A Curve in the Road

Last January, I wrote a post called The End of a Personal Era. I was marking the end of my career in the HIV lab I’d been a part of for nearly twenty years. Times are tough in scientific research right now; the collapse of the economy means that funding opportunities are few and far between and competition has never been more fierce. My lab was dramatically downsizing and nearly all the staff and students were being let go and not replaced.

Since I’ve been laid off, I’ve been trying to get into a new position at the University. But in my spare time, I still spent a lot of time writing. While I love that I’ve been able to concentrate on my craft, I’ve noticed a few things about my writing when it’s the main focus of my attention:

• I managed my time better when I had less of it: This may seem counterintuitive. How can you make more out of less? But I think when you have more time it’s easier to waste it. When I was working in the lab and writing in every spare second, I made sure all of those spare seconds counted in a really big way.

• Time away from writing is invaluable: When the current project is all you think about because it’s the main focus of your life, sometimes it can wear you down and you stop feeling the love. Then it’s hard to kick yourself back into gear. I think that having another focus can be a good thing, and allows you to return to your writing feeling fresh.

• Built-in pondering time: This is one of the things I’ve missed the most. When I had rote tasks to perform as part of my job, it would give me the opportunity to mull over what I’d recently written and then consider different forward directions. I really missed that time and, in some ways, while I could write faster, I definitely felt that occasionally the storyline was getting away from me because I didn’t have enough time to think things through.

• Time in the outside world can lead to new ideas: New people, new situations, new places, these can all lead to inspiration or a different outlook that can create a new idea or a new angle on an old one.

Last week I accepted the offer of a new position at the University. So it’s back into infectious disease research for me—now, instead of HIV, it’s West Nile and Dengue Fever. One of the reasons why I love scientific research is because it’s relevant and important; what you do in your day-to-day job can have a very meaningful impact on someone else’s life. But, through it all, the writing will continue. In the mean time, I have a new novel and new proposal that are both nearly finished so it’s onwards and upwards from here.

I’m going to take a couple of weeks off from blogging as I settle into my new position and to take a little stress off while I find my feet. So I hope everyone has a great couple of weeks and I’ll be back with a new post on August 14^th!

Photo credit: hpaich

Forensic Case Files: The Mystery of Philadelphia’s Mass Grave

In 1832, 57 Irish immigrants arrived in the United States, hired to lay track through Duffy’s Cut, a densely wooded area in what is now a Philadelphia suburb. But six weeks later, every immigrant was dead, their demise blamed on a local cholera epidemic. However, to the modern eye, these deaths are a mystery. Under normal circumstances, only 40 – 50% of untreated cholera cases perish, so why did they all die? The official story simply doesn't ring true. What really happened to the immigrants of Duffy’s Cut?

The story was originally brought to life by Immaculata University history professor William Watson and his brother Frank after reviewing records kept by their grandfather, a former employee of the Pennsylvania Railroad. The section of track in question had originally been built by the Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad which later became part of the Pennsylvania Railroad. The brothers became suspicious at the overwhelming death toll and the lack of official death certificates files by the railroad. Historical records indicated that after the first few men were buried in individual graves, the remaining immigrants were buried together in a shallow ditch along the edge of the rail line. But where?

The Watson brothers set out to find that mass grave in 2004, but it wasn’t until 2007 when they first started to use ground penetrating radar that victims were found thirty feet below the surface. In 2009, the first remains were uncovered—two human skulls, a handful of teeth and 80 other bones. But almost immediately the fate of some of the men became clear from significant blunt force trauma to the skulls.

To date, the remains of five men and one woman have been recovered. Of the five men, three appear to have died not of cholera but of violent means, as indicated by bludgeoning, bullet wounds and axe trauma to the skulls. Unfortunately, the fate of the remaining men may remain a mystery as Amtrak, which owns the land, will not allow the excavation to continue because of safety concerns that it would venture too close to the active rail line. There are hopes of continuing at some point in the future, but, for now, the excavation is at an end.

Even the few remains recovered tell something of early 19th-century life. One of the recovered men has been identified as 18-year old John Ruddy of County Donegal in Ireland, based on both ship’s logs of the time as well as a characteristic dental trait—a missing first molar, a trait still shared by modern Ruddys. Muscle attachment points on the bones speak of a strong muscular build, and wear on the teeth show that he clenched them during heavy lifting. He had gum disease, but no cavities since, as a poor working man, he could not afford sugar. Once his identity is absolutely confirmed, his remains will be reburied in his family’s cemetery plot in Ireland.

Why did all the men die? In the early 1800s, prejudice against Catholics, and Irish Catholics in particular, was rampant. Sick immigrants seeking care were often turned away, leading to a higher death rate among that population. The Watson brothers theorize that local vigilante groups killed the remaining Irishmen in an attempt to curtail the cholera epidemic sweeping through the area.

In 2004, a historical marker was erected by the Pennsylvania Historical Society in memory of those who may never be recovered. The excavated remains of the four other men and one woman were laid to rest with full Catholic ceremony in West Laurel Hill Cemetery on March 9, 2012.

Photo credit: Duffy’s Cut Project and Duffy’s Cut Project Facebook Page

Forensics 101: Race Determination Based on the Skull

**Note: This post was written in July 2012. Since then, forensic anthropological consideration of social races (white, black, American Indian, as described below) has changed. Today, scientists realize that these ancestry estimates are too cut and dried for the full range of mixed populations; there is simply too much human variation. Furthermore, such identifications may be conflated by the racial bias of involved investigators.

Rather than deleting this post, I’m leaving it in place as a snapshot in time. Please consider it as such.

---

The three key factors required to identify skeletal remains are age, sex and race. In previous Forensics 101 posts I’ve reviewed age estimates of an adult versus a pre-pubescent victim, age estimates based on epiphyseal fusion,  adult age based on the pelvis, and sex determination based on features of the pelvis and skull. The final aspect of general skeletal identification is race.

Physical anthropology considers that there are six main races—black, white, American Indian, East Asian, Polynesian and Melanesian/Australian, but for simplicity’s sake, we’re only going to consider the first three as they are the most comprehensively described.

Racial differences in skeletal structure originally arose when small genetic changes developed in populations isolated by geography. Now, as world travel increases and people of different racial backgrounds intermix and produce children, it is becoming harder to differentiate individuals of different races. But there are some key features of the skull that can help forensic anthropologists:

• Mouth: Whites tends to have smaller teeth, often with significant crowding and impacted third molars, and frequently exhibiting an overbite. Blacks rarely have crowding and the upper teeth often project outwards due to the angled shape of the maxilla. American Indians have well spaced teeth but often exhibit sclerosed dentition—when calcium deposits build up inside the tooth, thinning the root canal—leaving teeth loose within the mandible and easily cracked.

