In Defense of Defending Our Work as Authors

Are authors allowed to defend their work? Is an author a bad actor for speaking out in his or her own defense?

When I published my first novel, Dance for A Dead Princess, in 2013, I quickly learned that, according to prevailing professional standards, an author exhibited bad manners if he or she responded to a critical review. Fellow authors informed me that no matter how wrong a reviewer had gotten the plot or the characters or even the spelling of my name, it was strictly forbidden to answer back. Strictly. Even the ad hominem attack, the lowest form of argument, could not be answered. I was also informed that, by and by, I wouldn’t even bother to read the reviews.

I can’t say that I ever stopped reading reviews entirely. Feedback from readers is important. Language is inherently ambigious; and sometimes the words that seemed so clear when I wrote them didn’t fulfill that promise. Reviews help authors understand what their readers understand. And obviously that is critical to being a good storyteller.

But based upon the views of other authors, I came to see the review arena as off-limits to me as an author. I could stop by like a hovering ghost and observe what was taking place below, but I couldn’t reveal my presence in any way. For a long time, I abided by the notion that authors were supposed to suck it up in silence no matter how foul or untrue the blow the reviewer administered. Sometimes it felt like being slapped across the face and not being able to cry out in pain.

I think the first time I wrote a response to a reviewer was after I published my first legal thriller, Dark Moon.  In Moon, Sarah Knight, the main character takes on the defense of Alexa Reed, who allegedly has killed her ex-husband, the son of Coleman Reed, a sitting United States Supreme Court Justice, and a psychologist who has been a fixture in the San Diego legal community for longer than anyone can remember. The legal community is solidly against Sarah’s efforts to prove her client innocent because of Coleman Reed’s influence and because of the community’s loyalty to the psychologist. The story makes it clear that both law enforcement and the judicial system are stacked against Sarah’s efforts to help Alexa Reed. So when Sarah has a nearly fatal accident in her car, she doesn’t call the police because she knows the police would do nothing for her.

A reviewer lambasted this portion of the plot as “unrealistic.” The reviewer’s theory was everyone calls the police when in danger and the “good cops” show up and dispense justice on the spot without regard to their personal bias. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. So I wrote a few sentences pointing out that Sarah would have received no benefit from calling a law enforcement agency because all of them wanted her dead just as much as the person who had damaged her brakes.

Not long after that, someone else jumped on the “unrealistic” bandwagon. One of the things I have noticed about reviewers is that when one of them strikes a critical blow, several will crowd in quickly to try to strike harder blows on the same subject. To me, it looks like “roughing the kicker” in football, except there is no referee. And no fifteen-yard penalty.

After the “cops are unbiased and always good” reviewer left the building, another reviewer showed up to complain that the whole plot of the novel was “unrealistic” because “judges aren’t biased.” Actual case law will tell you this is not true, and I once reversed a murder conviction on that very ground: the trial judge was biased. So I quietly pointed out to “unrealistic reviewer number two” that I have been an attorney for more than thirty years.

After that, I made it a practice to point out inaccuracies here and there when I felt that a false statement in a review would deter another reader from giving one of my books a try. Not always and not often. And never to try to persuade the hater reviewer that he or she should have liked the book. Not everyone likes every book, and some people derive great delight in handing out poor reviews to every single book that they read. But I have made a few comments here and there to some of the more inaccurte reviewers because I would like the door to remain open for new readers to give my books an honest try.

This practice seems perfectly normal to me. In my “day job,” I regularly write replies. An appeal in California consists of the Appellant’s Opening Brief, a Respondent’s Brief, and an Appellant’s Reply Brief. In the Opening Brief, I tell the client’s story and give it five stars for reversal. In the Respondent’s Brief, the Attorney General gives my opening brief a one-star review. The AG says I’m wrong about the law and the facts and my client couldn’t be more guilty. And then in the Reply Brief, I explain why the AG is “mistaken” and has “overlooked” critical facts, giving the AG a two-star review at best. This whole process is more like a stately dance than an argument. Both sides use carefully chosen professional rhetoric. I suppose my decision as an author to break the “no reply to reviewers” taboo was simply an offshoot of what is expected of me in my “day job.” A lawyer is not supposed to remain silent in the face of a verbal attack on his client.

