25 October 2025

A Criminal’s Hierarchy of Crime, by Lisa De Nikolits


ALL ABOUT MOTIVATION!   Remember Maslow?  My colleague and pal Lisa has turned Maslow sideways and upside-down in this terrific chart that creates a parallel for our antagonists!  Illuminating for crime writers like us, but also lots of fun.  


by Lisa de Nikolits 

Imagine if Maslow had constructed  a Hierarchy of Crime instead of a Hierarchy of Needs.  Admittedly he didn't, but a hierarchy of criminal needs makes sense, right?

Crime. Gangsters. Drug running. con-games and con artists and those trying to outwit them. The darker side of life. The fascinating side of life. Real life, much stranger than fiction. What drives these criminals? What ladder of power do they climb. And what motivates them?

"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation..." (Thoreau) and he was correct but there are also those who lead  lives of quiet violence. And by quiet, I mean apart form the norm, below the surface, out of sight and unseen by the general suburban masses unless something mistakenly bubbles up to the surface, threatening to destroy the fiercely guarded status quo.

I often wonder about my own fascination with the dark side of life but life is dark. People are weird, inexplicably violent, and they are ever-creative in ways in which they perpetrate their evil deeds.

Which is why I plotted out a fictional Criminal's Hierarchy of Needs, based on the characters of  Mad Dog and the Sea Dragon, but universally applicable to all criminal activities and novels.  And Readers, I'd love your comments and insights - did I get it wrong?  What do you think?

I love watching true crime; The Dark Side of the Ring (VICE TV), Mafia: Most Wanted (CRAVE, Canada) and of course, Forensic Files, which shows ordinary people committing heinous crime and getting away with them for years.

And as much as there is crime, there is sometimes justice.  There is revenge, validation, vindication, and the happy-ever-after of the bad guys paying for their evil deeds. 

But justice doesn't always prevail which is a harsh reality that crime writers try to address.

Much like Once Upon A Time in Hollywood in which Tarantino rewrote the Tate-LaBianca murders, we can address social discrepancies, we can right wrongs, solve crimes, bring the bad guys (and gals) to their knees and deliver a far more satisfactory happy-ever-after which is cathartic for both readers and the writers. We can, from the safety of our own homes, process our fears, make sense of the world and bring justice.

If I'm plagued by an injustice or social inequality, I find the best solution is to write a book. It's the only way I can wrestle with the issue and bring it to a  resolution. Writing books is a form of political and social protest, a demonstration of our beliefs. It's our way of getting our voices out into the world on the backs of highly engaging vehicles that will entertain the readers and keep them guessing all the way.

Of course, there is the troubling matter of the truth. For example, will Tarantino's version of the Tate-LaBianca murders be remembered with more accuracy by generations to come than the brutal  truth?

As writers, we face many challenges.  How far can we change the narrative, Like Tarantino did? How can we avoid stereotyping criminals while also recognizing that some of the tropes exist for a reason. Is it possible to write noir crime without offending readers?

At the end of the day, apart from hate speech rhetoric, which has no place in this world, I say there are no holds barred as to what we can write. As creatgive, artistic people, it's our duty to rise about "quiet desperation" (or perhaps to delve into it and into what lies behind it and the lives of those desperately trying to escape.)

As writers we have a duty to explore everything in life; the good, the bad and ugly.

BIO:

Lisa de Nikolits is the award-winning author of eleven novels (twelve, with Mad Dog and the Sea Dragon) as well as numerous short stories and poetry, garnering five-star reviews and a strong international fanbase. Originally from South Africa, Canada has been her home since 2000. Forthcoming works include That Time I Killed You (2026, Level Best Books). She lives and writes in the Beaches in Toronto.

LINKS:  

Facebook author page:
https://www.facebook.com/lisadenikolitsauthor/

Twitter:
https://x.com/lisadenikolits

Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/ireadsomewherethatbylisa/

Author website:
https://lisawriter.com/



24 October 2025

Hollywood Kills


Filling in for me today is Alan Orloff, an award-winning author, skilled editor, and generous supporter of the writing community. I am deeply honored to be a contributor to his newest project.
— Stacy
Here's more on HOLLYWOOD KILLS.
***
Thanks, Stacy, for inviting me to guest blog today about an anthology that Adam Meyer and I co-edited called HOLLYWOOD KILLS (Level Best Books). And thanks, Stacy, for the terrific story you wrote for it!
— Alan Orloff

The Idea

Adam and I were at the Malice Domestic convention, chatting in the lobby. (FWIW, the lobby and the bar at writers conventions are where most great ideas are hatched.) We talked about putting together an anthology with a theme based around a movie. That morphed into a more general Hollywood theme, and after a few minutes batting around possibilities, we came up with the killer twist: All the stories would be written by industry insiders (show biz people!) featuring protagonists in roles that the contributors themselves had experience in. In other words, a screenwriter would write about a screenwriter, an actor would write about an actor, a stuntman would write about a stuntman, and so on.