• The palate and palatine suture:  The hard palate is the bony structure at the top of the mouth bordered by the upper teeth. In American Indians, the palate is elliptical, with the ‘U’ shape angling in at the back teeth. In blacks, the palate is hyperbolic—a perfect ‘U’ shape with straight lines. And in whites, the palate is parabolic with the ends of the ‘U’ flaring outwards. The transverse palatine suture that horizontally transects the palate also varies by race: It is straight in American Indians, curved in blacks, and a jagged line in whites.

• Incisors: The shape of the incisors is the most important indicator of race in the teeth. In American Indians (and East Asians, both of Mongoloid ancestry), the incisors are shovel-shaped, named because the inner surface is scooped or curved. Black and whites both have blade-form incisors where the tooth has a flat profile.

• The nose: The nose provides multiple race indicators. In whites, the nasal aperture is long and narrow, with a high bridge and a sharp nasal sill (the lower edge of the nasal aperture projects sharply outwards). In blacks, the nasal aperture is short and wide with a low bridge and a guttered or trough-like nasal sill. In American Indians, the nasal aperture is medium-sized with both a medium bridge and nasal sill.

• The mastoid process: The shape of the mastoid process differs between the races. In blacks, the bony projection is wide, in whites it is narrow and pointed, and in American Indians, a secondary smaller projection forms on the back surface of the mastoid process.

Rarely do all of these indicators point firmly to a single race. Instead, it is the story told by the majority of physical characteristics that suggests the victim’s ethnic background. If in doubt, additional post-cranial (skeletal features in the rest of the body) can help indicate race as well.

The information gathered by a forensic anthropologist concerning age, sex and race can lead criminal investigators to a narrowed missing persons search and hopefully to a definitive victim identification.

Illustrations: Gray’s Anatomy

Guest Post: Crime Scene Science - A Reference Infographic

Occasionally I get requests for guest posts on the blog. By and large, most of these requests don't fit my platform, but this past week I was introduced to a really informative infographic on crime scene science and I wanted to share it with my readers, especially those who write mystery or crime fiction. Jaclyn Nicholson was kind enough to share her graphic and a little information about it with us:

Crime scene science has come a very long way with the advancement of technology. Many professionals gather at the scene of the crime, and utilize their expertise to retrieve evidence. These clues vary from finger prints to bloodstain analysis. Every small detail can indicate a clue. Forensic science is a very intelligent process in which many aspects are considered. This infographic dives into the world of crime scene science, briefly going step by step through the process. Did you know that insects could determine the time of death?

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Source: eLocalLawyers.com

Isn't that a great reference for crime writers? Definitely a useful resource. Thanks for sharing it with us, Jaclyn!

Jaclyn is a content marketing specialist at eLocal.com, in which she works primarily with infographics. eLocal's designs are all created in-house, topics ranging from legal to home improvement. eLocal owns some of the top online business directories.

Working Outside Your Comfort Zone

The Venn diagram to the right represents my writing life for the last few weeks. No matter what I’ve done, those two circles simply aren’t intersecting for me on the new project we’re working on.

Ann and I now have two novels in our forensic mystery series under our belt. To keep things fresh and to expand our range, we’ve moved on to a proposal for a new standalone thriller. But it’s become very clear to me in the last few weeks that I’m having a major disconnect with this project.

I know exactly what my problem is, and a lot of it stems from my own process. When it came to learning the background for our forensics series, it took me years to learn the field of forensic anthropology to the point that I felt comfortable in my own knowledge base. I’m not a certified forensic anthropologist, but I play one in fiction. Also, by this time, the characters we crafted for the series are like old friends and practically write themselves. Ann and I often have conversations around current world news from the angle of what would Matt and Leigh think of this? They’re real people to us.

To make things worse, while working with a partner is amazing, there are some moments when Ann can’t help me, and this is one of them. Ann is an equal partner in research, story planning and editing/revising, but I do all the writing. So for me to feel comfortable in that role, I have to have all the required information in my head, and that’s where I’m hitting a wall. I’ve spent weeks researching, but the scope of what we’ve got planned is frankly scaring the heck out of me. The bottom line is that I need a solid basis or I can’t write. Currently, I’m not there yet and I know it. I know what the issues are—new material and characters, a huge story scope and, most of all, the fear of getting it wrong. So far this project feels like walking over broken glass and my gut instinct is to simply stop in my tracks (when I’d rather go weed the garden than write, I know I’ve got a problem!).

So what’s next?

Well, first of all, a serious kick in the pants is in order. Time to stop waffling and get my head in the game. Next, I need to give myself permission to get it wrong. This is a first draft, not the galleys. If I make a mistake, Ann will almost certainly catch it. In the meantime, getting some skilled people on board as technical consultants in areas where both of us could use some assistance is already in progress. Also, it’s a proposal, not the full manuscript. If we sell it, there are certain people I need to talk to, people that are too busy and important for me to bother until we make a sale; those people will absolutely have the information I may not have myself at this time. I need to give myself a break and get down to some serious work, keeping in mind that it really is a work in progress, and recognizing that sometimes the magic can happen outside of my current comfort zone, if I let it.

Have any of you had problems starting a new project? Is perfection an issue for you? How did you get over the hurdle of actually getting the ball rolling?

Forensic Case Files: Skeletons Unearthed at Toronto’s Old Don Jail

The Don Jail, circa 1864.Today’s forensic case file hits close to home for me as it’s a local tale, centered in Toronto, Ontario. Originally named the Don Gaol, the Old Don Jail was built in the early 1860’s in what is now just east of modern downtown Toronto. Conditions inside the jail were so abysmal, time served was typically padded by doubling or sometimes tripling the official number of days for each actual day served within its walls.

Since capital punishment wasn’t abolished in Canada until 1976, the Old Don Jail was the site of a number of hangings. In fact, Canada’s most notorious hangman, Arthur Ellis (from whom the annual awards for the Crime Writers of Canada take their name), carried out some of his three hundred hangings at the Old Don Jail. Originally held on an outdoor scaffold as part of a public spectacle, hangings were moved to a more modern and private indoor gallows in 1908. Thirty-four men were hanged at the jail, with a double hanging on December 11, 1962 being the last of Canada’s executions.

The Old Don Jail closed in 1977 and prisoners were moved to the new section of the penitentiary built in 1958. Officially named the Toronto Jail, it is still known to locals as the Don Jail.

