Monthly Archives

January 2011

THE SENTRY Launch at Diesel Bookstore

Yesterday was pub day for Robert Crais‘s The Sentry and the launch party was held at Diesel Bookstore in Santa Monica, CA. Of course I had to go because I heard there’d be food. Yes, I cleared a whole tray of potatoes and some chocolate thingies but that’s not the best part.

There was a great turnout (I stood in line for about 17 hours to get my book signed), with many familiar faces in the crowd. Authors Gregg Hurwitz, Brett Battles and Gerald Petievich were there, so were my friends Debbie and Laurie, blogger extraordinaire Michael (le0pard13) with his son A., and Crais’s website manager/creator of the newsletters, Carol T. I also got to meet Steve, the nice man who let Crais go to the bathroom in his house while Crais was shooting his Sentry video down in Venice. Steve said I’m welcome to use his toilet, too. Score!

Crais shared rave reviews for his novel and a few fan letters (someone who’s a regular here was quoted—you’ll see when you attend his Belmont signing!) before reading a couple of passages and signing books. I won’t give away spoilers; you’ll just have to make one of his appearances if he’s in your city to experience all the fun.

Meanwhile, I’ll leave you with some photos:

Crais with Debbie

I’m standing on tiptoes here, with one leg swinging in mid-air:

Man sandwich with Crais, Battles & Michael

And what a difference a year makes. Last year when I showed up, I got this reaction from Crais:

This year, I got this:

For the win!

Share

Book Giveaway: Michael Koryta’s THE CYPRESS HOUSE

If you’re still a little poor from the holidays but desperately want a copy of Michael Koryta’s new book, The Cypress House (Little, Brown, Jan. 24), you’re in luck. Thanks to Hachette Book Group, I get to give away three copies. Here’s the description:

A journey to Florida’s coast becomes an inescapable nightmare in the newest supernatural thriller from international bestseller Michael Koryta.

Arlen Wagner has seen it in men before–a trace of smoke in their eyes that promises imminent death. He is never wrong.

When Arlen awakens on a train one hot Florida night and sees death’s telltale sign in the eyes of his fellow passengers, he tries to warn them. Only 19-year-old Paul Brickhill believes him, and the two abandon the train, hoping to escape certain death. They continue south, but soon are stranded at the Cypress House–an isolated Gulf Coast boarding house run by the beautiful Rebecca Cady–directly in the path of an approaching hurricane.

The storm isn’t the only approaching danger, though. A much deadlier force controls the county and everyone living in it, and Arlen wants out–fast. But Paul refuses to abandon Rebecca to face the threats alone, even though Arlen’s eerie gift warns that if they stay too long they may never leave. From its chilling beginning to terrifying end, The Cypress House is a story of relentless suspense from “one of the best of the best” (Michael Connelly).

Sound good? To enter:

  • be a subscriber or Twitter follower (tell me which if you’ve never entered a giveaway)
  • leave a comment telling me about a spooky experience you’ve had
  • have a U.S. or Canada address

Giveaway ends next Wednesday, January 19 at 5 p.m. PST. Winners will be randomly selected then announced here and on Twitter. I won’t be notifying you personally so please check back to see if you’ve won. Any prize(s) not claimed within 48 hours will be given to alternate winner(s).

Let’s hear some creepy tales!

Share

Book Discussion: Robert Crais’s L.A. REQUIEM

Last August, Jeff over at Stuff Running ‘Round My Head wrote a piece on Robert Crais‘s watershed novel L.A. Requiem that got a bunch of us other fans wanting to re-read it, too. I then suggested we have an online discussion about it so we can share our thoughts with old and new fans alike.

Our session took place this past Saturday with Michael from Lazy Thoughts from a Boomer, Naomi from The Drowning Machine, Jen from Jen’s Book Thoughts, Rachel from Scientist Gone Wordy, Christine from The Christine ‘Zine, Shell from ShellSherree.com and me in the chat room. To tie in with Crais’s The Sentry being released tomorrow, here are snippets from our discussion of what some consider the unofficial first Joe Pike novel.

[Michael, Naomi, Christine and I started the conversation with Jen, Rachel and Shell joining in later.]

Pop Culture Nerd: What was your reaction after reading this book? The first time vs. re-reading?

Naomi: The first time—awestruck. This time, still impressed.