Recently, I encountered two criticisms of me for defending my novels. Someone on a Goodreads forum said “she answers back,” and in a Facebook forum that had nothing to do with books or reviews or even being an author, a gentlemen accused me of always replying to “one-star” reviews. He meant to vilify me as someone who refused to accept criticism. He had called me “childish” because I had written that I did not think Neil Gorsuch was an appropriate choice as a Trustee of the Williamsburg Foundation. I had replied that I am an attorney and in my professional view, the Foundation made a poor choice. The gentleman then shot back his purportedly damning “childish” label and made it clear that a woman who “speaks out” in any forum is a woman who does not know that “nice” women do not express or defend themselves. “Seen but not heard” was his major premise. And my crime was even greater because I am an author who defends her work. His position was based upon his belief that all Supreme Court justices deserve nothing but unswerving hero worship merely because of their positions on the court. (He should do some historical research on Justice William O. Douglas.) His logic was similar to that of the “good cops are never biased” reviewer. Enough said.

My position is this, right or wrong: I believe that all who participate in the artistic process have the right to be heard. The consumer has a right to describe his or her honest experience with that piece of art, however inaccurate that might be. And I believe that all creators, whether authors, painters, actors, or musicians, have the right to defend themselves and their art under appropriate circumstances and using appropriate words. I don’t think that being an artist takes away the right to speak up in one’s own defense. What do you think?

In Defense of Endings

Sometimes I stop by the “Reviews” section of my books on Amazon to see how readers are responding to them. I used to do that more often, but I came to see that the “Reviews” portion of each book’s Amazon page was, in truth, the exclusive province of my readers. It is their spot to offer praise, vent their frustrations, or to explain what worked for them and/or what didn’t. The only time I leave a comment in this otherwise off-limits world is when someone says my legal thrillers aren’t accurate about the law. Since I’ve been an attorney since 1981, I think it’s fair to speak in my defense on that subject.

But one reader comment that I have never spoken to in the “Reviews” section is the occasional claim that some of my novels have “contrived endings.” To me, a “contrived” ending does not fit organically into the rest of the story. A deus ex machina is my idea of a contrived ending. Deus ex machina means “god from the machine.” In case it’s been a long time since high school English class, deux ex machine is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly and abruptly resolved by an unexpected and seemingly unlikely occurrence, typically so much as to seem contrived. That doesn’t happen in my books. The pieces that come together to end the story are laid down, one by one, as I write the novel. I think the readers who find the endings contrived” or “artificial” are missing the clues I’m scattering for them. Here’s a hint: in each one of my books, the ending grows out of the individual identities of the characters and out of the sum of their actions throughout the story. Pay attention to who they are and to what they say and do. When you get to the end, you’ll see that all the pieces of the ending have been in front of you all along.

 

Chaptet Two, Keeping Secrets, A Legal Thriller

CHAPTER TWO

Tuesday, January 3, 2017, Sussex State Prison, Sussex, Virginia

Tom Brower’s office was too warm, but Brendan didn’t care. The walk from his car to the prison entrance had been excruciating in the cold. Every breath had felt as if he was sucking needles into his lungs.

“Coffee?” Tom filled a styrofoam cup from the Mr. Coffee on the table by the door in his gray, government-issue office and handed it to him without waiting for an answer. He was the third warden Brendan had dealt with since taking over Ed’s case in 1986. He’d held the job for going on ten years.

Tom filled his own cup and sat down behind his big steel desk, littered with stacks of folders. “This is not the way I wanted to start the new year,” he said. “But that’s not news to you. I’ve never had to execute someone whom I’m certain is innocent. Can’t you get a stay?”

“I’ve got associates working round the clock. I called in the team yesterday morning as soon as I got the warrant. We’ve got sixty days. We’ll spend every minute trying to stop it. But you know that.”

Tom sipped his coffee, made a face, and put the cup down on his desk. “Don’t drink it. My secretary can’t count coffee measures. Ed doesn’t know yet, does he?”

