Murder She Writes

Rocki’s post on Tuesday asking if there was a double-standard in romance elicited a groundswell of responses from MSW readers. Some of the comments were particularly noteworthy, so I’d suggest if you haven’t read the blog you do so.

The primary theme of the blog was whether readers had a double standard in romance vis-a-vis the hero and heroine. That heroines are held to a higher standard than heroes. We forgive heroes for sleeping around, playing the field, having oodles of sexual experience–but if the heroine has more than one or two lovers (and they should be steady lovers, perhaps even a fiance thrown in there, because that would make having sex more acceptable for our heroines) then readers turn on her. That slut.

Heroines can be brave, but they can’t be proactive in a dangerous situation otherwise they are deemed TSTL. A hero, on the other hand, who runs into a burning building to save a child is, well, a hero.

The comments to Rocki’s post were also interesting, highlighting how women treat women. The cattiness. The backstabbing. The backhanded compliments (that Lori discussed yesterday.) I did remember a slight that had been irritating me–but it was directed at my oldest daughter. Katie is an athlete. She has a great body, is physically fit, has defined muscles, and has practice or works out daily. One of her closest friends is always making comments about Katie’s weight, either implying or outright stating that she’s “fat” or “chunky.” WTF? Fortunately, my daughter is far too confident and grounded to believe it, but it irritates her.

And I can’t help wonder why this non-violent aggression by women to women exists. I could cite examples, but we all have them, don’t we? Times where we’ve given, times where we’ve received. There were several comments that struck home to me:

AMALIA: I would suggest that it is perhaps instinctive for women to appreciate the Alpha male. Also, by that same logic, perhaps the problem we have with strong Heroines is that they are Competition for the best protection/food supply. If they simper, we know we can elbow them out of the way and take over!

ALY: I can only echo what so many have already said about women being the worst critics of other women. Think about the constant argument of Working vs. SAH moms. These arguments get so vicious! And instead of just agreeing to disagree or finding some common ground, the women have to beat each other down. Unfortunately, I think because women have had to fight for so much for so long, that we no longer see other women as comrades in our fight but as enemies that are in our way. And in my opinion, this fracture has helped perpetuate the double standard.

LORI: Women. NEVER men. Let me repeat that. I’ve NEVER had a man approach me and say, “Gee, I really liked the book, but I wish your character wouldn’t swear so much. Or drink so much. Or pistol whip people so much.”

I also found it interesting that Rocki, and most of the commenters who write, have a harder time with their heroine than their heroes (those who write romances.) I don’t. My heroines are so much easier for me. So I started thinking about why that was.

Sophie and Lori both write a series with a strong female lead. These aren’t romances, though there may be a romantic interest. And even they are getting flak for their straight-shooting, foul-mouthed, violent females. But probably not as much as a romance writer. I haven’t gotten much flak, either–and I finally figured out why. My heroines are in professions the average reader already equates as a “male profession” (I say this very loosely!) like cops, FBI agents, private investigators. A heroine who is a cop can get away with more than a heroine who is, for example, a museum curator.

My heroes and heroines are a TEAM. From day one. Men and women have strengths and weaknesses, and they can compliment each other when they work as a TEAM. That became so clear to me writing my Seven Deadly Sins series because Rafe and Moira must work together to defeat the demon–neither is stronger than the other. I use “stronger” to mean all-around stronger, not just brute strength. The average man has a greater capacity to gain physical strength than the average woman–but in the brain department, we all have the same potential.

My big pet peeve is alpha heroes. I know, I’m going to be kicked out of the romance community! It’s not the cops or military guys, but the brutes. I’ve skimmed some message boards that have me scratching my head at readers who forgive a hero for manhandling the heroine, or think the heroine is an idiot because she’s not caving to the hero’s will. I don’t get it. I just don’t get the allure of assholes. (Yes, I know that one woman’s asshole is another woman’s alpha . . . )

The hardest heroines for me to write are those NOT in law enforcement or a similar profession. Though Julia Chandler in SEE NO EVIL was my first “other” heroine, she was still a prosecutor who is still connected. It was really Robin McKenna in KILLING FEAR who was the biggest challenge for me. A former stripper who now owns a nightclub. How could I make her a strong heroine? I struggled with her greatly.