Christine: What Naomi said.

Michael: When I first read LAR, given that I started at the beginning and read in order, I couldn’t stop thinking about it for some time, [how] RC had built up to this in the previous [books] and then JUMPED from there.

Naomi: What is it we all love about this book? Why is it a great book?

PCN: It’s not only a smart detective story, it’s an incredibly moving book about the different forms of love, between Elvis & Joe, E and Lucy, E and Dolan, E and the cat, Joe and Paulette, Karen for Joe…

Christine: Well said. The relationships are a huge draw for me. Glad I’m not the only one noting the cat’s relationship.

Naomi: Yeah, the love. Joe’s sacrifice for Paulette is so wrenching.

*SPOILER*

Michael: Dolan’s tragic yearning and end, too. What I treasure about LAR is how layered it is. Plus, the character study of Cole and Pike as very human heroes.

Naomi: I hated losing Dolan.

PCN: Did anyone feel Dolan shouldn’t have been killed off?

Naomi: Yeah, I’d like for her to have stayed. She could arm-wrestle Starkey for dibs.

Christine: I was on the fence with Dolan’s demise.

PCN: I think it’s smart she was killed off. She burned bright and fast through Elvis’s life (and our consciousness) and that makes her more memorable.

*END SPOILER*

[At this point, Jen showed up in the chat room.]

PCN: Have you read and listened to LAR?

Jen: Yes. 2x each.

Michael: 1 read, 3 re-listens.

Naomi: 2 reads and 1.5 listens.

PCN: Differences between audio and book for you? Was narrator able to bring nuances you missed from reading?

Jen: Yes and no. Some, I went, “Oh, I missed that.” Others, I said, “That’s not what it should sound like.” And while no one but Bob seemed to have Pike’s “sound” for me, I think [Ron McLarty] did a good job with Pike’s tone.

Naomi: I don’t appreciate the nuances as much with audio, the use of structure and language. All the different points of view RC uses, the switches in tense, stuff that was a no-no before this book—I don’t get all that when I’m listening.

PCN: Even though he used third person for the non-Elvis scenes, the voice is not the same throughout. Pike’s 3rd person is not the same as Sobek’s…

Jen: No, it shouldn’t be. It’s limited 3rd.

PCN: Yes, not the omniscient 3rd.

Jen: Exactly!

Naomi: You’re right! Plus, scenes with Elvis are in past tense, but with the killer they’re present tense. I don’t pick up on those kinds of things in audio.

PCN: And, amazingly, it all works. Different tenses, so many POVs, but it all comes together and was never confusing for me.

Jen: That’s why it was groundbreaking!

Naomi: Yeah, it’s stunning. Breaks every rule of that time. RC wrote new rules. I see other writers break these same rules but it’s not as effective because they do it for effect, not because the story demands it. I think [LAR] works because this is the only way the story could be told and still maintain the tension.

Christine: Also, one of the few books that goes to different timelines that never drove me nuts. That can REALLY drive me up a wall and ruin the reading experience for me.

[Rachel joined us here.]

Rachel: I would miss that probably since LAR was the first of the series I read and Crais was my intro to mystery/thriller. My mystery/thriller background was riddled with bad picks so I stayed away until 2010 when a different reading community keyed me into Crais. Once I started, y’all found me and the rest was history.

Christine: Naomi, you asked about favorite scenes earlier. SOOOOO many…Cole and Watts crying in Dolan’s apt. and Cole taking down the pic of him Dolan had on fridge.

PCN: I like how Joe was reading Basho, the poet who wrote the poem about the monkey needing a raincoat.

Naomi: I love that whole scene with Joe and the sergeants.

*SPOILER*

PCN: Love that Gunnery Sgt. Aimes said a poet would die for a rose, that warriors need to also be poets, and then when Joe was shot, the blood bloomed on his back like a rose.

Naomi: First read, I cried over Joe’s childhood scenes.

Michael: My son’s been listening to LAR, he said he felt completely touched and uncomfortable with the scene of Joe stopping the burning of the cat. I guess that’s the power of LAR. RC crafted so many scenes, comfortable and uncomfortable ones, that really get to the reader.

*END SPOILER*

Rachel: Pike question—why do you think he’s got the glasses? Is it to cover the eyes? Which would make him more conspicuous?