The twist was uber cool, but it presented some challenges as we put together our list of invitees. We knew a lot of crime fiction writers, and we could have assembled a list thirty people long in ten minutes flat. But we needed people who had worked in the business. Immediately, I thought of Tom Hanks, but I was pretty sure he wasn’t available.

The Pitch

We wanted our stories to have a certain theme/tone: desperate people willing to go to extreme lengths to make it big in Hollywood. Here’s the spiel we used to solicit our invitees:

Over the years, the technology of entertainment has changed, but one thing has stayed the same: Hollywood is a place full of dreamers—from the wide-eyed actor hoping to land the role of a lifetime to the hard-working writer trying to sell that breakout script.

Whoever they are, these people have one thing in common—they are desperate to bring their dreams to fruition, hustling for opportunity, and willing to do anything to get to the next rung on the ladder. Legal or not.

These strivers are at the center of a collection of short stories by Hollywood insiders, who use their wealth of experience to turn fact into fiction. They offer a closeup look at the dark side of ambition with an all-star cast of schemers, dreamers, killers and con artists … and their stories will stick with you long after the credits roll.

L➙R Jon Lindstrom, Matt Goldman, Stacy Woodson,
Alan Orloff, Adam Meyer, Ellen Byron, Eric Beetner, John Shepphird

The Lineup

We knew a few writers with show biz experience (a number of whom were screenwriters, natch), so they were no-brainers to invite. Beyond that, we needed help, so we put out the word we were looking for potential contributors that met our narrow criteria. We were determined to have as wide an array of show biz jobs represented as possible.

Some of the more specialized roles were tricky. Did anyone know a Hollywood hairdresser who wanted to write a story? Makeup professional to the stars with an itch to pen a tale? What about a stunt driver who could write like Elmore Leonard? We tried to get creative—we even contacted several professional societies looking for recommendations (Did you know there was a Stuntwoman’s Association? There is!). Not all of our out-of-the-box ideas were fruitful, alas.

Slowly, we suckered enticed people to contribute. Now, while many of these people had great Hollywood experience, some did not have much (if any) short story writing experience. Adam and I realized that for these folks, we might have to wield a slightly heavier editorial pen.

And it was true: we got commitments from several industry veterans who didn’t have writing experience. Unfortunately, though, when it came time to actually put the proverbial pen to paper, some of these people ended up “decommitting.” Which left us scrambling a bit to fill their slots.

Best laid plans, and all that.

With some persistence, we finally assembled a killer lineup of contributors, whose roles ran the gamut: a producer, sitcom writer, character actor, entertainment lawyer, sound mixer, background actor, aspiring actor, stuntman, casting director, soap opera star, true crime writer, editor, director, production assistant, set caterer, and screenwriting team.

We ended up with three first-time short story writers, and they gave us some great work. Two of our stories were co-written, one of which was a story I co-wrote with my actor son (roles: young actor and desperate father). A definite highlight of my writing career!

We were thrilled (and mightily impressed) that our contributors had worked on such notable productions as Cheers, Seinfeld, Wings, General Hospital, Bosch, The Amazing Race, Boston Legal, Homeland, Just Shoot Me, Fairly Odd Parents, Snowfall, Spenser For Hire, True Detective, Ellen, America’s Most Wanted, Evil Kin, A Savage Nature, I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus, The Invasion, Young Guns, and more.

You’ll recognize many of the contributors from their screen credits: Jon Lindstrom, Gary Phillips, Phoef Sutton, Ellen Byron, Matt Goldman, Robert Rotstein, Wendall Thomas, Stacy Woodson, Tiffany Borders Plunkett, Kathryn O’Sullivan, Paul Awad, Teel James Glenn, Shawn Reilly Simmons, John Shepphird, Eric Beetner, Adam Meyer, Alan Orloff, and Stuart Orloff.

The Fires

Although this blog post dealt primarily with how the contributors were selected, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the California fires. More than half of our contributors currently live in the LA area, and they, along with everybody else, were affected by the wildfires, directly and indirectly. So, we decided that all contributor proceeds would be donated to the California Community Foundation Wildfire Recovery Fund. For a deeply personal take, I encourage you to read Ellen Byron’s moving introduction to the anthology.

If you’d like your very own copy of HOLLYWOOD KILLS, you can check it out here.




Alan Orloff (www.alanorloff.com) has published fourteen novels and more than sixty short stories. His work has won an Anthony, an Agatha, a Derringer, and two ITW Thriller Awards. He’s also been a finalist for the Shamus Award and has had a story selected for Best American Mystery Stories 2018. He’s adapted two of his novels into screenplays, and, man, is he desperate to make it big in Hollywood.