Brendan shook his head. “That’s why I’m here.”

“Does he even suspect?”

“I don’t know. We’ve always talked about what we’re going to try next. The last time I was here, we’d lost that habeas writ before the Fourth Circuit up in Richmond.”

“That was new evidence, wasn’t it?”

Brendan sighed. “That’s right. The two witnesses who testified that Ed was having an affair with their roommate admitted that they had lied under oath. They had no knowledge of any affair. It was an important change in their testimony, but the court of appeal didn’t see it as significant.”

He remembered Judge Boyce, the lead judge on the panel in the Fourth Circuit, looking down at him from the bench and shaking his head. “I understand that these women have changed their stories. But I don’t see how that helps your client. The one who told the dean of the law school that your client was having an affair with her and wanted to marry her has never changed her testimony. There was ample evidence of motive, Mr. Murphy. Your client was unhappy with his wife, and he didn’t want the trouble and expense of a divorce, so he killed her.”

Allison Byrd. She’d testified at Ed’s first trial and then disappeared. Gordon had read her very damning testimony from that first trial to the jury in Ed’s third trial as Brendan had watched her claims sway all twelve jurors in the state’s direction. But she had been lying. There had been no affair. There had been no promise to do away with Anne, whom Ed still loved more than life itself. The dean had reprimanded Ed based on innuendo, hearsay, and gossip. Allison Byrd’s lies had put Ed on death row.

“What about a pardon from the governor or commutation of his death sentence to life without parole?” Tom asked.

“We’ve tried, over and over again. Anne’s family keeps buying the governor’s office to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

“Governor Reynolds might listen, though. Ed’s done so much good here. He’s helped the other inmates with their cases. He’s even gotten a couple of death sentences changed to life without parole. ”

“That’s the irony,” Brendan agreed. “He’s been able to save others but not himself.”

“I don’t get that.” The warden frowned.

“It’s the Fairfaxes again. Gordon’s right at retirement age, but he won’t step down because he’s constantly afraid we’ll get another reversal and another Commonwealth’s Attorney will let Ed plead to manslaughter for time served. That would have happened after the second reversal if Gordon hadn’t been the attorney on the file.”

“God, how I hate Gordon Fairfax, then. He’s putting me in an impossible position.”

“I know. He’s stepped way over the line between professional and personal. He called me yesterday to gloat. I didn’t give him a polite response.”

Tom looked out of the window beside his desk and studied the frozen landscape for a few seconds. Then he asked, “Does Ed’s son know?”

Brendan shook his head. “I’m going to tell him as soon as I’ve told Ed. Father Jim is on his way down from Richmond now to be with Ed after I’ve told him. We agreed that I should spend some time alone with him first, and then Jim should be with him.”

Tom looked relieved at the mention of Father James Lamb, the priest at St. Stephen’s in Richmond, who had been coming to see Edward Carter since Brendan took over his case. “I’m relieved to hear that.”

“You’re thinking suicide watch,” Brendan said.

“It’s required. You know that.”

“How long before you take him down to Greensville?”

“Not until a few days before the execution. He’ll still be here for most of his remaining time.”

Brendan studied the icy world that had caught Tom’s attention earlier. His eyes fixed on a puddle in the parking lot that was beginning to melt in the cold winter sun.

Why take lives, he wondered, when trials were such highly imperfect mechanisms to determine the truth? He thought of Emma’s steady dark eyes as he summoned his courage for what he knew he had to do. Medicine more often than law saves lives. At that minute, he wished he’d never made his way from his parents’ farm near Blacksburg to Virginia Tech and then to the University of Virginia Law School.

He felt Tom watching him and brought his gaze back from the melting puddle. “This isn’t going to get any easier no matter how long I sit here. It’s time to go see Ed.”

To see what happens next, click on the image below!

 

 

 

Chapter One, Keeping Secrets, A Legal Thriller

THE EXECUTION ORDER

“I am dying in my own death and in the
deaths of those after me.”