Michael: LAR covered some of the issues with Pike and the sunglasses. “Cat eyes” and sensitivity to light.

Jen: I think the eyes are the window to the soul and Pike doesn’t let people in that easily.

PCN: Probably because he feels more comfortable in the shadows. If he walks around with those startlingly light eyes, people would stare.

Rachel: But don’t the glasses in the dark make people stare? Why is that better?

Naomi: He could stare back. I’d let him.

PCN: I don’t think people can see him in the dark. He’s often described as moving like smoke. Even Elvis can’t see him sometimes.

Rachel: Joe not liking to be seen and his Conspicuous Dress habit is one of my suspension-of-disbelief things.

Jen: I don’t think that it’s so much he doesn’t like to be seen physically as much as it is who is INSIDE. If he wants to sneak around, you’ll not see his glasses or his dress.

Michael: But, Rachel, haven’t you noticed certain of us guys always wear the same things (as my wife reminds me)?

Rachel: Hehe.

[Naomi had to leave the chat.]

PCN: OK, more favorite scenes?

Christine: Elvis in shock that cat let Dolan pet him.

Rachel: I love the scene where Cole is talking to Lucy after she finds out some of Pike’s history. When he’s explaining that whatever Joe is, he is, too, is very powerful to me.

Jen: Good thing you said that after Naomi left! Ha! [Ed. note: Naomi hates Lucy with the intensity of a thousand suns.]

PCN: How do you feel about Lucy, Rachel?

Rachel: I hear there are serious Lucy haters. I don’t think about her enough to hate or like her. Since I read LAR first, it might not be quite as thoughtful as what others take away but the first moment she mentioned a kid I was like, This will never work. Cole can’t have a kid in his life.

PCN: I think Lucy-hate is unfair. Her first priority has to be her kid, as much as she loves Elvis. As a parent, you’d freak out, too, if your kid is put in danger because of your boyfriend.

Rachel: I actually think RC has been really realistic with Lucy’s response to the type of life Cole leads. Pretty brave of him when so many authors take the novel way out and don’t describe these things as they would probably happen to keep the relationship going.

Michael: I’ll grudgingly give points to Elyse and Rachel about Lucy. Still don’t like her for Elvis, though.

Jen: The point I really hate Lucy comes when she blames Elvis for what her ex is wholly responsible for.

PCN: When did she do that?

Christine: The Last Detective.

Jen: Thank you, Chris! The ex put everything into motion and Lucy, even when she has all the info, blames Elvis.

Rachel: That’s another time where I think RC did the real, brave thing. She’s freaking out and not using her head as she normally would. I can see that happening. What were folks’ reaction to Dolan?

Jen: I was heartbroken when Dolan died. I liked her. She was tough to cover up the insecurities, like so many of us are.

Rachel: I think I like her better for her brevity. Had she stuck around I don’t know that I would have liked her. I wonder if we really got a good look at her. I think even she was surprised at her behavior. I go back and forth between that being deliberate or simply a weakly written character (don’t shoot!).

Michael: I liked Dolan for her choice in spirits.

[Shell shows up in the chat room at this point.]

Shell: Hi everyone! I enjoyed both characters, but felt for Lucy. I kind of had a sense of Dolan having a bit of  “bad girl” appeal for Elvis.

Rachel: Has Joe’s love of Paulette already been discussed?

Christine: I thought Joe’s scene with Paulette was a heartwrenching love scene. That was just so rich and emotional to me. An excellent example of why I love RC’s writing. And I looooved that she was written as looking like an ordinary, real woman.

Jen: I loved that, too, Chris.

Michael: Most startling moment in LAR for me—Elvis finding that picture at Paulette’s where Joe is smiling.

PCN: Yes! That picture made my heart hurt.

Christine: YES! Did you feel that it might have hurt E to see that smile in the photo?

PCN: I think so, because it’s a realization that even he can’t make Joe smile and Joe hasn’t had anything to smile about since that picture.

Jen: No, I don’t.

Michael: Second that.

Jen: Because Elvis has experienced his love with Lucy.

Michael: Question—do any of you feel you’re missing anything in that RC does not write explicit love scenes like, say, Don Winslow?

Jen: No! That’s one of my big pet peeves about Winslow. I think RC says more in his scenes than Winslow does in his drawn-out scenes.