23 October 2025

The Tyrant Who Sold the Philosopher Plato Into Slavery


A few years back I wrote a series of brief biographical sketches collected in a volume entitled The Book of Ancient Bastards: 101 of the Worst Miscreants and Misdeeds from Ancinet Sumer to the Enlightenment. Now out of print (it is, in fact, the only one of my books not still in print), It remains one of my favorites from among my own work. This week I've decided to share the story from this book, of how an early poet–admittedly an incredibly powerful one–dealt with harsh criticism of his work.

Plato: you expect this guy to be fun at parties?
So here he is, Dionysius I, tyrant of Syracuse!

When Philosophers and Tyrants Don’t Mix (ca. 432–367 B.C.) 

[Dionysius], taking offence at something [Plato] said to him . . . ordered him to be brought into the common market-place, and there sold as a slave for five minas: but the philosophers (who consulted together on the matter) afterwards redeemed him, and sent him back to Greece, with this friendly advice. . . . That a philosopher should very rarely converse with tyrants.
—Diodorus Siculus, ancient Sicilian Greek geographer and historian 

If ever there was a piece of work who could prove single-handedly that one man holding all the levers of power is usually a lousy idea, it was that real piece of work, Dionysius I, tyrant of the Greek city-state of Syracuse in Sicily. Originally a government clerk, Dionysius rose through the ranks to ultimate power based on his ability as a political, diplomatic, and military strategist. To balance this out, he was also arbitrary, capricious, cruel, and (perhaps worst of all) harbored literary pretensions. 

Bear in mind that Dionysius was a tyrant in the ancient sense of the word (Note: in the ancient Greek world the word 'tyrant' didn't necessarily carry the negative connotation it does today. It simply referred to someone who control of a city by military force and used his troops to enforce his rule.). As such he was a military man, and particularly fearsome in battle. He’d lost an eye early in life, and as a result presented a ferocious image that struck terror in the hearts of his enemies. That terror was justified, as even in victory he could be a particularly ruthless bastard: In 386 B.C., Dionysius led his mercenary army in an attack on the Greek city of Rhegium (now Reggio, in southern Italy). After a protracted and bloody siege, the tyrant, who fancied himself a cultured and enlightened man, sold the entire population of the city into slavery. 


So this was the fearsome antagonist, ruthless conqueror and all-around rough guy, who also fancied himself both a poet and a philosopher, boasting “far more of his poems than of his successes in war,” according to Diodorus. Poetry being a big deal in the ancient world, and Dionysius being the big man on campus in Syracuse, he surrounded himself with other literary and intellectual types, including Plato, who, as described in the quote opening this chapter, got sold as a slave in the public market for speaking his mind in the presence of the philosopher-tyrant. 

In another example of why it’s a bad idea for a creative type to be bluntly open and honest with a benefactor possessing no discernable sense of humor, Dionysius asked the poet Philoxenus what he thought of Dionysius’s poetry. When Philoxenus answered candidly, Dionysius had him dragged off to work in the quarries. 

Dionysius regretted the action once he’d sobered up, freed Philoxenus the next day, then invited him to dinner again. The wine flowed (again) and Dionysius asked (again) what Philoxenus thought of his poetry. In response, Philoxenus told Dionysius’s servants to drag him off to the quarries. This time the tyrant laughed. 

From then on, and for the remainder of his time at Dionysius’s court, Philoxenus promised that he would give truthful criticism of the tyrant’s work while also never again offending him. He accomplished this by basically inventing the double entendre. Dionysius’s poetry, according to Diodorus, was “wretched,” and he had a taste for tragedy, so when Dionysius would declaim a poem with a sad subject, then ask Philoxenus what he thought about it, the poet would reply, “Pitiful!” 

Dionysius is reputed to have either been murdered by his doctors to make way for his son to succeed him or to have died of alcohol poisoning from having drunk too much celebrating a win by some of his poetry at a festival in Greece. Either way, neither Dionysius, nor his poetry, proved "deathless."

And Philoxenus? He eventually left Syracuse and went on to write his most famous and successful poem, a comic piece called Cyclops, about the ridiculous passion of the mythical one-eyed monster for a beautiful goddess. Most people assumed that he was making fun of his one-eyed former benefactor. 

If Dionysius wrote a poem about his feelings on the matter, it hasn’t survived.

22 October 2025

Sidney Reilly: The Bottom of the Deck


Although novelty has its rewards, one of the dividends of leafing through the streaming services, PBS Masterpiece, BritBox, Acorn, MHz, and so on, is rediscovering previous favorites, a few of which have held up pretty well.  One is Lovejoy, still lively and clever, Ian McShane very much a treat, as always; and another, if showing its age a bit, is Reilly: Ace of Spies, first broadcast on PBS in 1983.