T.S. Eliot

CHAPTER ONE

Tuesday, January 3, 2017, I-95 South from Richmond to Death Row at Sussex State Prison, Sussex, Virginia

Brendan Murphy drove south on the I-95 toward Sussex that morning with his heart aching. He glanced over at his briefcase on the passenger seat next to him, wishing he could toss it out the window. He imagined it coming to rest in a half frozen puddle of dirty snow along the shoulder of the freeway, languishing there with Edward Wynne Carter III’s execution warrant unread and unnoticed.

If only saving Ed’s life could be that direct and simple. Brendan had been trying for thirty-one years to make the Commonwealth of Virginia admit that Ed had not killed his barely pregnant wife, Anne Fairfax Carter, on a cold November night in 1983, while their four-year-old son Wynne slept in his crib, behind the locked door of his nursery. But to no avail. The Commonwealth’s Attorney, Gordon Martin Fairfax and Anne’s first cousin, was so hell bent on vengeance that he had thrice convicted the wrong man.

“Why did you take this case?” his wife Emma had asked him last night as they sat in front of the fire in the spacious great room of their six-thousand-square-foot, three-story, brick colonial in Richmond’s exclusive Windsor Farms.

They were slowing down at sixty-six. The thought made him smile as he drove. Now they liked to sit in front of the fire at night, talking and sipping good scotch, instead of going to concerts and dinner parties, and charity events. Well, he didn’t mind. He’d spent his career in the Richmond office of Craig, Lewis, and Weller. He’d officially retired last October. He was still a partner, but now his name appeared in the “Of Counsel” column on the firm’s letterhead. He went to his office only three days a week, and he had handed off most of his cases to other attorneys. But not Ed’s. He hadn’t wanted to give up his hard-charging career this early, but Emma, an accomplished pediatric cardiologist, had insisted. Stress had taken its toll, and he’d had a serious heart attack last spring.

To encourage him to back down from long hours at the firm, she had reduced her own hours at the Medical College of Virginia. She taught only one class and saw patients in her office only two days a week. Now they had time to spend with their grandchildren, five-year-old Jamie, Timothy’s son, and four-year-old Gwen, Ellen’s daughter. They spent days at King’s Dominion and Williamsburg, and went to visit the animals at Maymont Farms. And at Christmas, Brendan had overseen Jamie and Gwen’s delighted squeals as they had sledded on the softly sloping hill in the backyard that Ellen and Timothy had loved so well.

But now the magical Christmas snow was nothing but gray slush, and Brendan was on the saddest journey of his life. He glanced down and saw that the Range Rover was picking up speed too easily. He wanted the fifty-minute commute to last as long as possible to delay the minute when he’d have to look into Ed’s kind brown eyes and tell him that he would draw his last breath on Friday, March 3 at 9 p.m. in the execution chamber at Greensville State Prison at Jarrat, Virginia.

“Ed’s mother asked me to take his case,” Brendan drew Emma closer as they cuddled on the sofa under an afghan she had knitted.

“Caroline Randolph Carter?”

He nodded. “She knew me from church.”

“I’m surprised the firm let you accept it.”

“I wasn’t. Although my section of litigation accepted only white collar crime for our corporate clients, Craig, Lewis wasn’t about to turn down the matriarch of the Carter and Wynne families of Carter’s Grove Plantation.”

“Why didn’t you represent Ed in his first trial?”

“Caroline wouldn’t help him the first time around. She thought it was beneath a Carter to get himself arrested for murder. He was represented by Brad O’Connor over at the Public Defender’s Office. But when the Virginia Supreme Court threw out his first conviction, she decided she’d better spend some money to get the truth in front of a jury. But damn it, Emma, no jury has ever understood that Ed was in Charlottesville presenting a paper at a legal conference the night Anne was murdered.”

Emma rubbed his cheek softly. “I know how hard this is for you. Promise you won’t let the stress get to you.”

He kissed her softly on the cheek. “I wish I could make you that promise. But I only have sixty days left to save Ed’s life.”

“So you’re going to try for a stay?”