Female cops aren’t generally in the TSTL category because they are trained to face hostile situations. Strippers, on the other hand, have a much higher threshold. And now I realize why–I am as guilty as everyone else. I struggle to create a strong, believable heroine who doesn’t have the automatic authority to BE a strong heroine. Because I know that if she steps off the reservation and is too bold or too independent or too strong-willed, readers will hate her.

This is why I write romantic suspense with a strong emphasis on law enforcement. Maybe it’s just a little bit easier because I can create a strong heroine who isn’t going to be called a bitch by readers. And ultimately, that’s where we are. Reader expectations, which are drawn on reader lives and values–which mirror ours because writers are readers too. We’re all guilty of double-standards. And I don’t know how to fix it, no matter how unfair it is. It starts young. Drama in school starts the day the kids cross into the classroom–and it doesn’t end when we graduate.

What do you think? Are law enforcement heroines cut more slack? Who is one of your favorite non-law enforcement (i.e. “regular, everyday profession) heroine? Why?

3  1    27

Last year it was Cherry Adair. We were both at the Emerald City Writers conference and she told me about this new show called FRINGE and I absolutely had to watch it. Those of you who know Cherry understand that excuses are not accepted, so she really didn’t pay attention when I explained I didn’t have time to add a new show on my watch list. And I was admittedly intrigued by the concept. It took me awhile to buy it on iTunes. Half the season was over. I thought, okay just one episode.

Now I’m waiting weekly for the new episode. Rumors of it being cancelled because of low ratings has me panicking.

Then it was Anna Stewart, my friend and president of the Sacramento Valley Rose chapter of RWA. This time it was CASTLE. (Anna also turned me onto VERONICA MARS but I started watching it after knowing it was canceled so I went in knowing there were only three seasons.) At the same time Anna recommended CASTLE, our Toni said I had to watch it. In fact, there was a buzz among the writing community because Rick Castle is a writer on perpetual ride-along with a NY City detective.

Initially, I enjoyed the premise and since I love Nathan Fillion (the idiot Hollywood move to in canceling FIREFLY is second only to the idiot move of canceling VERONICA MARS) I had to watch. But they lost me after five or six episodes for many of the reasons former cop Lee Lofland mentions on his humorous and stinging blog. But my mom said season two was really good, so I caved and bought it, and she was right–it was much better than season one. There are still many problems with the stories, but for me it’s a guilty pleasure. I mean, Nathan Fillion! And I love his relationship with his daughter.

Well, blame Toni this time. She emailed me a week or so ago about a canceled show called LIFE. Two seasons, that’s it. Not too much of an investment in time. On her recommendation, I downloaded season one.

One week later I had finished watching all eleven season one episodes and downloaded season two.

(Damn you Toni!)

Among my other current favorite shows are HEROES, SUPERNATURAL and LAW & ORDER SVU. I have the first episodes downloaded for WHITE COLLAR, FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS, and THE PRISONER to see if these are shows I would like . . . but I hesitate to start watching them. I’m also intrigued by THE GOOD WIFE. I loved the defense attorney show MURDER ONE (again, canceled after two seasons–a total shame) and have been waiting for another good one, and THE GOOD WIFE has an intriguing premise (wife of corrupt and adulterous politician who goes to prison and she has to reclaim her life for her children by going back to her former career as a defense attorney at a prestigious firm.)

I was thinking about why these shows all intrigue me. CASTLE with it’s bad police procedure and FRINGE with it’s oddities. HEROES has had some ups and downs–but mostly ups.

It comes down to one thing. I could say the cool premises, but those are just hooks. A cool premise is nothing without a good story to back it up. I could say the actors–I mean Nathan Fillion and Joshua Jackson and Milo Ventimiglia and Jared Padalecki! What’s not to like? I would be close. I could say the writers–and I would be closer. The writers of the shows I’ve mentioned are truly talented–the stories are by and large compelling.

But the single common denominator in all these shows is Character.

