I've been a huge fan of Agent Aloysius Pendergast ever since I caught the movie based on the first book—Relic. For that reason, I was willing to accept the digression into his personal quest to discover who murdered his wife in Fever Dream. His obsession with the matter is something not unexpected, given his nature, and the book itself at least offers an interesting medical thriller involving John James Audubon and parrots. If the cliffhanger ending was a bit less than effective for anyone who knows Pendergast, it was forgivable.

Unfortunately, in the continuation of that saga, there are so many contrivances to keep the story moving, many of them directly contradictory to what we know of our hero, that for established fans this is bound to be a disappointment. The problem is that discussing them in any detail will result in multiple spoilers, something I won’t do.

To begin with, we know Pendergast had to know going in that the trip to Scotland proposed by his brother-in-law was a trap, yet for some reason he wasn't intelligent enough to wear the bulletproof vest he did remember to put on later in the book. To further complicate matters, the authors have reintroduced a character from one of the earlier books whose only reason for existence appears to be to get into trouble and, perhaps, giving us someone else to worry about until the next book comes out

Then there is the conclusion—one can’t call it an ending, since it’s another cliffhanger—which is clearly set up for precisely that purpose, and which requires behavior so totally out of character for even an average law enforcement officer that one is tempted to wonder if Pendergast has suffered severe brain damage as a result of his previous injuries.

This isn’t to say there aren’t good moments, and there are some great action scenes. Also, a surprise development introduced in Fever Dream receives another hint that all is not what it seems. Granted, that, too, was no doubt assumed by longtime fans. I suspect therein lies the problem with a long-term series—the faithful know the characters so well it’s all but impossible to convince them those characters will behave in a, well, non-characteristic manner.

Overall, although the underlying conspiracy theme of the book has potential, I’ve ceased to care what really happened to Helen Pendergast. As endearing as Pendergast’s search for his lost soul mate might be, it really doesn't have enough meat to it to support three novels. One can only hope that the barely discernible suggestion she has some importance to the new conspiracy will evolve into something stronger. As it stands, she comes across as mostly a useful tool for keeping things moving.

As a writer, I can well imagine that after this many episodes in the Pendergast saga Preston and Child may be getting a little burned out. I noticed the same problem with F. Paul Wilson’s Repairman Jack series, the last one of which suffered from the same problems exhibited by this book. Preston and Child released what will probably be the first in a new series that shows some potential, although I found the protagonist rather lacked the qualities that make for a character able to support a series. On the other hand, Gabriel does have lots of room to grow.

So, although fans of the series should probably read this one and probably will for the same reason I did, it definitely lacks the quality of the previous installments. I think we’re hoping that what now appear to be weaknesses in execution are, in fact, leading us in directions other than the ones we believe we’re going.

Add a Comment

I've been gone forever--last post was the Dan Brown book review. Not that I haven't thought of a ton of things to say, but our publishing schedule this year is twice the normal, what with new editions of authors' backlist titles and trying to make up for the unintentionally abbreviated schedules the last three or four years.

On top of that, I chaired this year's ArmadilloCon here in Austin, which was fun but a major time-suck in August. So now, like the Red Queen in Through the Looking Glass, I'm running twice as fast just to stay in place.


I'm really excited about our most recent new books. First was the English translation of Dutch author M.W. Maryson's award-winning Unmagician trilogy, The Towers of Romander. Although I'm as fond of fast-paced fantasy as anyone, sometimes it's nice to kick back and enjoy a book where things travel at a more leisurely pace, a welcome characteristic of much European speculative fiction.

In this case, it's by sea on a watery world where an ancient evil is rising to devour everything. Literally. And the only one who can apparently stop it is a boy with no magical talents at all. You can sample it here.



Then, for something completely different, came Toto's Tale, which is just what you'd expect from the title--The Wonderful Wizard of Oz from the dog's point of view. This delightful take on the classic story was co-written by historical romance author Kate Dolan, as K. D. Hays, and her then-11-year-old daughter Meg Weidman. The hugely talented April Martinez did the cover and illustrations, and noted SF writer Catherine Asaro contributed an introduction. We're planning some fun with this one. Check it out.