Rachel: I don’t feel like I’m missing anything. I can take sex scenes either way as long as they work with the stories and the characters. I think RC writes about relationships and his style is not to focus too heavily on the sex. Works fine for me.

PCN: Shell, how did you feel about LAR having already read First Rule? Most of us didn’t know anything about Joe until LAR.

Rachel: I remember thinking it was quite funny that RC was working so hard to convince me of what a badass Joe was. I’m like, yeah, he made a cop shit his pantz! I’m so on board with how tough he is. But on a more serious note, I think I was able to immediately become really invested in the E/J relationship and it’s made it a really deep literary partnership in my reading world.

PCN: I like how they can openly say “I love you” to each other without fearing any kind of gay understones.

Rachel: ROFLMAO! Was understones on purpose!????

PCN: No! I meant undertones.

Michael: Freudian?

Shell: Hahaha! Elyse, I found LAR quite different, as First Rule I found Joe to be the primary character and didn’t get much of a sense of who Elvis was. When I went back and read LAR, I loved Elvis so much, I then felt a bit Elvis-deprived in hindsight with regards to FR!

Jen: I love that they themselves recognize their love for each other and aren’t afraid of it.

Michael: LAR’s ending is one of my all-time favorite conclusions to a novel. It was beautifully reflective.

PCN: Yes! I love how Elvis is sitting up on Mulholland, shot, beaten down, and the owl is asking “Who?” as in “Who will protect this great city?” Who will do the right thing? At first, E doesn’t answer, but then he says, “Me.” And I love him for that. Despite everything, he will always step up to do the right thing and save the world.

Christine: Very good point. It would be so easy to say “Screw you. I’ll take care of myself and get my woman back on her terms.”

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

We also discussed the other books in the series and P.I. novel conventions in general but since this is a tribute to LAR, I think I’ll stop here. If you haven’t read it, it’s obviously highly recommended. If you have, get ready for more Pike in The Sentry!

Buy The Sentry from Amazon| B&N| IndieBound| Powell’s

[These are associates programs.]

Share

Standalone vs. Series Books

Since it’s a new year, lots of sites have put up “most anticipated books/movies/gadgets, etc.” lists, which I love perusing. I get new ideas for things I want to try or put on my wishlist. My birthday isn’t until April but it’s never too early to start putting together a list, right? Hint: iPads are pretty.

Anyway, I’ve been looking at authors I’ve never read, wondering which of their books I should sample, and thought I’d get some input from you. When it’s someone who writes both standalones and series novels, do you try the standalone first or are you more likely to pick up one from the series? If you hate that first book you read, how likely are you to try the other thing the author has written?

I discovered Ken Bruen by reading London Boulevard, which knocked me flat on my ass and made me scurry to check out his Jack Taylor series. But I had a less enjoyable time with another author’s standalone and have resisted reading his series, despite friends telling me it’s quite strong and how the series protagonist is completely different from the standalone’s wimpy hero.

On the other hand, I’ve been devoted to a series and found that author’s standalones absolute rubbish. If I had been introduced to him via his one-offs and ignored his series, I would be seriously missing out.

So, standalone or series installment as a starting point? And if you love a series like, say, the Jack Reacher books and Lee Child decides to write a standalone, how likely are you to snap it up? Sound off in the comments, opinionated readers!

Share

Movie Review: BIUTIFUL & Notes from Q&A with Javier Bardem

If you’re familiar with Alejandro González Iñárritu’s past work—Babel, 21 Grams, Amores Perros, etc.—you probably suspect that the title is ironic because there’s very little about Biutiful that’s beautiful. It’s a relentlessly bleak film about a grifter dying from cancer who’s trying to ensure his two young children will be taken care of after he goes. Uxbal’s shady dealings involve Chinese sweatshop workers making knockoff bags and Senegalese dealers who sell them. He also has a gift for seeing the dead and charges people a fee for communicating with their departed loved ones. Through it all, Uxbal is searching for some kind of redemption and I won’t spill whether or not he finds it but will say that the movie is redeemed by Javier Bardem’s so-deep-inside-the-character-he-disappears portrayal of Uxbal.