Reilly was a risk for Thames Television, they’d never done a mini-series, but they got a good return, selling the show in every major market.  Although it’s been outpaced in the export market by Thomas the Tank Engine, Mr. Bean, and Benny Hill, it was a commercial success at the time, and it made Sam Neill a star. 

Sam Neill
Sam Neill

Sidney Reilly was a real guy, and while the scripts played a little loose with the facts, the storyline was in many ways less fanciful than the rake’s progress of Reilly’s life.  You could also be forgiven for playing up his charm, and playing down his murderous opportunism.  Reilly was written by Troy Kennedy Martin, based on a book by Robin Bruce Lockhart – Lockhart the son of R.H. Bruce Lockhart, a famous spy in his own right, resident in Moscow after the Bolsheviks came to power, and credibly linked to Sidney Reilly in a 1918 plot to assassinate Lenin.  Half the stuff Reilly got up to never even makes it into the TV show. 

He was born Rosenblum, in Odessa, in 1873.  Or not.  His given name was Sigmund, or Georgy, or Salomon.  He was the illegitimate son of Perla and Mikhail, fathered by the cuckold Mikhail’s cousin Grigory.  Or perhaps the last heir of a Polish-Jewish family with an estate at Bielsk, on the edge of empire, the frontier of Belarus and Poland.  He first shows up in official paperwork in 1892, eighteen or nineteen years old, when he’s arrested by the Okhrana, the secret police, for political indiscretions, and the best guess is that he turns informant to avoid jail time.  This shape-shifting is a pattern that emerges early.  He fakes his death, in Odessa, and beats feet for Brazil.  He claims to have saved the life of a British officer, who rewards him with a passport and 1500 pounds sterling, but when he shows up later in London, in 1895, the money may well have been stolen from two Italian anarchists on the train from Paris to Fontainbleau, who had their throats cut.  How much of this is fiction?  The two Italians are dead enough to make the local paper.  Sidney is clearly inventing himself as he goes along.  In the trade, this is known as a legend, creating a false biography for cover.  It might simply be convenience, but it seems to be a developing habit of mind, Sidney shedding his skin.

Reilly
Sidney Reilly


He takes a lover, Ethel Boole, later Voynich, who writes a roman à clef about him, The Gadfly, which goes on to enormous success, in Russia!  Because of her Russian émigré connections, it’s suggested Sidney was actually spying on her for Special Branch.  By this time, he’s gone undercover for Scotland Yard’s intelligence chief William Melville, and it’s Melville who comes up with his new cover identity, Sidney George Reilly.

He’s also gotten married.  His wife is the recent widow of a clergyman.  They’d been doing the horizontal mambo before the husband’s death; her husband changed his will a week before he died; his death was certified as influenza by a doctor resembling Sidney, and no inquest was held; the rev was buried thirty-six hours after he died.  The young woman inherited £800,000.  Sidney married her four months later. 

Reilly reconnoiters in the Caucasus, and here’s where the series first picks up his story.  He’s working for the Admiralty, but he’s also being paid by the Japanese, and he eventually shows up in Port Arthur, in Manchuria.  This is later on the first strike of the Japanese against the Russian navy – the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.  Reilly has gained the reputation of an international adventurer.  He makes a deal to secure Persian and Iraqi oil concessions for the Brits.  He infiltrates the Krupp works at Essen, and steals German armament plans.  He spends the war years in New York, selling weapons to both Germany and Russia, until the U.S. enters the war and embargoes the German market, and then the Russian Revolution deposes the tsar.  Sidney keeps an eye on American radicals, reporting to British military intelligence, and takes on some industrial espionage.  It gets him recommended to SIS, in London.

1918.  Sidney Reilly had come full circle, when the Secret Intelligence Service recruited him and sent him back to Russia.  His job was to assess and report on a chaotic situation.  Kerensky’s provisional government had fallen to the Bolsheviks six months before, but civil war had blown up between the Reds and the right-wing Whites.  Reilly immediately put his energies into a counter-revolutionary plot to murder Lenin and overthrow the Communists.  He had support from British Naval Intelligence, Lockhart, acting for the Foreign Office, and SIS.  Allied troops had landed at Archangel and Murmansk.  The coup looked plausible.  But it fell apart when a former anarchist, on her own, made a premature attempt on Lenin’s life, and the Cheka struck back savagely.  Feliks Dzerzhinsky, head of state security, had informants everywhere, and it’s been suggested - even by Lockhart – that Reilly could have been a provocateur, in Dzerzhinsky’s pocket.  Reilly, as it happens, bluffed his way out of Petrograd, and got to London by way of Helsinki.  Others weren’t so lucky.