And just out this week, a strange little debut novel by Alex O'Meara, Bad Day for the Home Team, which explores the question What makes an average guy murder 40 strangers then kill himself? Deeply ironic, and just a bit creepy, O'Meara's dead mass murderer follows a police detective, an ambitious reporter and his own brother, trying to find out himself why he did what he did. The answer he discovers may say more about us than it does about him. Sample Bad Day for the Home Team.

Add a Comment

Dan Brown has achieved what every writer of fiction, if he or she is honest, both desires and envies. He managed, with The DaVinci Code, to stir up controversy and lawsuits that were covered by the press at great length, driving sales into the stratosphere.

That Mr. Brown is a moderately talented writer and that his book had nothing to distinguish it other than a controversial theme and breakneck pacing mattered not a bit. People raved about what a great book it was.

It wasn’t. Neither is this one. In fact, The Lost Symbol is essentially The DaVinci Code rewritten to encompass a new topic--Freemasonry in American history--and a new location, Washington DC. Other than that, it’s pretty much the same tale, with the same stock characters.

Somewhat ironically, Zumaya Enigma, our mystery/suspense imprint, released a true crime book at about the same time this one came out that actually has a basis in Freemasonry and the occult: Unveiling the Enigma: Who Stole the Hands of Juan Peron?

Let me be clear. I’m aware there are thousands, if not millions, of people who consider Mr. Brown and his works to be the superb reading material. I don’t happen to be among them, because I prefer my plots have some basis in reality and the characters who deal with them (a) be interesting and three-dimensional and (b) not pause in the middle of a hair-raising situation to expound on some academic/esoteric topic because that information is the only thing driving the plot. That Mr. Brown’s villain, in this case, might have been extracted from any of a dozen SyFy Channel B-movies doesn’t help.

So, if you can put up with the mind-numbing lectures on Freemasonry, American history and architecture, you’ll probably have a fairly good time reading this latest adventure. On the other hand, there’s a new Dean Koontz out, and Stephen King’s Under the Dome, which I’ll be discussing as soon as I get through it.

Add a Comment

 

The challenge with trying to review a book by the inimitable Terry Pratchett is finding something to say that hasn’t already been said. The man’s unquestionable skill as a writer and the extensive body of his work makes it all but impossible to say anything about a new addition that hasn’t already been said—often.

I had the pleasure of receiving an advance copy of the newest Pratchett, Unseen Academicals, from the publisher, Harper. And trust me, it was very much a pleasure because once again Mr. Pratchett has cast his sharp eye and even sharper critical skills on two cultural phenomena that cry out for both--organized sports and the groves of academe.

Frequent visitors to Discworld are familiar with Unseen University, where the best of the world’s wizards, warlocks, sorcerers and magicians impart their wisdom whenever unable to avoid doing so and occupy the remainder of their time ensuring they do not suffer from malnutrition or lack of beverages suitable to accompany their comestibles.

In the mean streets of Ankh-Morpork, meanwhile, the citizenry engages in what passes for regular games of foot-the-ball, a game of long standing which leaves few of its players in the same position. In fact, football, as played in Ankh-Morpork, is essentially a gang war with cheerleaders.

It would seem these two societies would never have occasion to meet, but that’s not how Mr. Pratchett works. No, in Unseen Academicals, the faculty of UU are informed their steady supply of dining pleasure is based on an endowment that requires the university engage in a sports competition at least once every twenty years or lose their funding. And the twenty years since the last engagement are just about up.

The quartet whom we follow through the madness that follows are an engaging and eclectic group: Trevor Lively, whose late father was the last man to score four times in a game--and was killed in the process; Nutt, an alleged goblin who works with Trevor in the cellars of UU as a candle-dripper; Glenda Silverbean, the supervisor of the UU Night Kitchen, and her beautiful if not terribly bright neighbor, Juliet Stollop.

Add a Comment

“Are those of us who express views that offend others now responsible for the actions of the offended?” (Sherry Jones, Publishing Perspectives, 8.21.09, responding to decision by Yale University Press to exclude controversial editorial cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed in a book about said controversy)

No one is ready and willing to defend the right to free speech more than I am. However, this statement by Ms. Jones is, to me, a prime example of when commitment to a principal not only steps outside the boundaries of common sense but suggests a certain lack of good manners with regard to the feelings of others.

