phrase.

 

I have never thought of this as an "Ari Greene Series." I'd say for example, that the third novel "Stray Bullets" is really Nancy Parish's book. 

 

I've always been interested in writing about a whole cast of characters. In fact, Ari kind of appeared on the scene a bit by accident in Book One, "Old City Hall" and just kept hanging around.

 

But I do see him as the moral centre of the series. And knowing Ari as well as I do, I'm sure he wouldn't want his name on it. That's for sure. 

 

6.) There were issues raised in the story that received little attention during the book but were featured in the resolution. As an example, there was a letter received by Greene but never acted upon him. Were there subplots cut from the book?

 

Afraid I can't agree with you that Greene never acted on the letter. I think that's the whole point of how he handled himself. And the novel.

 

Beyond that I'd rather not say. I think it's pretentious when authors talk about the deeper meaning or real themes of their books. 

 

Suggestion: re-read the letter again. Then perhaps re-read the last chapter.

 

As for the plot and subplot. In this book they are extremely complicated. (That seems to be my way.). But in the end, I think they all fit together. That's the struggle of writing and the real fun of making it work. 

 

Thank you for considering my questions.

 

Best wishes.

 

Bill Selnes

 

Thank you. You are a very careful and interested reader.

 

Hey, get me invited to a literary festival out there some time.

 

Best and a safe summer.

 

Bobby

 

On Thursday I will have a post with Thoughts on the Q & A.

 

 

“R” is for Robert Rotenberg’s book Stranglehold

Stranglehold  by Robert Rotenberg – I consider Stranglehold, the fourth book in Rotenberg’s series featuring Toronto lawyers and police, the best in the series. Where earlier books had given the defence almost impossible facts to defend, Stranglehold has more complex balanced evidence.

As the book opens Toronto homicide detective, Ari Greene is on his way by scooter to meet Head Crown attorney, Jennifer Raglan. Each of them has been taking Monday mornings off to meet and love at one of the cheap motels on Kingston Road in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough. They have resumed their affair with a level of secrecy, disguises and codes, which espionage agencies would admire for their spy craft.

Raglan, the organizer, choses and reserves the motel. She brings along mood music (Oscar Peterson), champagne, candles and fine pillow cases to bring some romance to the tawdry locations of their assignations.

When Greene enters the room to find Raglan strangled to death I was shocked. Raglan had been a strong character in earlier books. Few authors have an important continuing character slain.

A stunned Greene has his cell phone out to call 911 when he hears someone outside the room and tries, unsuccessfully, to catch who was there. About to call in the murder he hears sirens. Someone else has already called the police.

Greene, normally the most rational of men, neither stays nor calls a member of the homicide department. Assuming her husband has killed her, called 911 and is suicidal he decides to search the neighbourhood for the husband.

The story had grabbed me. I wanted to shout to him to stop. Call a defence lawyer. You need objective advice. Instead, he undertakes a fruitless search.

Both decisions, leaving the scene and then not calling a fellow police officer, were bad ideas which were compounded when he did not tell Daniel Kennicott, his protégé and the newest homicide detective, and lead on this murder, later that day what had happened.

I thought of the complications in Presumed Innocent by Scott Turow when prosecutor, Rusty Sabich, disastrously conceals his affair with the murdered Carolyn Polhemus from fellow prosecutors.

The next day Greene does wisely retain Ted DiPaulo. He tells DiPaulo what happened. By receiving a retainer DiPaulo, under the rules of solicitor – client privilege cannot tell anyone what Greene has told him, but Greene can waive the privilege so there is a record of him telling a figure in authority shortly after the murder what happened.

Readers of this post who want to keep their knowledge of the plot to a minimum should read no further. I am not including spoilers but there may be more information than you would want about the story.

Be further warned the book itself contains a spoiler advising what happened in an earlier book of the series.

As you would expect Greene’s efforts to keep secret the affair and his presence at the crime scene fail and he is charged with murder.