“A stay, a commutation, a pardon. Whatever the hell I can get. He’s innocent, Emma, you know that. I’m not going to let the Commonwealth murder an innocent man who’s become my friend.”

She laid her head on his shoulder and stroked his cheek. “I have some happier news.”

He looked down at her. She was still beautiful. She cut her hair short now to accent her wide, dark eyes, always full of compassion and love. The extra pounds of middle age still sat well on her five-seven frame. She had beautiful hands with long graceful fingers that stitched together tiny hearts in the OR. She’d chosen the right profession, he thought. She was a consummate healer.

“I’d love to hear something cheerful.”

“Claire is finally getting married.”

“Claire? Our Claire? Tyndall’s daughter? Ellen’s best friend from St. Catherine’s?”

“Yes! Isn’t it great news?”

“Not if it’s to that jerk who led her on for years and then broke her heart last summer with some woman he’d just met.”

“No, it’s not him. He lives in San Diego or Los Angeles. I’m not sure which. Ellen said Claire’s fiancé lives in New York. She met him after she went back last spring. He’s a couple of years older than Claire. Ellen said he’s done very well in venture capital.”

“Then he isn’t marrying Claire for her money.” As he spoke, he wiggled out of her grasp and started to get up, but she put out her hand.

“Why do I think you are going to the liquor cabinet for a refill?”

“Because I am.”

“No, you’re not. It’s nearly midnight, and you said you’ll be leaving for Sussex at eight in the morning. Your heart needs sleep, not more scotch.”

“I don’t think I can sleep.”

“Try. But no more scotch. Come on, let’s go to bed.”

How lucky am I, he thought, as they climbed the stairs together. I have her and Tim and Ellen and Gwen and Jamie and more money than I’ll ever spend. Ed was supposed to have those things, too. I can’t let him die. I can’t let him die.

To see what happens next, click on the image below!

 

The Art of Asking

In Amanda Palmer’s book, The Art of Asking (a book I highly recommend to all, but especially to anyone who is creative)  Ms. Palmer explains how she came to realize that the creation of art always involves asking and that asking is difficult because the outcome of asking is always uncertain.  The answer may be yes, but the answer may also be no.

 

Ms. Palmer, who has earned success as an alternative rock, punk singer, began her entertainment career as a human statue called the “The Eight Foot Bride.”  After leaving college, Ms. Palmer quickly abandoned her career as a server in an ice cream store when she discovered that she could make more money as a street performer.  She put on a wedding dress, painted her face white, and stood on crates in Harvard Square, holding a bouquet of day-old flowers which she rescued from florists shops.  When passers-by left money in the hat at her feet, she would “come to life,” lean down and offer them a flower from her bouquet.  Some people immediately would accept the statute’s offer, but others would walk away quickly, refusing the “bride’s” silent request to take the flower. A third group would hesitate, undecided whether or not to accept the offering.  In The Art of Asking, Ms. Palmer describes how the other bystanders would chant “Take the Flower, Take the Flower” to the Undecided.

I was getting ready to publish my new novel, Mirror, Mirror, when I finished The Art of Asking.  I realized that I was looking forward to putting the book out in the world for readers to experience and enjoy, but I was also reluctant to turn it loose, too.  That feeling seemed odd to me because I had been working feverishly every night after work to write the novel and to polish it for publication.  So why did I suddenly have stage fright?

I realized that asking readers to experience a new novel is difficult.  The answer from readers might be yes, or the answer might be no.  Indie authors are bombarded with “courses” to “teach” them how to launch a book, a process that is supposed to persuade many readers to say “yes” all at once to a new novel.  But I slipped Mirror, Mirror quietly into the ranks of ebooks on Amazon without any “guarantee” of any yeses.  I realized when I hit the publish button, that like the “Eight Foot Bride,”  I was holding out my “flower” and hoping many people with say “yes” to it.  That is the art of asking.

 

To hear Amanda Palmer’s TED talk about The Art of Asking,  go here youtube.com/watch

To see the Eight Foot Bride, go here youtube.com/watch

To read Mirror, Mirror, A Legal Thriller go here amazon.com/…book/dp/B0757GSP35/ref=sr_1_5