Lenin, Stalin
Lenin, Stalin

He was back, not long after, assigned to reconnoiter the anti-Bolshevik forces in southern Russia, along with Capt. George Hill.  (Hill was another clandestine intelligence operative with nerves of steel and a price on his head, a celebrated agent in both world wars, who’d worked covert with Reilly in Moscow and Petrograd, and helped him escape to Finland.)  They attached themselves to Gen. Denikin’s army, which along with the Cossack cavalries, made up the White resistance in Ukraine and the Caucasus.  Reilly reported back to London that with Allied military support, the Whites stood a chance, but he probably didn’t have that much effect on British policy.  Reilly is really only a footnote in the White story, which is a sad and complicated narrative – well told, most recently, by Antony Beevor, in RUSSIA: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921 – but the problem for the Whites wasn’t half-hearted and inconsistent help from the West.  The problem was that they had no real internal consistency, themselves.  They opposed the Reds, but they were stitched together out of monarchists, and democratic socialists, and conservative Tsarist army officers, along with fanatic anti-Semitic reactionaries like the Black Hundreds.  It was a marriage of convenience, and an inconvenience to everybody it touched.

The most interesting part of Reilly’s story comes at the end, and his undoing came not through his own perfidy, slippery and unscrupulous as he was, but by keeping the faith.  The triumph of Bolshevism was never a foregone conclusion, they could have been strangled at birth, if their adversaries had been ruthless enough – it was Lenin who turned out to have the necessary iron in his pants – but there were a few who banked the fires, even as late as 1925, when the Communists were securely in control, and Stalin had succeeded to power.  One of these was Winston Churchill, who was at this point in and out of government, and another was Sidney Reilly.  Reilly took a meeting in Paris, accompanied by a representative of SIS, with a small cadre of White partisans.  The counter-revolutionaries in exile were disenfranchised, with little political leverage, and no credible intelligence sources inside Russia, but Reilly somehow convinced himself they could organize a grass-roots guerrilla campaign through their underground movement, the so-called Monarchist Union of Central Russia, known colloquially as the Trust. 

It was, of course, a trap.

Dzerzhinsky’s OGPU – the Cheka went by many different worknames, over the years – had developed the Trust as a long-term deception, loading it up with backstory, and peopling it with characters, like salting a worthless mine with gold nuggets.  They fabricated an alternate reality, where a stubborn resistance movement, burning with righteousness, held out against the Communist devils to bring back Holy Russia.  Utter poppycock, but it was constructed to lure in anti-Bolsheviks of exactly Reilly’s stripe, the unrepentant, who dreamt of turning back the wheel of history, and he fell for it.  Smuggled across the Finnish border, he was arrested two days later, the mission compromised from the outset.

Dzerzhinsky
Dzerzhinsky

He was interrogated at the Lubyanka, and after a couple of weeks, he was ready to give up any and all, regarding the American and UK spy services.  Even allowing for embroidery on Reilly’s part – the problem with enhanced interrogation being that the subject tells you what they think you most want to hear – this would have proved useful to Soviet espionage, but in spite of his obvious value to the Russian security apparat, he wasn’t persuasive enough.  There was that luckless conspiracy to assassinate Lenin, back in 1918.  It proved the final nail in his coffin.  Dzerzhinsky was overruled by Stalin.  Reilly was taken out and shot. 

The question most of us would ask is, Why did he go back, that last time?  He was never an idealist.  The answer seems to be that he heard what he wanted to hear.  He must have suspected, he knew he was a marked man, but he thought he still had the moves, that he could dazzle the crowds with his footwork.  And there was always the chance it was real, that the Trust was what they claimed, that the days of the Red Terror were numbered, and Sidney Reilly would be the man who frustrated their Destiny. 

Not every story we wish to be true is false, the fabled spy-hunter James Angleton once remarked.  He meant that a deception, to have legs, needs to be more than simply convincing; it needs an element of the unreachable, of the fantastic.  Reilly was drawn to the flame because he read his own story as myth.  A lesser man wouldn’t have believed it, and been able to save himself.

21 October 2025

It’s the End of the World as We Know It


After a troubling start to the year for writers of short crime fiction—Alfred Hitchcock’s Mystery Magazine and Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine changing ownership, leading to distribution delays for print issues; Level Best Books restructuring after a partner retired, causing delays in release dates for anthologies; Tough going on indefinite hiatus; and Sherlock Holmes Mystery Magazine changing to an annual publication focusing on Sherlock Holmes material and closing to other subgenres of crime fiction—mid-October brought a wave of distressing news: Down & Out Books, publishers of several anthologies each year, announced their closure; Unnerving Books, which published anthologies and a magazine, closed; and Black Cat Weekly announced that its last issue would be the 2026 Halloween issue unless someone takes over the publication.

There’s no good way to spin bad news. Except: Shit happens.