In 2007, as renovations to the Old Don Jail building were underway, human remains were discovered beneath a parking lot north of the original building. For decades, stories of a hangman’s graveyard on the premises had persisted; finally there was irrefutable proof. After a full excavation, the remains of fifteen men were uncovered. Over time, forensic experts have identified many of the remains based on grave goods and research into historical newspaper articles and jail records. Grave artifacts showed that the men had been buried in plain pine coffins, all now lost to the weathering of time. Many of the skulls showed signs of a cranial autopsy, typically performed during those times on executed convicts, and many showed vertebral fractures from the hangman’s noose. At least one of the men also showed the significant ravages of syphilis on his skull.

The men were buried between 1870 and 1930. With one exception (where one of the fathers of Confederation, George Brown, fell victim to a gunshot to the leg), all the men had committed murder—from infant drowning, to violent robberies, to hatchet and knife attacks, to the murder of a police officer or a prison guard.

The Toronto Jail itself will soon be closed and demolished, its prisoners moved to the newly constructed South Toronto Detention Center. Fortunately, the Old Don building has been purchased by Bridgepoint Health. Slated to re-open in 2013 as the new administrative offices to the adjacent Bridgepoint Hospital, refurbishment plans include a full external restoration, restoring the skylight and glass floor of the central rotunda and maintaining as much of the original 19th-century architecture as possible.

But the building’s original history will not be forgotten. Several cells and the gallows in the basement will be preserved as part of a historical display and Bridgepoint intends to make it a publically accessible site, returning this piece of history back to Torontonians.

Photo credit: Canadian Heritage Gallery and CTV News

Gayle Lynds’ 9 Secrets to Bestselling Thrillers

Earlier this month, I attended Bloody Words 2012 in Toronto. New York Times bestselling thriller writer Gayle Lynds attended as the International Guest of Honour, speaking at the gala banquet and sitting on several panels. Gayle was wonderful to listen to—well-spoken and vivacious, she kept the audience both enraptured and laughing at her anecdotes.

Gayle spoke at a session called ‘9 Secrets to Bestselling Thrillers’. The session was excellent, especially from the point of view of an author who is settling into a thriller project herself.

So what are Gayle’s tried and true secrets?

1. Larger than life characters: Big characters that do big things. These characters don’t have to start out larger than life. Often taking ordinary people who then do extraordinary things will fulfill this concept in a much more satisfying way.
2. What’s the dramatic question?: Knowing what your book is about will help you determine which details aren’t needed in order to eliminate unnecessary confusion.
3. High stakes: Thriller stakes often tend to affect a group, rather than an individual. The group in question could be as big as a nation or state, or it could be smaller, like a school. But the protagonist must have not only a personal investment in those stakes, but an investment in the larger group as well. The stakes involved must also be significant enough to capture the reader’s imagination.
4. Riveting concept: Also known as ‘high concept’, this is essentially a catchy idea that makes a story bulletproof; a focusing concept that makes it larger than life. Michael Crichton was a great high concept thinker (i.e. The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park and many others).
5. Multiple viewpoints: Giving expression to multiple major characters helps thrillers have an expansive scope. As a thriller writer, you want your reader invested in every character, and to do that you not only need a fully fledged hero, but a fully fleshed villain as well.
6. Exotic setting: Thrillers are often an adventure in another world, but those surroundings don’t have to be a jungle to be considered ‘exotic’. It simply has to be a setting the average reader isn’t familiar with. When Arthur Hailey wrote Airport he set his novel in a familiar location, but then explored the unknowns of that locale to such a degree that it became an exotic setting.
7. Mood and tone: While mood and atmosphere are important in any book, in a thriller they need to be secondary to the story, at least in the beginning. Once the plot is moving, we can start to see description through the eyes of the POV characters.
8. Suspense: Jeopardy and malice are the cornerstones of a thriller—jeopardy for the protagonist and malice from the villain. The story needs to start as close to the end as possible, with maximum time compression. This means the author has to be very careful about choosing scenes, including only those that are truly necessary to the rising action. Another important point is to always give the reader small moments to breathe through the action or the story becomes exhausting.
9. Finale: A satisfying ending is imperative and all the key threads must be tied together. If you are left with a subplot thread that remains unresolved, then it likely wasn’t needed in the first place. The resolution must at least be for that moment; while perhaps not a happy ending, the finale must at least be grounded in realism.

It was an excellent session and definitely gave me some techniques to think about. Thank you, Gayle, for sharing your knowledge and experience with us!

Photo credit: Gayle Lynds

Plausible vs. Authentic Fiction

As a mystery/thriller writer who tries to write within the existing conventions of science and law enforcement, I want to write the world as accurately as possible. But when does that authenticity actually become a detriment to the story itself?

As fiction writers, we need to write plausible as opposed to authentic fiction. Authentic fiction is starkly realistic—yes, it really can take a minimum of six months for DNA results to come back from some state labs—but that kind detail can get in the way of writing a gripping story. Worse, if we wrote realistic details like a private investigator on surveillance duty for twenty days straight without a single lead, it would be boring for the reader (and the author). This is where plausible fiction comes into play.

Plausible fiction is realistic writing where the rules are bent just enough to allow for good storytelling. It’s been said that police work is 95% boredom and 5% sheer terror. Plausible storytelling concentrates on the more exciting aspects while downplaying the mundane.

As a crime writer, there are many aspects of real police work that impede drama:

• Cases that stall for long periods of time, or, worse, go cold.

• Charges that are withdrawn, or suspects who plead out to lesser charges before trial.

• Cases that are transferred to a different officer so the originating officer never knows the resolution of the case.

• Physical confrontations that end almost before they begin, with a clear winner that allows for almost no dramatic action.

• The reality of handgun accuracy in real situations—the shooter that is 95% accurate at the range will be only 18% accurate in a crisis.

One of the keys to writing mystery/crime fiction for me is the opportunity for a resolution that delivers dramatic emotional justice. But, in real life, there are many times when cases close with no closure for the victims. Emotional justice is important to readers, and it’s important to me as the writer. Writing plausible fiction allows us to craft a satisfying ending.

Authenticity isn’t all bad. There are ways to use the dictates of authenticity to give your story a heightened dramatic moment—guns that actually run out of bullets or wounds that put your hero at a serious physical disadvantage. These are opportunities to allow your protagonist to really stand above his or her disadvantage, all while remaining realistic.

Plausible fiction is not just for crime writers. There are many aspects to everyday life that never make their way into novels simply because they are too mundane to advance the plot at a rapid pace.

A question for other writers: Have you had to cut some authenticity from your own work to allow storytelling the advantage over realism? Did you feel you were successful?

Photo credit: Mythbusters

Forensics 101: 3D Facial Reconstruction

Last week, we looked at the remains of the sailors recovered from the wreck of the U.S.S. Monitor, including their facial reconstructions. As I haven’t covered this technique as part of the Forensics 101 series, I thought it would be a good time to review how forensic artists can build a three-dimensional (3D) version of the dead based only on skull structure. The following pictures are from Louisiana State University (LSU), and show the progression of the reconstruction of the face of the younger of the two men.