Brought back to Toronto to prosecute the case is Angela Kreitinger, a recovering alcoholic. While she has stopped drinking Kreitinger is popping Percocets to deal with a chronically aching back. Anxious to remain in Toronto Kreitinger is eager to prosecute the high profile case.

As with his other fictional trials Rotenberg creates another real life trial. The witnesses are plausible. The lawyers find the weaknesses in their evidence. Physical evidence, videos and reconstructions are used in the presentation.

While I foresaw the real killer I did not pick up on the key pieces of evidence for the trial until they were revealed.

I raced through the book. The pace of the story is excellent. Rotenberg is writing wonderful mysteries. I expect Stranglehold to be a strong contender for Bill’s Best of 2013 Fiction.

The series is strongly established with interesting characters who have credible flaws. Not many “good guy” sleuths engage in affairs with married women. Greene is a good man, not a perfect man.

Characters do remind us of real people. The image I have of exhuberant beefy police chief, Hap Charlton, running to be mayor the city is that of the current actual mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford. I doubt Hap’s physique, personality and political views were accidentally similar to Mayor Ford.

You will stay up reading Stranglehold. (July 14/13)

****

Robert Rotenberg is a double “R” as my post for this week for “R” in the Alphabet in Crime Fiction meme hosted by Kerrie Smith at her blog, Mysteries in Paradise. My connections to the book and author are multiple – as a lawyer, as a Canadian and as someone who has lots of family residing in Toronto. I can see many of the locations while I read Robert's books. My next post will feature some Q & A with Robert.

****

Stranglehold will be the first book I have read in the 7th Canadian Book Challenge hosted by John Mutford at the Book Mine Set blog.

“Q” is for In Plain Sight by Tara Taylor Quinn

 “Q” is for In Plain Sight by Tara Taylor Quinn – I have not found “Q” the easiest letter to find a title or an author for the Alphabet in Crime Fiction meme hosted by Kerrie Smith at Mysteries in Paradise. At the library I found In Plain Sight and decided to try Ms. Quinn.

Jan McNeil is a senior prosecutor in Flagstaff, Arizona. She has been assigned to prosecute Jacob Hall, a white supremacist with the Ivory Nation, for identiy theft though she really wants to pursue the leadership of the Ivory Nation.

Living next door to McNeil is the rather mysterious Simon Green who is a writer of police procedural manuals though he portrays himself as the author of books on economics.

The best character in the books is Hailey Miller, a little girl prosecuted by McNeil at 8, to whom McNeil has become attached

and wants to adopt. Hailey speaks with the wonderful simplicity of children. She is sure she cannot be adopted, no what McNeil tells her, as she is bad and on parole. (In Canada she could not have been charged. Children under the age of 12 cannot be charged under our criminal law.)

As McNeil prepares her case little things keep happening such as a file gone missing or another file not being delivered. Paranoia, never far from McNeil’s mind, rises for the prosecutor.

A bored Green finds the highlights of his day are watching school children return home after school and meeting McNeil at her mailbox for a chat.

McNeil’s brother, Johnny, is playing a greater role in her life for which she is grateful. It has been some time since they have been close.

I kept waiting for there to be some significant time in court but it gradually dawned on me that In Plain Sight was less a mystery than a romance novel. I can be slow at detecting a romance novel. Relationships rather than mystery drive the story.

How did I not realize the beautiful young troubled prosecutor and the handsome ambiguous man next door feature prominently in romance novels? I expect it is because so many current mysteries feature the beautiful and the handsome.

Still the author does tackle the presence of violent white supremacists seeking to have their narrow minded intolerance take over America.

After finishing the book I was not surprised to read Quinn is also a writer for Harlequin books. If you enjoy romantic suspense you will enjoy the book.