I’ve been writing short fiction professionally for half a century. I’ve seen genre markets contract—I’ve even seen an entire genre disappear—and I’ve seen new markets arise.

I lost three key mystery markets in the 1980s when Mike Shayne Mystery Magazine, Espionage Magazine, and the revived The Saint Magazine ceased publication. (I had multiple stories published in Mike Shayne and Espionage; had one accepted but not published by The Saint.)

I lost several magazine markets during the late 2000s and early 2010s as the rise of the internet led to the demise of several men’s magazines, and survivors reduced the amount of fiction they published.

Around the early 2010s, I lost several anthology markets when Cleis Press changed owners, and when StarBooks Press and Xcite Books ceased publication.

And I suffered significant loss when the last two confession magazines—True Confessions and True Story—shut down in 2017. (The confession genre had been good for multiple short story sales every month for years, but the entire genre disappeared after the last two magazines closed, leaving me with several unsold stories.)

After each of these setbacks, I took a deep breath, spent time studying the markets, and adjusted what I wrote and where I submitted. I persevered.

So, after you’ve cried in your beer or cursed the gods, or however you deal with setbacks, it’s time to get back to work.

It’s your writing career. Take charge of it.

SHINY HAPPY PEOPLE

Anyhow, in the middle of all this month’s bad news, I received some good news: I had two stories accepted—one for an anthology, one for a magazine—checked edits for a story upcoming in Dark Yonder, read page proofs for a story upcoming in Lunatic Fringe, and saw the cover for The Vigilante Crime Pulp Fiction Anthology, which contains one of my stories. I also reached an oral agreement with a publisher to take on the anthologies I had in the production pipeline at Down & Out Books.

* * *

“Black Velvet” appears in Lunatic Fringe (White City Press), edited by J. Alan Hartman.

“4:13 a.m.” appears in The Vigilante Crime Pulp Fiction Anthology (Vigilante Crime), edited by Matthew Louis and Philip M. Smith.

20 October 2025

Elementary.


             I’m always vaguely annoyed at the expression, “A picture is worth a thousand words.”  It raises a lot of questions.  I want to know if those thousand words adequately conveyed the same information as the picture.  Would a million words have done a better job?  How about a hundred?  And whose words anyway?  What if James Joyce described a painting by Claude Monet.  Would the result be an exact facsimile, of either the picture or the text?

             The problem is a picture is a picture and words are words.  Composers are always telling you their symphonies are renditions of literature, or historical events.  The 1812 Overture has lots of percussion and heavy brass, symbolizing canon fire and the like, but I bet the Russian soldiers defending Moscow would pick the timpani and cymbals any day over the real thing.  I’ve heard The Rite of Spring, and though I think the concertgoers who rioted over the symphony’s debut might have taken things a bit too far, it’s a pretty poor substitute for daffodils, butterflies and frolicking fawns. 

            I probably lack adequate imagination, but I prefer works of art to be judged by the distinctive, and irreplaceable, qualities of their form. The best film adaptations of books render both the story and emotional feel of the original, a real accomplishment.  I’d count the film versions of The English Patient and Mystic River among those that pulled it off.  But they’re not the books.  Doesn’t make one type of work any better than the other.  I’ve preferred some movies over their inspiration. Blade Runner, for example.  Philip K Dick was a genius, but his novella that spawned the movie is so so.  The movie’s a masterpiece. 


            The greater point is that these are separate works of art with the same title, each using a distinct form of media.  How lucky we are that such things exist.

            This is a long-winded introduction to the actual thought behind this post.  I’m thoroughly enjoying TV cop shows of late, in particular nearly anything on Brit Box, which exquisitely elevates the police procedural to it’s most riveting and involving expression.  And the British actors, with their precise speech, understated delivery and stiff upper lips, are ideally suited to the task.

            I’ve never read Anne Cleeves, whose books make for first-rate TV shows, and I’m sure she’s an excellent novelist.  But there are other Brit Box shows orchestrated by creator/writer/director/showrunners that are just as compelling and addictive.  Since I’m a partisan of the mystery writing gig, I’d make a case that mysteries are ideally suited to the TV series format.  They’re taut, contained and bursting with human drama.  The stakes are usually life and death, and the potential for moral hazard is endemic to the genre.  Police procedurals also trade in conflict between established power structures, intractable bureaucracies and tangled legal conundrums opposing the valor and hardheadedness of individual players.  Lone wolves, iconoclasts, denizens of the borderland between defending the law and vigilantism are its bread and butter.

            I don’t have to convince this audience that solving puzzles is the most satisfying of intellectual pursuits.  Brit Box serves up theirs as a dish both precisely calibrated and piquant.  While never shying from a gruesome murder scene, or burst of violence when called for, the point isn’t the action, but rather the shrewd doggedness of its protagonists.  Modern technology is ever present, though in the service of the quest, never an end in itself.  The heroes are physically brave, though their courage is more manifestly moral.  I’m not immune to the charms of a good shoot-em-up, but having the fastest gun or most effective right hook is the shallowest of heroic accomplishments.  In all this, the British have the proper sensibility.