The skull is mounted on a stand through the foramen magnum—the hole at the base of the skull where the spinal cord enters the cranium—allowing the artist full access to all the external surfaces. Prosthetic eyes are added, usually brown as that is the dominant eye colour. Next, tissue depth markers (small cylindrical pieces of vinyl eraser strips) are glued to very specific landmarks on the skull. Taking race and gender markers into account, the artist uses charts of averaged population data for soft tissue thickness for each landmark location to determine the depth of each marker:

The skull is then fleshed out with clay to match those markers, following the 3D contours of the skull:

The nose is built based on the width of the nasal cavity and the lips are formed based on the measurement between the canine teeth. The height of the gum line determines the height of the lips. Once all the clay is added and smoothed, the finished product is a fully fleshed, completely individual face:

In the case of the U.S.S. Monitor sailors, LSU scientists went one step further and did a 3D digital analysis of the final clay reconstructions which allowed them to further experiment with different eye and hair colours or different facial hair styles. This is one image of what the younger of the two sailors might have looked like:

Facial reconstructions are often done by forensic artists as opposed to forensic anthropologists as it is truly an artistic endeavor. It never fails to amaze me how time, talent and skill bring forth a living face from naked bone.

Photo credit: Louisiana State University

Forensic Case Files: The Lost Sailors of the Civil War’s U.S.S. Monitor

The American Civil War was a time of transformation. Early 19th-century battle strategies were abandoned in favour of modern warfare, and one of the great naval changes was the move from wooden frigates to armour-plated ironclads.

For a brief time, the Confederate Navy’s ironclad Virginia was the scourge of the sea. To counter that threat, the Union Navy commissioned the Monitor, building it in a mere 101 days and launching it on January 30, 1862. It was a new ironclad design—a steamship built with such a low profile that the large majority of its bulk remained below the water line at all times, with only the gun turret, pilot house and several smokestacks above water. It also featured the very first 360o rotating gun turret.

On March 9, 1862, the day following a decisive Confederate victory during which the Virginia sank the Union frigates Cumberland and Congress, crippled the Minnesota, and killed 250 Union sailors, the Virginia met its match in the Monitor at the Battle of Hampton Roads. After four and a half hours of intense fighting with this unknown vessel, the Virginia fell back. She would never fight again.

Following the Battle of Hampton Roads, the Monitor joined in General George McClellan’s campaign on Richmond, Virginia.

The Monitor met its own end not on the battlefield, but in a storm. Because of its mostly-submerged design, it was easily swamped by rough seas and sank in 230 feet of water, 16 miles off Cape Hatteras, N.C. Of the 62-man crew, 16 men lost their lives that night—4 officers and 12 enlisted men.

The remains of the Monitor were located in 1973. The NOAA and the U.S. Navy determined that the rapidly disintegrating wreck couldn’t be raised, so an effort was made to recover as much of it as possible, including a steam engine, one of the massive Dalhgren guns, and the 150-ton gun turret. When the turret was raised, the nearly complete remains of two men were discovered inside.

The remains were sent to the Louisiana State University (LSU) for study. Usable DNA was recovered from the skeletons, but no match was made to any living relatives of the 16 lost men.

So what can forensic anthropologists determine from the skeletal remains of these two men?

One man was fairly young, presumably between 17 and 24 years of age, about 5’7”, white, with good teeth. His nose had been broken, and had healed and remodeled over the years. The second man was older, between 30 and 40 years of age, white, and stood about 5’6”. Damage to his teeth revealed that he was a pipe smoker, and wear on his bones indicated that heavy lifting was a constant part of his occupation. Artifacts recovered with the remains suggest that they were likely both enlisted men. Based on this information, in reviewing physical characteristics of the men on the casualty list, two possibilities are likely for the older man, four for the younger man.

To try to finally lay these lost soldiers to rest, LSU recently did facial reconstructions of the recovered skulls, using first three-dimensional clay techniques on skull replicas followed by digital enhancement. The final results are pictured below, with the older man on the left, the younger man on the right:

Scientists hope that family members of the lost sailors might recognize their relatives, even 150 years later. If the sailors cannot be identified, then they will be laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery with full military honours.

Photocredit: NOAA and Louisiana State University.

A Lesson from Joss Whedon – How to Write an Ensemble

Joss Whedon is a film maker and a show runner, but first and foremost he’s a writer. I’ve watched many of his projects—Angel, Firefly/Serenity and Dollhouse among them—and while he’s a brilliant actor’s director, it’s always his writing that really stands out for me. While recently watching The Avengers, it struck me how his exacting characterization, snappy dialogue and smart humour really shine in his screenplay, even though he had the difficult task for writing for an ensemble cast.

Writing for a large cast of characters is tricky, but it's something Whedon excels at. It’s challenging to keep everything balanced when you want the team as a whole to come out as the ‘hero’. Whether the media is a novel or a film or TV series screenplay, the storytelling techniques remain the same:

• Introduce the characters one at a time: Separate characters need to stand out individually, so introducing each character to the reader/viewer one at a time builds familiarity. This also allows for small pieces of relevant backstory to be woven into the story a bit at a time without a huge info dump.

• Give each character a distinct skill/personality quirk: Each character in an ensemble needs a reason to be there. While the characters in The Avengers were established before Whedon even began writing the screenplay, he’s always excelled at creating original casts of characters—interesting individuals who each brought something unique to the table, so the group as a whole was always bigger than the sum of its parts.

• Allow each character time to shine individually while still being a part of the team: Whedon took great care to give each character a crucial role in the story and then let the story unfold organically. There’s a great scene during The Avengers climactic battle that panned down the length of a midtown Manhattan street and shifted from character to character as each fulfilled their role. It was not only visually eye-popping, but it was a testimony to the strength of each character within the framework of the team. Each of them was crucial to the success of the whole.

• Even in a team, conflict still drives the story: External conflict might drive the story as a whole, but internal conflict between the team member helps develop individual character arcs and push the external conflict forward. In the case of The Avengers, it was the conflict between Tony Stark/Ironman and Steve Rogers/Captain America that drove a lot of the teamwork as a whole. Theirs was a disagreement that essentially came down to the basics of war and leadership, but when the chips were down that internal conflict was rapidly resolved, allowing the final climactic scene to play out as it did.

The Avengers was not only good summer-popcorn-movie fun, it was also a solid story that stayed nicely inside the restrictions of an existing fictional universe while still highlighting an ensemble cast of characters.

From the more experienced writers among us, do you have any other tips for writers wanting to take on writing a large ensemble cast of characters in either novels or screenplays?