You see, my response to that rhetorical question is: Yes, we most certainly are, if we know that response could result in harm to others. I have historical precedent for that statement.

It’s said that Henry II, frustrated beyond reason by opposition from his former friend the Archbishop of Canterbury, muttered within earshot of some of his men “Will no one relieve me of this troublesome priest?” Happy to oblige, they promptly stabbed Thomas a Becket before the altar of Canterbury Cathedral.

History also records that Henry accepted a humiliating penance, taking full responsibility for the death of Becket. Whether or not he actually believed he deserved to be punished only he knows. However, the point is made: we are, indeed, responsible for what we say or write if it results in someone being hurt or killed.

Yale Press made its decision after consulting both publishing and security experts, and chose not to republish the cartoons in the book in question because they were concerned, and for good reason, that doing so could incite violence. There was, in fact, violence engendered when the drawings first appeared as well as during the heated debate that followed over whether they should have been printed in the first place, given the current global political situation. Some time later, a major publisher chose to cancel publication of an equally controversial historical novel by Ms. Jones in which the wife of Mohammed was portrayed in a way those same devout Muslims would have found offensive.

Both times, the give-me-free-speech-or-give-me-death contingent screamed foul, and defended the position that choosing not to publish something that is established would offend a particular group is censorship and nothing short of cowardice.

This is the response of people safely ensconced in a country where sudden death at the hands of a suicide bomber isn’t a daily occurrence. It’s an intellectual argument that refuses to take the reality of our modern world into consideration despite the sharp image of the Twin Towers crumbling into dust.

Would these same people leave a bottle of sleeping pills where a suicidal person would be sure to find them? That’s different, you say? Not really.

To a devout Muslim, an image of the Prophet is blasphemy. It is to them no different than painting a swastika on a synagogue or performing a black mass in a church. To use that image in the way it was done in the Danish cartoons is so offensive there are no words adequate to describe it. What can possibly be served, then, by deliberately reproducing them many thousand times more than they already have been?

Censorship is a terrible thing. However, the word and the concept are diluted and cheapened when they are applied indiscriminately and without regard to the fact we are, in fact, responsible for what results from what we say and write. Yale University Press has decided there’s nothing to be gained by offending millions of people yet again and, perhaps, more to lose than they wish to be responsible for.

Where I come from, that’s called courtesy, not censorship.

Ms. Jones cites the support of Peter Mayer for Salmon Rushdie's The Satanic Verses and the fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Apparently, the fact an innocent person--the book's Japanese translator--was killed for that decision, which it should be noted he had no choice in making, is mere collateral damage, as were injuries suffered by others for the cause. That kind of total disregard for the human factor in order to proclaim one's commitment to a principal is fine.

Principles are important. Sometimes, they're more important than people. However, the people they're more important than should have the right to choose whether they want to sacrifice themselves for the cause. The cemeteries and mass graves of the world are full of those caught in the crossfire when a battle over a principle exploded.

Sometimes, there is no choice. One has to defend free speech or some other inherent right without compromise. Choosing to publish or not publish a drawing, the absence of which in no way detracts from the content of the book that discusses it, doesn't fall into that category.

Add a Comment

Teaser Tuesdays were created by MizB, book review maven of Should Be Reading. For more great reading suggestions, visit and see what others recommend for your TBR pile.

I am not God. Nor am I a goddess nor the Lord nor the Supreme Being. I am not the Creator. I am not the Divine Spark, nor the Ultimate Entity that runs the show. I am certainly not the Cosmic Big Kahuna.
I am a cube of orange-colored gelatin the size of an average throw pillow.

From the Introduction: Milky Way Marmalade by Michael DiCerto

Add a Comment

R. J. Leahy's bestselling, award-nominated SF novel TIGRA is being serialized on Zumaya Publications' MySpace blog: http://www.myspace.com/zumayabooks. We're offering the book in preparation for the release next week of the sequel, THE OBSIDIAN SEED.