In the book McNeil does present an image of prosecutors that depresses me. It is clear McNeil has lost perspective on being a prosecutor. She has become an avenger viewing it her responsibility to change and improve society. The problems with being an avenger as a prosecutor are that it moves you beyond your role in the justice system and means a loss of objectivity. It is McNeil’s job to present the evidence and the law and let judges decide if someone is guilty. By being willing to add questionable charges to Hall’s original charge McNeil is perverting the system. As I watch television and read of America’s judicial system I fear too many real life prosecutors are becoming avengers. (Aug. 1/13)

****

My connection to this book is to the legal theme and McNeil, a fellow lawyer, though not a woman to uphold the high ideals of prosecutors simply presenting the law and evidence.

The Rising by Brian McGilloway

The Rising by Brian McGilloway – Garda Inspector Benedict Devlin is called out at 4:30 in the morning to investigate reports of gunfire. As he nears the area he sees it is a fire on a farm. At the farm he finds a barn burning. Rushing into the building he rescues an elderly man. Returning to try to find a young man he is trapped by falling debris and almost killed.

The next day Devlin learns the old man has died and the young man in the barn was murdered. While the young man’s body is badly burned they are able to identify the corpse as Martin Kielty, a local drug dealer.

In conversation with Elena McEvoy, his girlfriend, Devlin learns that Kielty had received a Mass card with a bullet in the card. It is a message of threat and warning familiar in the area from the Troubles.

Devlin is stationed in Lifford, an area of Ireland adjacent to Northern Ireland. The residents go back and forth across the border. The region has seen its share of violence. While peace has come some of the para-militaries have little interest in peaceful pursuits.

Kielty has property on both sides of the border giving him convenient bases for his drug dealing. Devlin and other officers work on Kielty’s relationships in the drug world.

A group have formed a group called The Rising to challenge drug dealers in the area. Their primary forms of advocacy are intimidation and assault.

At home Devlin, having spent too much time working, is not able to recognize that his children, especially 11 year old Penny are growing up. She is no longer a little girl. While his wife, Debbie, understands Penny’s need to go out Devlin exerts a tight rein upon his daughter. His concerns with the parents of a boy she likes cause a rift in the family.

In the midst of the investigation Devlin is called by former colleague, Caroline Williams, whose son, Peter, has disappeared while camping with friends on the coast. Devlin joins the search for Peter. A text from his phone buoys Williams. It turns out to be a cruel hoax.

Devlin pursues his investigation into Kielty’s death gradually penetrating into the drug dealing world along the border.

The Rising is led by vigilantes too comfortable with violence. Devlin finds it hard to believer their motives are pure.

Back home Devlin is adrift as he tries to understand the needs of an 11 year old girl. An area not touched upon often in crime fiction is the damage to relationships with children for police officer parents who spend excessive time pursuing crime.

The late Maxine Clark considered The Rising an excellent book. I agree the author is a good writer. The plot proceeds smoothly. The pages turn easily. I would not call it a great book. It is a comfortable book. While drugs and murder are not comfortable topics the story flows well. It was interesting to read of the challenges to para-military men reluctant to adjust to a new world of peace. Violence has been their way of life and solution to problems.

Legally Speaking in Fiction and Real Life

Margot Kinberg, at her excellent blog Confessions of a Mystery Novelist, put up a fine post today on the role of public speaking in mysteries. She inspired me to think about lawyers in legal mysteries.

To be a trial or appellate lawyer is to be comfortable with public speaking for our courts are open to the public. Justice is to be seen to be done.

I am never surprised when lawyers speak articulately in mysteries. We try to speak clearly and directly contrary to public myth.

The flashing eyes and powerful baritone of Raymond Burr as Perry Mason dominated television 50 years ago.

What reader of mysteries and viewer of television mysteries cannot instantly recall the rolling phrases of Leo McKern as Rumpole of the Bailey staunchly defending the Timsons.

More recently, Matthew McConaughey in the movie A Time to Kill by John Grisham gave a memorable performance as the lawyer, Jake Brigance, defending an African American in the Deep South.

On paper who could not admire the suave Sandy Stern in Presumed Innocent and Innocent skilfully questioning witnesses and presenting arguments on behalf of Rusty Sabich.