Photo credit: Marvel

Knowing When It’s Time To Let Go

Yesterday, I returned my revision of Dead, Without a Stone to Tell It to my editor. I was able to complete the revision in about a week, but took a little extra time afterward to review the manuscript. Then Ann went over it as well.

But I realized I have a problem whenever I read my own work—it doesn’t seem to be possible for me to not re-edit as I go. Not major shifts of direction, the time for that is long over, but sentence level tweaks. Changing a phrase here, or swapping out a word there. I admit, I didn’t think that would happen. I expected to do two read-throughs—one following the hands-on revision where I would have to make some changes, and a second where I would just make sure that the formatting was perfect and that no words were missing/incorrect.

But I just couldn’t do it. And neither could Ann.

I remember when my brother Mychael was writing the music for Atom Egoyan’s film Exotica. He made the comment months later that if Atom hadn’t set a deadline, he’d still be working on it. It made me realize that it’s not just me. I think this is a pitfall of creatives—never being fully satisfied with your art and always wanting to make it better.

But there comes a moment when it’s time to consider the work complete and to move on. If we can’t do this, we’ll never produce a finished product. Some beginning writers fall into this trap—they’ll spend so much time trying to perfect the beginning of their story that they never manage to actually complete the novel. But professionals need to recognize that at some point the work is finished. And when they have a deadline, they really need to complete it on time.

I’m sure I’m not the only one out there who has this continuing goal of perfection. Do you guys ever have this problem, either with your writing or another choice of art?

Photo credit: Anja Bührer/latoday

Working With An Editor

This past week, I had my first experience working with an editor on Dead, Without a Stone to Tell It. I’d heard some words of wisdom before about editorial letters (much of it being ‘have a drink and a box of Kleenex handy’), but it still was an enlightening experience. You think you’re prepared for something, but, low and behold, it can still surprise you in unexpected ways.

So what did I learn from my first editorial experience?

• Your editor is there to help you: Your editor is an asset, not a liability. It’s in the best interest of the publishing house to release a book that is as strong as possible, and your editor is an important part of this process. Remember that he or she is not your enemy.

• Read their comments, then walk away for a while: No one likes to hear criticism about their baby. But the straight truth is that fresh eyes will see things in your manuscript that you don’t, or they won’t understand aspects of your writing simply because they don’t have all the background information you do. I’d heard the advice to walk away long before recieving my first notes, but I have to say that I agree 100%—read your editor’s notes, then give them space until the next day. You may be initially angry or upset about the suggested changes, but if you give yourself a little time and perspective, you’ll likely find that your editor has some absolutely valid points.

• They’re not here to rewrite our books, but to help make them better: Editors make suggestions and point out areas that don’t work, but it’s up to the writer to make the changes. They’re not here to write the book for us; in fact, in the few small sections where my editor made more detailed suggestions in the text, I found I needed to rework them simply because the voice wasn’t right. But the intent was correct and that aspect was retained through my edits.

• You only have so many Diva Points. Use them wisely: No one likes a high maintenance diva but there are times when something is so important that you feel the need to fight for it. That’s fine, but save this for issues that are really crucial. If you do this on a regular basis, your editor is going to be much less likely to consider your suggestions, so make your requests really count for something.

• Editorial letters/notes are fine, but nothing replaces a real time conversation: We’ve all seen it in emails time and again—misunderstandings because of lack of tone or brevity. When I received my notes, there were several things that I had questions about. Gordon was totally open to discussing them so we arranged for a short phone call. More than an hour and a half later (!), we were totally on the same page. There were some things that I’d thought were issues that weren’t, and there were sections where he took the time to explain his thoughts in detail so I totally understood his point of view. With that knowledge, I was able to complete his requested edits with relative ease. Also, there’s something to be said for making a connection with another person, and a real conversation can make an immense difference in your working relationship.

So, all in all, the editorial process turned out to be not so bad after all. More experienced authors, did I miss out on any tips that you’d be kind enough to share in the comments?

Photo credit: Nic’s Events

Guest Post: Putting faces on the dead – in fact and in fiction

Over the last few weeks, we’ve been focusing on the University of Tennessee’s Body Farm – how it was conceived and some of the research that’s been done there. Today we have a guest post by Jon Jefferson – the “Jefferson” half of the crime-fiction duo Jefferson Bass. Working in collaboration with Dr. Bill Bass, the forensic anthropologist who founded the Body Farm, Jon writes the bestselling series of Body Farm novels. The latest—The Inquisitor’s Key—comes out May 8.

Take it away, Jon…

One of the hallmarks of the Body Farm novels is that the fiction incorporates realistic and detailed forensic techniques. The new book, The Inquisitor’s Key, is no exception. One of the techniques that’s used is radiocarbon dating—also called carbon-14 dating, or C-14 dating. In the book, our heroes, Dr. Bill Brockton and his assistant Miranda Lovelady, use C-14 dating to determine the age of an ancient skeleton that’s found hidden in the Palace of the Popes in Avignon, France. C-14 dating works by counting the isotopes, or atomic variations, of carbon within a sample, then comparing the sample’s carbon ratio to the ever-changing ratio in earth’s atmosphere during the past 10,000 years (a ratio whose changes have been recorded in tree rings – how cool is that?!). Think of C-14 dating, then, as atomic fingerprint-matching or handwriting analysis: match the sample’s fingerprint, or signature, to the atmosphere’s at a specific point in the past and presto, you’ve found the age of the sample.

Another technique that comes into play in The Inquisitor’s Key is forensic facial reconstruction: an artist’s recreation—in clay or on computer—of the face that once existed atop the foundation of an unknown skull. In real life, Dr. Bill Bass and I once used that technique in a particularly puzzling case. A skeleton found in the woods in East Tennessee in 1979 had been tentatively identified by a medical examiner as that of Leoma Patterson, a woman who’d gone missing from a neighboring county five months earlier. That was back in the days before DNA testing, mind you, and the missing woman had no dental records to compare with the skeleton’s teeth. As a result, the identification wasn’t definitive, and some of the family doubted it. Eventually, they asked Dr. Bass to exhume the body and obtain a DNA sample, so they could be sure. He did, and the sample came back negative: according to the DNA lab, the body in the grave was not that of Leoma Patterson. That raised an interesting question: If it wasn’t Leoma, who was it? In an effort to find out, Dr. Bass and I commissioned Joanna Hughes, a talented forensic artist, to do a facial reconstruction on the skull. She did, and—to our astonishment—the clay face Joanna created bore a striking resemblance to the best photo we had of Leoma Patterson. Was it possible that the DNA lab had erred, and that the skull really was Leoma’s? To learn about this case, check out our nonfiction book, Beyond the Body Farm.