Bardem says in the post-screening Q&A (more details below) that when Iñárritu asked him to do the movie, he didn’t just ask him if he wanted to play Uxbal, he asked if Bardem would like to go on a life journey and that’s a more accurate description of what the actor put on screen. We can almost see Uxbal dying from frame to frame, his body deteriorating as his desperate need to protect his children grows more intense. Bardem’s amazing work ranks among the best of 2010, right up there with Colin Firth’s in The King’s Speech and James Franco’s in 127 Hours, but I don’t know if he’ll get as much as love from Oscar voters who might hesitate to sit through two and a half hours of such depressing stuff. With subtitles.

Set in a much uglier part of Barcelona than the Woody Allen movie about Vickie and Christina, Biutiful covers weighty themes such as spirituality, a father’s love, mortality, bipolarity, and the immigrant experience. Any of these topics could fill a whole movie but Iñárritu wanted to put them all in this one. I respect his ambition but the film ends up being rambling, with too much happening to too many characters, all of whom we’d care about more if only we get to spend more time with each. I often wanted to stay with Uxbal’s two children, heartbreakingly played by Hanaa Bouchaib and Guillermo Estrella (above), but instead got wrenched away to unnecessary scenes like Uxbal getting wasted in a nightclub or a clandestine gay love affair between two minor characters. Bardem does heavy lifting as the anchor and narrative throughline but he can only do so much.

After the screening I attended, Bardem came out to do Q&A and was a stark and welcome contrast to his character. The actor, looking healthy, handsome, and 10 years younger than Uxbal, bounced out onto the stage, full of energy and good humor. When the audience gave him a standing ovation for his performance, he said, “I’m not that old!” After confirming it was a SAG screening and he was in a room full of actors, his reaction was, “I’m in deep shit! I can’t pretend with you guys!”

Bardem spoke at length about his intense process for Biutiful, alternating between jokes and a serious sense of devotion to his craft. Some highlights:

  • The shoot was 5 months, 6 days a week, 14 hours a day with 3 months of prep before production started. Day 2 of shooting was the scene in which Uxbal received the bad news about his cancer and Iñárritu did many takes. “I died 100 times!” Maintaining that emotional state for so long made Bardem feel lost. It took him about 6 or 7 months after production wrapped to completely leave Uxbal behind. Reactions in his life were not his, they were Uxbal’s. He started feeling a little anxious, like his life was going too fast. “But it’s worth it,” said Bardem. “We don’t choose what we do; we need to.”
  • He was very concerned for the child actors who played his kids since they had to perform such sad scenes. He was often torn between staying in character and clowning around with them between scenes to lighten things up. But he eventually found the kids were okay “jumping in and out of the fiction.” It reminded him of playing during recess at school when he was 5. When the teacher said he had to go back to class, “I didn’t say, ‘Wait, I [need a moment] to leave my character behind.'”
  • In contrast, “On No Country for Old Men, I felt nothing and they gave me an Oscar! I was speaking English!”
  • He told a funny story about working “for six hours” with Michael Mann on Collateral, his first movie in English. Mann spoke in such a low voice, Bardem, already struggling with the language, had no idea what the director wanted. Too intimidated to ask Mann to repeat himself, Bardem would nod and do the scene. Mann would come over and say something else, again unintelligible to the actor. This went on for 30 takes before Mann finally said, “THAT’s what I wanted!”
  • In discussing Uxbal’s gift for communicating with spirits in the movie and whether he believed in such things, Bardem said his father died when the actor was 26. Bardem refused to believe he’ll never see his dad again but doesn’t believe in institutions that have created whole worlds after death. In his research, he spoke with three women who told him his father was present. They told him things his father would know, in ways his father would say them. But he didn’t want to give in “to give it too much power. We have to live life; everything is not written.”
  • He also talked to immigrants for research. They opened their homes to him and he stayed with them. It became an emotional experience for him, “not just an intellectual idea.”
  • When a woman from the audience asked him a question in Spanish, he jokingly translated by saying, “When am I going to do porno? They fired me!”
  • He enjoys watching his movies. “I like to watch my stupid big face on screen!”
  • Bardem’s mother is 71 and has been working as an actress since she was 15. His grandparents were actors during a time when they couldn’t be buried on sacred ground. “We are excellent prostitutes!” Bardem joked. His mother didn’t want him to be an actor “but at the end of the day, the only thing important is the work. Don’t buy anything when people tell you you’re great or you suck.”

Nerd verdict: Movie not so Biutiful but Bardem’s work is magnificent

Photos: Jose Haro

Share