If you love military SF and kick-ass heroines, stop by and see what TIGRA HAS TO OFFER.

Add a Comment

Who else but Mame Dennis? In a world where we're constantly reminded that we have to be practical and serious, Auntie Mame is a bright light that illuminates all the possibilities that lie outside those limits. Who better to have with you when all everything seems to be at its worst?

Add a Comment

JOIN CHESTER AARON THIS SUNDAY ON PODCAST RADIO

Judy Gregerson hosts Zumayan Chester Aaron, internationally known expert on garlic and award-winning author of Garlic Kisses, Whispers and Willa's Poppy on Sunday, 10 August, at 2 p.m. on her Podcast radio program The Real Connection.

Join Judy and Chester by signing in at The Real Connection for THE MANY FACES OF SURVIVAL.

Dachau Liberator, medical whistle-blower, award winning writer, college professor and world renowned garlic farmer, Chester Aaron talks about the hard choices he’s had to make, why he made them, and how it’s changed his life.

Mr. Aaron was recognized by the National Endowment for the Arts, and received the Huntington Hartford Foundation fellowship, which was chaired by Aldous Huxley and Thomas Mann. He also inspired Ralph Nader to expose the over-radiation of blacks in American hospitals.

Now Mr. Aaron is a world-renowned garlic farmer who spends his days writing about the liberation of Dachau. He is 86 years old and he has a thousand stories to tell. Although he has published more than 17 books, he is still writing more and looks forward to publishing again soon.

Add a Comment

Want to have some fun? Spend six months as the acquisitions editor for a small press, preferably one that uses inventory-free printing, and discover why it is that the guidelines on the Zumaya Publications website are what a few have referred to as nasty, controlling, anal retentive--and those are just the ones suitable for family viewing. I had one author advise me he was going to go into the forest and pray to his Native American ancestors to infect me with a plague of boils and such other awful afflictions I would cry out for death.

Hasn't happened yet--must be my nature spirits outrank his.
At first, I was inclined to think it was just that, like Rodney Dangerfield, we digital publishers couldn't get no respect. However, as I talk to other people involved in the publishing industry on the business side, it seems there is plenty of cluelessness to go around. Given how competitive it is trying to get published, why would any aspiring author deliberately alienate someone who might, given the right manuscript, help them achieve their goal?

Are you in publishing? Got a good war story to tell? Want to share it? Can you beat being threatened with the wrath of Native American demons?

Add a Comment

Once again the blogosphere is alive with speculation about the new Amazon policy that POD books to be sold via their main channel must be printed via Booksurge. And once again, the quantity of bad information, false information and ignorance of precisely what a monopoly is and how restraint of trade is defined inflates like the Blob after a meal of theater-goers.

For those who've been on Mars for the last few months--you lucky devils--some months ago Amazon began contacting major vendors who produce print books on-demand and who don't use Amazon's own printing arm, Booksurge, advising them that unless they did start using Booksurge they would no longer have an active Add to Cart button on their merchandise and, thus, said merchandise wouldn't qualify for free shipping.

Let it be said that Amazon has a serious problem with customer relations, and it's unfortunate. They persist in trying to bully people, which is stupid. But I digress.

There are several perfectly valid reasons for the new policy. Many of those contacted utilize Lightning Source, the Ingram-owned on-demand printing service, because it's the only way you can get a POD book into the Ingram database without meeting some extremely difficult criteria. Note that when Ingram made that choice 4-5 years ago nobody said beans. Amazon, to that point, apparently had a contract whereby they would transmit an order to LSI and LSI would package the order in Amazon boxes and drop-ship. This has been utilized by the Amazon-as-ogre crowd as proof there's no good reason for Amazon to want to change things. I can only assume they're under the misapprehension LSI provided this service for free, which I find difficult to believe.

Over the course of the last year or so, Amazon has installed printing equipment identical to that used by both LSI and Booksurge in their main warehouses. The point, of course, is that they can thus print any POD book as needed--the way POD is supposed to work--and ship it almost immediately. Should there be other, warehoused items in the same order, they can ship one package instead of two, saving postage costs. Which, when the customer isn't paying for same, can add up to a considerable amount even using Media Mail.