          But I digress. Here’s an excerpt from The Inquisitor’s Key—a passage where Dr. Brockton recruits a forensic artist to do a facial reconstruction on the ancient Avignon skull (actually, on a scan of the skull, taken by a French x-ray tech, Giselle). By the way, the forensic artist in the following passage, Joe Mullins, isn’t just a fictional character; he’s actually a real-life forensic artist, doing the great work attributed to him in the excerpt. Thanks, Joe, for agreeing to a cameo in the novel!

          Joe Mullins was three thousand miles to the west of France, but ten minutes after Giselle scanned the skull in Avignon, Joe was looking at it in Alexandria, Virginia.

Joe was a forensic artist at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a mouthful of a name that he mercifully shortened to the acronym NCMEC, pronounced “NICK-meck.” After a traditional fine arts training in painting and drawing, Joe had taken an unusual detour. He’d traded in his paintbrushes and palette knives for a computer and a 3-D digitizing probe; he’d forsaken blank canvases for bare skulls—unknown skulls on which he sculpted faces in virtual clay. By restoring faces to skulls, Joe could help police and citizens identify unknown crime victims.

          Joe wasn’t looking at the actual skull, of course. After the CT scan, Giselle and Miranda had uploaded a massive file containing the 3-D image of the skull and sent it to a file-sharing Web site—a cyberspace crossroads, of sorts—called Dropbox. Joe had then gone to Dropbox and downloaded the file, and, as the French would say, voilà.

          The case clearly didn’t involve a missing or exploited child, so Joe couldn’t do the reconstruction on NCMEC time. But he was willing to do it as a moonlight gig, a side job, and when I’d first e-mailed to ask if he’d be able to do it—and do it fast—he’d promised that if we got the scan to him by Friday afternoon, he’d have it waiting for us first thing Monday.

          My phone warbled. “Hey, Doc, I’ve got him up on my screen,” Joe said. “What can you tell me about this guy?”

“Not much, Joe.” I didn’t want to muddy the water by telling him what the ossuary inscription claimed. “Adult male; maybe in his fifties or sixties. Could be European but might be Middle Eastern.”

“Geez, Doc, that doesn’t narrow it down much.”

“Hey, I didn’t include African or Asian or Native American,” I said. “Give me at least a little credit.”

“Okay, I give you a little credit. Very, very little.”

“You sound just like Miranda, my assistant. Way too uppity.”

He laughed. “This Miranda, she sounds pretty smart. She single, by any chance?”

Sheesh, I thought. “Take a number,” I said.

For another sneak peek of The Inquisitor’s Key, grab 34 seconds worth of popcorn and watch the video trailer:

Also, you may now download the 99 cent e-story prequel to The Inquisitor’s Key entitled Madonna & Corpse, which came out today! Read an excerpt of Madonna and Corpse on Jon Jefferson's blog.

Jon Jefferson (left) and Dr. Bill Bass at the gate of the Body Farm.(Photo by Erik Bledsoe)

For more on Jefferson Bass, find them on Facebook, join them at the blog, and follow along at Twitter.

Pre-order The Inquisitor’s Key:

Amazon

Barnes & Noble

IndieBound

Books-A-Million

Forensics 101: The Body Farm

A research subject at The Body Farm (via Jefferson Bass)

Last week’s blog featured the case of Colonel William Shy and how a miscalculation of the age of the remains led Dr. Bill Bass to conclude that the scientific community simply didn’t know enough about human decomposition. Dr. Bass knew exactly what was needed – an outdoorlaboratory where the process of decomposition was allowed proceed uninterrupted under a variety of conditions while being scientifically observed and documented – but nothing like that existed at the time. He was fully aware of the biggest stumbling block: although he knew that any donated body would be treated with the utmost respect, by today’s standards such an experiment could appear gruesome and disrespectful to the dead. But Dr. Bass’ desire was clear: 'Anytime a real-life murder victim was found, under virtually any circumstance or at any stage of decomposition, he wanted to be able to tell police – with scientific certainty – when that person was killed.'1

Luckily, the Chancellor of the University of Tennessee was an open-minded man who could see the benefits of the research proposed by Dr. Bass, so he offered an acre of forested land behind the Medical Center. Dr. Bass jumped at the opportunity, and, in May of 1981, the University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Research Facility, quickly nicknamed The Body Farm, opened with its very first research subject.

The Body Farm blazed trails in forensic science, starting with documenting the most basic traits of decomposition before branching out into more complicated forensic experiments. Among their discoveries are:

• Decomposition rates – They determined that the sequence of decomposition doesn’t vary, but the timing can. A mathematical formula was derived to determine decomposition rates based on accumulated degree days allowing the accurate calculation of time since death.

• Differential decomposition – Armed with the knowledge of how decomposition normally progresses, a particular part of a corpse decomposing too quickly tells scientists that an additional variable is at play at that location (ie. trauma), even if no trace of it still remains.

• Decomposition variables – A multitude of studies were conducted to determine how different conditions affect decomposition – sunlight vs. shade, inside a building vs. outside, shallow vs. deep burial, submerged vs. surface burials, clothed body vs. naked etc.

• Forensic entomology – Some of the first research at The Body Farm involved pioneering studies of grave insects – which bugs were found on a corpse, and when. This data and knowledge of an individual inspect species’ life cycle can provide a separate method of calculating time since death.

• Burials – Many studies have been carried out to determine the characteristics of decomposition of a buried corpse. They found that, on average, decomposition progresses at approximately 1/8 the speed of a body that remained on the surface.

• Adipocere vs. mummification – Studies were conducted to determine what different conditions would lead to the very different results of either grave wax accumulating on the body or rapid drying leading to mummification.

• Chemical analysis of soil samples – Body Farm researchers discovered that certain biochemicals are produced in a predictable manner during the different stages of decomposition. By analyzing soil under an actively decomposing corpse, the time since death could be accurately determined.

Based on this and other research projects, the study of forensic science has progressed in leaps and bounds, providing criminal investigators with much more information concerning the fate of the victim. This, in turn, has lead to a higher conviction rate in murder cases.

Next week, we’re pleased to host Jefferson Bass, the writing partnership of Dr. Bill Bass and Jon Jefferson, as they highlight their newest ‘Body Farm’ novel, The Inquisitor’s Key. We hope you’ll stop by as they share a forensic-related excerpt from their novel as well as their new book trailer. See you then!

1Death’s Acre—Inside the Legendary Forensics Lab, The Body Farm, Where the Dead Do Tell Tales by Dr. Bill Bass and Jon Jefferson. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 2003.

Photo credit: Jefferson Bass

Forensic Case Files: The Strange Case of Colonel William Shy

Colonel William Shy, killed at the Battle of Nashville, Dec. 16, 1864.

The whole affair started as an exercise in grave robbing.