In the novels of Robert Rotenberg taking place in the coutrooms of Toronto an ensemble of Crown and defence counsel are true professionals. They prepare well and find the weaknesses in the testimony of witnesses.

What fiction does not portray is that while real life lawyers are just as skillful as their fictional counterparts they are not as perfect.

Questions are occasionally mangled. I tell witnesses not to worry about perfection as I can guarantee them there will always be questions I wish I could have re-done.

Most difficult to re-create are closing addresses to juries. Seeking to persuade a jury does not often flow with the beautiful phrasing of fiction, television and the movies. The hesitations, adjustments to the reactions of jurors, the examination of notes, the cadence do not transfer well to print and screen. I try not to read addresses as you risk the connection of speaking directly to the jury by following a script.

Gerry Spence, famed American trial lawyer, describes his address to the jury in his book, How to Argue and Win Every Time, in the defence of Randy Weaver:

'I'm afraid I won't be able to make the kind or argument to you that Randy Weaver deserves,' I said.  'After nearly three months of trial, I'm afraid I won't measure up. I wish I were a better lawyer.'  As always, the fear began to slink away and the argument began to take its place, one that was to consume nearly three hours.  It was an argument that was honest, and angry and humorous, one that was punctuated with defects and false starts and syntax that would horrify any self-respecting English professor. It was an argument that was a real as I was able to be - an argument that, in the end, was to free my client."
 

Still Spence, in an address to a legal seminar on jury addresses, spoke about a closing for jury trials that he had developed that reads as well as it does to listen to (visualize his hands as you read):    "Here’s the story of the bird that some of you wanted to hear again. This is one I’ve used many, many times. It’s a nice method by which you can transfer responsibility for your client to the jury.    Ladies and gentlemen I am about to leave you, but before I leave you I’d like to tell you a story about a wise old man and a smart-alec boy. The smart-alec boy had a plan, he wanted to show up the wise old man, to make a fool of him. The smartalec boy had caught a bird in the forest. He had him in his hands. The little bird’s tail was sticking out. The bird is alive in his hands. The plan was this: He would go up to the old man and he would say, “Old man, what do I have in my hands?” The old man would say, “You have a bird, my son.” Then the boy would say, “Old man, is the bird alive or is it dead?” If the old man said that the bird was dead, he would open up his hands and the bird would fly off free, off into the trees, alive, happy. But if the old man said the bird was alive, he would crush it and crush it in his hands and say, “See, old man, the bird is dead.” So, he walked up to the old man and said, “Old man, what do I have in my hands?” The old man said, “You have a bird, my son.” He said, “Old man, is the bird alive or is it dead?” And the old man said, “The bird is in your hands, my son.” Ladies and gentlemen of the jury my client is in yours." Who would not want Gerry Spence standing with you fighting for your liberty?

 

The Wrong Man by David Ellis

The Wrong Man by David Ellis – What a bundle of emotions I have about this book.

I liked Jason Kolarich as a hard working, clever and determined defence lawyer willing to take on the defence of a homeless Iraq War veteran, Tom Stoller, charged with murdering a young paralegal, Kathy Rubinkowski, on the streets of an unnamed mid-American city.

I disliked Kolarich as a stubborn loner, a cowboy in his words, who is prepared to personally assault and torture in the pursuit of justice. I have a problem with vigilante lawyers.

I admired Kolarich taking on the murder defence pro bono but found it improbable that he could put his whole firm onto the defence with little apparent means to sustain themselves financially.

I thought Kolarich’s efforts to defend the deeply psychologically damaged Stoller superb. His plan to plead insanity and raise the post traumatic stress disorder suffered by his client while in Iraq very well done. The challenge of building evidence for a defence was demonstrated. It is not a simple process. Experts offer different theories. Evidence does not fit precisely the defence to be argued. Judges make unexpected rulings.

My favourite scenes are his efforts to interview his client. Few clients are articulate. Many struggle to express themselves. You have to understand your client to be able to defend him or her. Kolarich’s meetings with Stoller are moving.