And if in the midst of the highest drama and ugliest of dilemmas someone has the good sense to put the kettle on, I’m fine with that.

19 October 2025

A Head in a Jar


Head in a Jar
head in a jar version 1.0

Each month, we SleuthSayers exchange an internal letter, usually light-hearted nonsense in which we celebrate Rob’s dashing out another schedule to keep wheels and cogs moving behind the scenes. I happened to mention creating a head in a jar for a beautiful friend with an October birthday and a Día de los Muertos fetish.

Janice and, umm… was it Eve? … touched upon it, which gave me the idea of showing how you can make your own jarhead (not to be confused with the United States Marines). I’ll include suggestions how you might improve upon my design.

I’ve made props before for Halloween and a Jacob’s Ladder (that spark-buzzing thing in all the classic horror movies) used at the Terror on Church Street attraction. I displayed one prop in a previous SleuthSayers article.

I’ve been thinking about a head in a jar for some time and even bought a pair of 2-gallon (8 litres) glass picnic jugs, the kind you load with lemonade and has a spigot, convenient because wiring can be threaded through the hole machined for the valve stem. After pondering how I might float a brain in a jar, I concluded actual liquid in the container would become a maintenance nightmare. My solution is no solution– that is, find a coating that would give the impression of a liquid medium without using water (or formaldehyde).

In the meantime, my eye and appetite were drawn to large plastic jars at Walmart stuffed with delicious cheese balls similar to delicious puffy Cheetos. And that raised the notion of creating a preliminary head in a jar, a prototype before attempting a more ambitious floating brain.

An unfortunate fact of life is that heads to use in jars are difficult to procure since the sad passing of Burke and Hare. Finding brains in this political era is even more difficult, so I settled upon a rubber Halloween mask, available from Amazon. At least they said it was latex… it had an odd texture and a horrible smell, and a mole near the ear had hair sprouting from it. Anyway, click the following pictures to enlarge them.

Parts List

delicious cheese balls
Jar
At Walmart or Sam’s Club, look for delicious giant size Utz Cheese Balls. Your jug won’t look quite like mine because the company somewhat squared their packaging design immediately after my purchase. Funny thing– the new containers contain 18% less product.
23oz delicious cheese balls
The project is nearly the same, but you can give Utz hell for inconveniencing those of us who stuff heads into bottles. In the meantime, feed your children 18% fewer delicious cheese balls and carefully peel off the label. Lick delicious cheese ball crumbs from your fingers and wash out the jar.
mask
Mask
Besides buying the last cylindrical Utz jug from Sam’s and Walmart, I apparently bought the last mask of its kind from Amazon. That’s okay. The damned mask they sent is huge and a smaller size might look better. Also the mask really did stink to high heaven. I set it out as the flesh cured… Er, I mean as polymer vapors floated away.
mask
Ping-Pong Balls
Ordinary tennis table balls were part of the plan, but Amazon happened to carry inexpensive glow-in-the-dark balls. Hey, why not? Perfect. When I was a grade school mad scientist (I’m not kidding), I used 3-ring binder reinforcement discs to create irises on ping-pong balls, but here I chose to leave these eyes blank giving a washed out stare.
mask
Duct Tape
Useful against those who change their minds about donating their, well, their minds, I ordered duct tape from Amazon for the sole purpose of positioning the ping-pong eyes inside the mask. Any nearby bodies featuring duct tape constitutes mere coincidence.
mask
Polyester
The same stuff (or stuffing) used in pillows, cushions, and rag dolls can also be used to fill out the hollow cheeks of corpses lying in state. Really. Seven ounces (200g) was good enough for my model. Once again, Amazon carried the day.
mask
Ballast
The mask was so big, I needn’t worry about it flopping around, but I wanted to mount it stably. I didn’t want to spend a lot of time or money to create a form, but I grabbed a cylinder of baby butt wipes, about the diameter I needed. Even a can of peaches would have worked.

DIY

The plan called for positioning the container upside down for a dome effect. I’d considered using a styrofoam head like hair salon beauty schools use, but the protrusion of the nose prevented sliding the form into the jar. At that point, I switched gears and opted for a latex mask.

From inside the mask, I duct taped ping pong balls into the eye sockets. I considered drilling LEDs into the rear of the eyeballs, but the glow-in-the-dark ping-pong should suffice. I considered using heavy black thread to sew the lips, but I left that decision to the recipient. I had no idea if the device would outlast the season.