In late December 1977, forensic anthropologist Dr. Bill Bass was called in to consult when the disturbed grave of Confederate officer Lieutenant Colonel William Shy was discovered. The grave was dug down three or four feet, but, most shockingly, there was a headless body in a sitting position on top of the antiquated cast-iron coffin, dressed in what appeared to be a tuxedo jacket.

In his role as Tennessee’s forensic anthropologist, Dr. Bass did an initial examination of the body on site. It was in an advanced state of decay and partially disarticulated, but some of the remaining flesh was still pink and many of the joints were still intact. He collected the remains, recovering everything but the head, feet and one hand, which was not unexpected in an outdoor burial where animal scavenging is common.

However, when the remains were removed from the grave, the team working the investigation found a large hole in the top of the coffin, approximately one-foot by two-feet in diameter, made by the grave robbers with a pick axe or a shovel. Hanging upside down over the pit and using a flashlight, Dr. Bass peered into the hole and found precisely what he expected in an 1864 burial – nothing. From other Civil War era burials in the area, he knew that more than 100 years in Tennessee’s damp conditions would break down a corpse completely, even the bones, leaving nothing but the layer of goo he found inside Colonel Shy’s coffin.

After cleaning and examining the bones, Dr. Bass concluded that the extra body in the grave was that of a male in his mid-to-late twenties who originally stood between five-foot-nine and six feet tall. There was no obvious indication of what had killed the man, but he estimated the time since death to be between two and six months. As to his presence in another man’s grave, the team postulated that the grave robbers had opened the grave to remove any valuable grave goods they could find, and were in the process of secreting a body when they were interrupted and fled.

And then some strange facts started to surface.

In the new year, when the local sheriff’s deputy and the coroner went back to excavate the grave further, they found the skull inside the coffin. It appeared that the grave robbers had been interrupted in attempting to stuff the victim into the coffin, dislodging the head. The cause of death was no longer a mystery – huge gunshot entry and exit wounds had shattered the skull into seventeen pieces. But, curiously, the dead man had clearly never been to a dentist and had significant, untreated cavities.

When the state crime lab examined the clothes, they found that they were simply made from only natural fibers and were completely without labels. The pants were also an odd style, lacing up the sides. A technician called Dr. Bass, expressing some concern about the items, but the scientist was already one step ahead.

He wasn’t sure how it could be, but he was beginning to suspect that the body in the grave hadn’t been added by the grave robbers, but instead was Colonel Shy’s disturbed body, having lost his head after being pulled from the coffin. It was a known fact that Colonel Shy, 26 at the time of his death, was killed when he was shot at point blank range with a .58 caliber ball. The remains being those of Colonel Shy would explain the lack of modern dental work as well as the clothing artifacts, but how could a body that appeared to be less than a year dead be that of a fallen war hero, nearly 113 years in the grave?

In retrospect, the reasons were quite clear. Although, it was a rarity at the time, Colonel Shy’s body had been embalmed as befitting a man of his wealth and social status, and had been buried in his best suit, the same suit he is seen wearing in the portrait above. Also, the coffin was made of cast iron, and was so sturdy that it not only kept all moisture from the body, but it also kept out the insect life and oxygen that would have rapidly progressed the decomposition process.

The miscalculation was a watershed moment in Dr. Bass’ career. He’d been a forensic scientist for over twenty years at that point, but neither he nor anyone else in the field knew enough about human decomposition to accurately estimate time since death. He made the decision then and there to address that lack of knowledge.

In 1981, Dr. Bass opened the University of Tennessee’s Anthropology Research Facility (more commonly known as the Body Farm) and the world of forensic science was irrevocably changed for the better. Next week, we’re going to delve deeper into the Body Farm and how it’s been a crucial part of forensics and crime solving from the moment it took in its very first research subject.

The Importance of Perspective

We finished the first draft of A Flame in the Wind of Death last week. So is it really done? Should my critique team expect it this week and start sharpening their red pens?

No. (Sorry, critique team!)

I think one of the most important lessons I learned from writing Dead, Without a Stone to Tell It is the importance of perspective. When we’re drafting, we get close enough to our work that we’re nearly a part of the story. This is actually an important aspect of writing a first draft – that intense intimacy with our story helps bring it to life. But when we’re that intimate with it, we’re actually too close to look at our work with a critical eye.

A little separation is actually a good thing. To create a really polished draft, you need to stop looking at your manuscript as its creator and start looking at it from a reader’s perspective. The easiest way to accomplish this is to simply disconnect from your creation for a period of time, preferably up to several weeks, if not more. And it’s amazing what you find when you come back to it. Suddenly, your precious baby, which four weeks earlier could do no wrong, is a holy terror: Plot errors (you could drive a truck through that plot hole!), character motive missteps (why on earth would he/she ever do that??) and over-exposition (Jen, you’re the only one who cares about the fracture speed of wet vs. dry bone under different conditions; concentrate on the story!) just to name a few. Each individual writer will have their own typical issues.

So, for now, Flame has gone into the virtual drawer. And I fully expect to find these and other issues when I come back to it, and that’s okay. This is why first drafts exist – to get the story down; polishing comes later. Now, with that in mind, I did purposely overwrite some of the manuscript, especially the scientific sections. It’s always easier to remove information later than to have to do the research all over again to add in more science fact, so that was a practical choice. I know that some of it will need to be cut. And in keeping with Stephen King’s sage advice that ‘Second draft = first draft – 10%’, I’ve got room to trim.

I’m very happy with how our first draft of the manuscript turned out. The mystery is solid and has some very interesting aspects, the relationship between the main characters develops nicely and a new, continuing subplot is introduced. But I’m looking forward to the chance to make it even tighter and sharper with a little time and distance, and another run at the storyline as a whole.

For those of you who write, do you find this breathing space with your manuscript to be important?

Photo credit: hpaich

The #777 Challenge

I picked up the #777 challenge from Roni Loren who shared an excerpt from her current WIP, FALL INTO YOU on her blog. I’ve seen a handful of authors taking up the challenge and it’s fun to see their different styles and genres, even from only a short bit of WIP text.

Here are the rules for the #777 Challenge:

1. Go to page 77 of your current MS.

2. Go to line 7.

3. Copy down the next 7 lines/sentences, and post them as they’re written. No cheating.

4. Tag 7 other authors

Here’s my entry from my current WIP, A Flame in the Wind of Death, the sequel to Dead, Without a Stone to Tell It:

Matt picked up a straight, stainless steel probe from a nearby tray. “This is easiest to show on the sternum.” As Leigh leaned in, he slid the probe carefully into the nick in the heavy bone, holding it almost vertically. “Do you see this slight angle? This means that the knife strike came from slightly below the contact point."

Leigh straightened in surprise. “From below? How tall was she?”