So, logically, Amazon decided it made more sense to print those books on THEIR machines instead of paying someone else to do it. The trouble is, of course, that unless they could work out a deal with LSI to share files (something LSI arranged with the makers of the Espresso machine the same week as the Amazon flap started), the only option was to have the vendors sign a contract with Booksurge that would then give Amazon legal right to print the books.

The people they first approached were the major users: Authorhouse, Publish America, Lulu...and Booklocker. The first three have since come to an arrangement with Amazon. Likely, they are even saving money by allowing direct printing of their/their clients' books under the Booksurge canopy.

The real crux of the matter, however, has nothing to do with either printing cost or quality, although both have incorrectly been cited as reasons for objecting to Booksurge. We've been using Booksurge since back when they were still Digitz, and have watched the quality of their output improve as the technology has. We've also seen instances where single occasions of some flaw have been made to sound as if they were universally true, have listened to people deliberately looking for reasons to complain claim to have found them and have ourselves had no reason to complain of either the quality of their work or their customer service. We feel the same way about Lightning Source. Both are professional-caliber businesses, and we have nothing but praise for both.

So, to return to my topic, what IS the crux of the matter?

Money. The majority of those screaming the loudest about the new Amazon policy are those who refused to give the standard industry discount on their books. To give bookstores the standard discount of 40% via LSI, you have to agree to a 55% total discount. This, if you price your books competitively, means the return on each sale is quite low. In order to make more money, then, subsidy-published and self-published POD users were only listing discounts of 20-30% with LSI. That means any retailer who ordered that book was getting no more than 5-15% discount.

Which, as an aside, is why Amazon was their main vendor channel. No bookstore is going to even look at ordering a book with that level of discount for shelving.

Amazon routinely discounts books. It's one of their selling points. So, let's say they get an order for a POD book that is listed on their website for $15 retail. Their standard discount is 20%, so they're selling that book for $12. The book is printed at LSI, and the publisher has listed a 30% discount. Half of that goes to LSI/Ingram. So, when Amazon orders a copy, they'll pay retail less 15%, or $12.75.

They've already lost $.75.

But let's say they don't discount that book, and the purchaser pays the full $15. The book costs Amazon $12.75, leaving $2.25 gross profit on the sale. Except that book is the only POD book in the order, which has qualified for free shipping. Again, let's assume the order was all books: four paperbacks weighing a total of three pounds (deducting the weight of the POD book). Amazon pays $2.93 to ship the three-book package from their warehouse...and, presumably, another $2.23 minimum for LSI to ship the fourth book.

So, Amazon has now LOST $2.91 on that sale. If the book was discounted, they've lost $3.66. And even if they were able to ship all four books from their warehouse, they either made mere pennies on the transaction or barely broke even. Which would be fine if they didn't have any expenses for providing this charitable service.

I grant you, all of the above is speculation, and Amazon isn't going to release that kind of information any more than any other company would. The point I've been trying to make since this whole thing started is that the people complaining the loudest, based on what they've said on public forums all over the internet, are the ones who have not only been getting a free ride for the last few years but have, in some cases, been forcing Amazon to subsidize their business. Amazon, which has been losing money because of their various free shipping programs for years, finally decided they weren't going to do that anymore.

And offered a viable alternative that would benefit both parties. And gave the other party the option to choose which of the available channels they would have access to.

None of the publishers and authors who are now screaming Amazon is forcing them out of business are being forced out of business. Forced to make a choice, yes, but that's not the same thing. That's not restraint of trade. No vendor is required by law to carry all the merchandise available to it, no matter how large they are. Nor is it a monopoly, because Amazon hasn't said people must switch to Booksurge and abandon their other printer(s).

And a lawsuit isn't a lawsuit until a court says it is, which means a judge gets to decide whether the one filed by Booklocker and lately supported by SPAN has sufficient evidential merit to become more than a paper complaint. Until then, there's no monopoly, no restraint of trade and no anti-trust behavior, no matter how many people would like it to be so.

Which Amazon is NOT required to do.

Add a Comment