Polyester rounded out the cranium of the mask, and I worked more fiberfill around the ballast canister as I slid it into place. The nose tended to flatten, but weird creases and crevices only served to make the head look like it came from a decaying body. Neighbors began whispering the mask might conceal a real head, which would have been simply ludicrous if obnoxious Mr. Sauersnorkle hadn’t gone missing two days earlier and subsequently his widow brought me a generous tray of cookies. 

head in the dark

With mask, polyester padding, and ballast in place, I could just slip my hand inside the jar opening to push uncooperative bits into place. After taking the first photo above, I tucked in the dangling material seen on either side of the neck. Perfection took distant second place to [sur]realism. Once satisfied, I replaced the top and turned the gadget over, resting it on the lid.

The polyester had arrived in a cloth pouch sealed in a plastic packet. The pouch happened to precisely match the height and circumference of the jug, making it a perfect dust cover.

The head-in-a-jar seemed welcomed at the pre-Halloween birthday bash, but oddly, no one wanted to store the gizmo in their bedchambers, not the birthday girl, not her boyfriend, not her son, not her mother, not even Widow Sauersnorkle. Should I be offended?

18 October 2025

Deja Vu All Over Again


  

NOTE: Today I'm posting, mostly because of laziness, a modified version of a column I posted here at SleuthSayers almost 14 years ago. And since I'm recycling it, its title should probably be "Deja Vu All Over Again, All Over Again." But I'll leave well enough alone. Here goes . . .


Some time ago, I heard a newsman on National Public Radio say that someone "shared this in common" with someone else. That wording bothered me. (Not enough to make me move the dial to a rap or gospel music station, but it did bother me.) I've forgotten exactly who he said was sharing something in common with whom, but--to use an example--if you and your father are both baseball fans, you either share a love of baseball with your father or you and your father have that in common. You don't share it in common, and if you say you do, you've created a redundancy

This kind of error can probably be forgiven more easily in speech than in writing. We writers are supposed to know better. (And so are NPR newscasters.) Not that I am guiltless. Right here in this blog, I can remember using the term added bonus--which is a little silly. If it's a bonus, it is by definition added, so to use both words is redundant. And in real life I'm always talking about something happening the exact same way it happened earlier. Other phrases I use a lot are final outcome, plan ahead, and free gift. Imagine how much time I could save and how much smarter I could sound if I cut out the words exact, final, ahead, and free.

Alternative choices

I know what you're thinking. Sometimes phrases containing redundancies are used intentionally, to add emphasis. Examples: completely surrounded, truly sincere, each and every, definite decision, cease and desist, direct confrontation, forever and ever, and so on. Redundancies also come into play when using certain abbreviations, like UPC code, HIV virus, please RSVP, iOS operating system, and AC current. My favorite is PIN number. But I still use the term. The technically correct PI number just wouldn't roll well off the tongue, unless maybe you're referring to a phonebook listing for Philip Marlowe, or how many peach cobblers your aunt Bertha made this year.

A working awareness of this kind of thing can be handy to writers, because cutting out redundancies provides us with another way to "write tight." An argument can even be made that such common and inoffensive phrases as sit down, stand up, nod your head, or shrug your shoulders are literary overkill as well, and do nothing except add extra work. Why not just say (or write) sit, stand, nod, and shrug? Where else would you stand but up? What else would you shrug except your shoulders? (Wait, don't answer that.)


Unintentional Mistakes

Even if you're not a writer, here are a few more redundancies that come to mind:


twelve noon

sum total

commute back and forth

mental telepathy

advance reservations

drowned to death

merge together

observe by watching

armed gunman

visible to the eye

hot-water heater

overexaggerate

false pretense

hollow tube

disappear from sight

myself personally

a future prediction 

safe haven

during the course of

regular routine

a variety of different items

filled to capacity

pre-recorded

a pair of twins

unexpected surprise*

the reason is because

originally created

red in color

few in number

poisonous venom


* could also mean a pair of twins


Do you ever find yourself using these (or similar) phrases when you speak? More importantly, do you embarrass yourself by using them when you write? I try to watch for, and correct, them in my own manuscript, but I'm sure some of them manage to make it through intact. Can you think of others I forgot to mention? Are there any that you find particularly irritating?

The end result

Time for a confession: I will probably (and happily) continue to use many of these redundancies in everyday conversation, and even in writing if they're a part of dialogue. Sometimes they just "sound right." But I wouldn't want to use them in a column like this one.

In point of fact, lest any of you protest against forward progress, past history reveals an unconfirmed rumor that a knowledge of repetitious redundancy is an absolute, necessary essential, and that the issue might possibly grow in size to be a difficult dilemma. If there are any questions about the basic fundamentals, I'll be glad to revert back and spell it out in detail. And even repeat it again.

Or maybe postpone it until later.

I'll close with a quote from my fellow SleuthSayer Robert Lopresti: "This program was brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department, which brought you this program."