When the plot moves into court the arguments and questioning of witnesses are authentic.

I expect Ellis was venting some past frustrations in the creation of the irascible aged Judge Bertrand Nash who berates all counsel appearing before him.

Ellis has some fine phrasing:

            “I don’t believe in coincidences,” I said. “But I do believe
            in cover-ups.”

At the same time there is a spectre of Mob involvement and a shadowy conspiracy. They sapped credibility from the plot and were a distraction. There was more than enough tension built into the struggle to defend Stoller in a conventional legal mystery.

The book veered from a legal mystery to thriller. As often in thrillers there was a mystery woman and attacks upon the hero. I wish Ellis would have been content to develop the legal mystery. The book is well suited for Hollywood. It will barely need to be adapted. As the book began I was thinking of John Grisham but as it progressed it became more Christopher Reichs.

The book was on the shortlist for the Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction. While there are aspects of the book I did not enjoy, I admire those determining the shortlist for including The Wrong Man. It departs from the regular legal mysteries which were past winners – The Confession by John Grisham and The Fifth Witness by Michael Connelly. I have purchased this year’s winner, Havana Requiem, and am interested to find out whether it fits more into legal mystery or legal thriller or some other form of legal fiction.

The action is well done. The book moves swiftly Ellis ties together the strands of the plot well. It is a good book. Readers wanting a high paced thriller with a lawyer as hero will find it a great book. For myself, I would have preferred more court and less mayhem. (July 22/13)

“P” is for Louise Penny as Movie Producer

Nathaniel Parker and Louise Penny

Canadian author, Louise Penny, has gained fame as the author of the Inspector Armand Gmache series with most of the books set in the fictional village of Three Pines in the Eastern Townships of Quebec.

Last year she also became a movie producer. The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), PDM Entertainment and Attraction Images purchased the rights to make a movie of Still Life, the first book in the series which won a group of awards - Arthur Ellis, Dagger, Anthony, Barry and Dilys. Penny is one of four executive producers.

Penny had previously declined offers from companies that wanted to create a T.V. series using her characters. In a CBC interview she said:

“I just couldn't do that. I couldn't let them do whatever they wanted with these characters: Gamache, Clara, Ruth. These characters really seem alive to me."

In the same interview Penny provided a comment on the filming that included a remark about continuing character, Clara Morrow, an artist who has gained an increasingly important role in the books:

"The first day they were on set — when I saw Nathaniel Parker as Gamache and Kate Hewlett as Clara Morrow, who is actually me — I cried. I couldn't believe they were alive."

I had not known that the sensitive and talented Clara was Penny.

Having watched what A & E has done with the charcters of Craig Johnson in the T.V. series Longmire I can appreciate her concern over how film makers will treat her characters. While I like Longmire overall I like the characters in the books better than the T.V. series.

I was glad that she was able to insist that the filming be done in Quebec. It adds to a show to be filmed in the location in which it is set.

What did surprise me is that Armand Gamache will be portrayed by an English actor, Nathaniel Parker, who played Inspector Lynley in The Inspector Lynley Mysteries. He is not my image of Gamache.

I expect I am prejudiced that the producers did not choose a Canadian actor, especially a Quebec actor, to play Gamache who is a deeply Quebecois character in the books. I appreciate film makers should choose the best actors for roles but I will have to be convinced that Parker is right for the role.

The same group of companies who made Still Life have the rights to make a movie of the second book in the series, Dead Cold. The cautious Penny has not sold the rights to the third book. She wants to see how the movies of Still Life and Dead Cold turn out.

The CBC plans to air Still Life this fall. I am looking forward to watching the movie. I shall do my best to approach it with an open mind.

****

This post in my entry for "P" in that Alphabet in Crime Fiction hosted by Kerrie Smith at her blog, Mysteries in Paradise. Please drop over and see both the other entries and the many fascinating posts she has on her blog.