"Initial estimate puts her at five foot five. Give or take two to three inches as we’re estimating based on bone that’s contracted and warped from the heat."

"That’s pretty short for the blow to have come from below. And the angle’s all wrong for an upward thrust.”

Now it’s time to pass the baton. I’m tagging a bunch of my agency sisters on this one — Marianne Harden, Amanda Carlson, Amanda Flower, Melissa Landers, Lea Nolan, Cecy Robson and Marisa Cleveland. You’re up, guys!

Photo credit: Velo Steve

The Power of Persistence

Late last week, I was happy to break the news that Ann and I were offered a two-book deal — our first novel, Dead, Without a Stone to Tell It will be released in May 2013 by Five Star Publishing. I’ve been thinking a lot over the week-end about the path we chose, how long that process took, and how glad I am that we stuck with it instead of taking shortcuts.

Now, first of all, let me say that I have nothing against self-publishing. It’s a fantastic venue for those that want more control of their own process and want to see their books published faster. Many authors are very successful in this forum because they are good authors who produce a well-edited, quality product. But self-publishing also provides an author with the means to knee-jerk publish a product that might not be ready, simply because they are impatient or want the easy road.

I queried agents for seven months before I found Nicole. It was only a month from first querying her to signing with the agency, but with the number of agents out there, it took me a while to find her to add her to my list. During those seven months, I also had the false start of an offer from an agent that made me uncomfortable, and which I subsequently turned down. Was I frustrated that I’d worked so hard to find an agent and had yet to find the right one? Yes. Was I tempted to self-publish at that point because I wanted to get my work out there? Yes. But I didn’t. I hung in and kept querying. And once I found Nicole, things moved quickly, and the next thing I knew I was signed.

Had I given up and self-published during the querying stage, the manuscript would have been full of passive voice and head hopping. It wasn’t ready to be published, and neither was I. Nicole saw the promise in the writer and the manuscript, but she wisely knew both still needed work.

Next, we moved into the submission process. After a lengthy edit, we sent out the manuscript. And for those who have gone through submission, you know how long this process can take. Then a few rejections started to roll in. And because you’re human, you start to think about self-publishing again. Maybe it would be easier to do it myself. If certainly couldn’t be as painful as these rejections. But, once again, I stuck with it.

A major concern we had from the start was the length of the manuscript — it was slightly long for a crime novel. Ann and Nicole had done their best to help me cut the manuscript back, but the real problem was me. I liked the scientific detail because that’s where my own interests lie. Why would I want to kill my darlings? Then word came back from Five Star. They’d be interested in seeing it again if I’d do a significant cut back — approximately 20,000 words.

20,000 words. That definitely doesn’t qualify as ‘slightly long’. But this time the message got through loud and clear.

So we settled into one last major edit of the manuscript and sent a significantly shorter and tighter version back to Five Star. That was the manuscript they offered on.

Had I given up and self-published during the submission stage, the manuscript would have been full of over-exposition and the writing wouldn’t have been as tight as it needed to be. It wasn’t ready to be published, and neither was I.

Looking back, I can see quite clearly the points where I was tempted to throw in the towel and how disastrous that might have been. I’m still learning how to be a better writer. With each edit, I would think There! Now it’s perfect! only to realize downstream that it still needed work. Had I given up and self-published at any of those points, the manuscript wouldn’t have been anywhere close to perfect. And that would have been reflected in flat sales and likely no interest in the continuation of the series.

Is the manuscript perfect now? Of course not. I’m looking forward to working with a professional editor to make the manuscript the very best it can be. Only then will it really be ready to publish. And in the process, I’ll be ready too.

For those of you who traditionally published, did you go through the same periods of temptation? For those that are still preparing your manuscripts and are considering your options, what are your thoughts on the path you’ll take?

*********************************************************************************

I'm happy to announce the winner of last week's Amazon gift card is Paulina. Paulina, I'll be getting in touch with you today. Congratulations!

Photo credit: alpiniste

We’ve Got A Publishing Contract!

Ann and I are thrilled to announce that we have our first publishing deal! Our forensic thriller, Dead, Without a Stone to Tell It, has been sold in a two-book deal to Deni Dietz of Five Star Publishing (an imprint of Gale) for release in May 2013.

Needless to say we’re very excited. It’s been a long journey and we couldn’t have done it without agent extraordinaire, Nicole Resciniti. Thank you, Nicole, for believing in us and for having the skill and patience to help us produce a manuscript that we absolutely love, and hope others will love too. Also to our crit team — Jen, Margaret, Sharon and Lisa — you guys have always been there for us and have challenged us to be stronger writers, and we’re so thankful for your tireless efforts. Finally, from a personal standpoint, a big thank you to my husband, Rick, and my two daughters, Jessica and Jordan, for believing in me and for giving me the time and space to pursue a dream.

So what’s the book about? Here’s our blurb:

When a single human bone is found on a lonely stretch of coastline, a determined homicide detective and a reluctant scientist risk their lives when they join forces to bring a serial killer to justice.

Massachusetts State Police homicide detective Leigh Abbot, the daughter of a fallen police hero, struggles to make her way as the sole female detective in a male-dominated department even as she stands in her father’s shadow. Dr. Matthew Lowell is a forensic anthropologist with a deep distrust of the police, a man who has turned his back on his traumatic past as a Marine medic in Afghanistan to focus on the study of sterile bones instead of bloody tissue. When human remains hinting at unnatural death are discovered on the Essex coast, Leigh and Matt form an uneasy alliance as they work to discover the identity of the victim as well as the killer who took her life.

Leigh and Matt’s teamwork and skills are put to the test when the evidence leads them to a burial ground of unidentified victims. To their horror, they also find the ravaged body of a fresh victim at the site, leading them to the hard truth that the killer continues to take lives. When they interrupt a brutal revenge slaying, they suddenly find themselves in the sights of an enraged serial killer newly focused on his pursuers. Now they must find and stop the killer before one of them becomes his next victim.

In celebration of our exciting news, I’m sponsoring a giveaway. I’ll use a random generator to pick one lucky commenter to win a $25 Amazon gift card to the international Amazon outlet of their choice (draw to take place Monday, March 19 at 10pm EDT). If you haven’t signed in through Twitter, Facebook or OpenID, please leave your email address so I can let you know if you won. I’ll also announce the winner in next week’s blog post (March 20) so you’ve got until then to sign up. Good luck!

Also, just to let you guys know, I’ve recently signed up on Facebook, so if you want up-to-the-minute updates and RSS feeds aren’t your thing, feel free to ‘like’ my author page.

Thanks again to all our supporters. We’ve got some exciting times ahead but we’ll be sure keep you all in the loop as updates arise!

Photo credit: hpaich and Jess Newton