The talent of the actors plays a role as does the skill of the writers and creativity of the story creators. But all that together combines to give me the one thing I have to have when I invest time in a television series.

Good characters.

The movie AVATAR confirmed this truth for me. AVATAR had a cool premise, absolutely incredible CGI, fantastic music, and some good actors. I did appreciate the movie for the visual and auditory theater. The world building was fantastic. But–and this is a big BUT–the characters were weak. Sure, there were a few other irritating aspects–like with THE DARK KNIGHT, I was intensely frustrated during the last 25 minutes when the writers felt the need to beat the moral of the movie over my head. I got it already. I’m not an idiot. I suspect that SUBTLE is not in any of the writer’s vocabulary. But the single greatest problem with the move was with character. Every damn one of them a stereotype. The tortured hero (literally–he had no use of his legs); the villain, a military commander who promised surgery if the hero helped feed information back about the Navi (the native people)–a villain who was so rotten to the core that he became comic. The brainless soldiers just following orders–like NO ONE questioned the guy? At the climax I would have been much more satisfied if half the soldiers (all American soldiers) turned on their obviously insane commander and refused to follow orders of annihilating an entire race of people. Seriously, if the guy was charismatic or had a soft side or gave a compelling argument as to why they needed the minerals under the Navi’s home tree, then I could understand EVERYONE following him. But it was all “we have to kill them because they’re like animals.” Pul-eeze. More stereotypes? The noble, smart, tough scientist. (Played by the very talented Sigourney Weaver.) The tough female pilot who is the ONLY ONE who seems to have a brain questions the morality of genocide. And then there’s the Navi themselves–the heroine, who’s the daughter of the head chief of the tribe. The warrior she’s supposed to marry (but of course she falls for the hero.) The shaman character (the heroine’s mother.) There was not one character that wasn’t a two-dimensional stereotype.

It was after seeing AVATAR on Saturday that I realized what I need in every show I watch–at the movies or on television. Characters. Real characters, people who I believe exist. In film this means a symbiotic relationship between the writer, the actor, and the director. All needs to come together to create someone I believe could exist. Rick Castle–he’s real to me. While I need to suspend disbelief on the premise of the show, he makes it easier for me to do just that. I mean, what if Lee Child wanted to play ride-a-long with NYPD? I can totally picture it

HEROES is another fantastic example of over-the-top but real characters. Peter Petrelli is the “hero” of the show (in my mind)–he’s the moral core. He has flaws, namely acting without thinking, but he always acts for the right reasons (as he knows them.) He makes mistakes, but at his core he is a good person. Everyone else is on the scale of good to bad, but I can see why they do what they do. Their goals, motivations, and conflicts are REAL. I believe them. Even with all the over-the-top scenarios and the fantastical elements, at the core the show is about how ordinary people deal with extraordinary talents.

LIFE, my newest “acquisition,” seems to be low budget and other than the premise (cop goes to prison for 12 years for a crime he didn’t commit–he’s released with a huge multi-million dollar settlement–yet goes back to work. A great twist on THE FUGITIVE.) But the character of Charlie Crews is so compelling. He’s so controlled, due to his years of reading and listening to zen tapes. He is quirky–his obsession with fruit, his huge house without furniture, his odd comments–and you wonder how he could be so calm after spending 12 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. Then he does something spontaneous–but totally in character–like tossing the zen tape out of the window of his fast-moving car. He’s walking a fine line as he breaks laws and rules to find out the truth about who framed him and why. The other characters are good as well, though perhaps a little on the stereotypical side. Charlie Crews (Damian Lewis) carries the show. His partner is also good. I thought she was going to be a stereotype, but over the first season she grew into something more.

Characters become friends . . . and enemies. We become attached to them, we care about them. We love them, we hate them, we bite our nails because of them. But we CARE. We want the bad guys to get what’s coming to them, we want the good guys to win, we want justice for victims and hope for the future. And we want that because we care about the people involved. And in fiction? That means character.

Who are some of your new favorite characters?

1  1

Our MSW sister Toni told me I HAD to watch CASTLE, so I bought it on iTunes and watched the first five episodes in two nights. As far as I know, there’s only 10 . . . I don’t know when, or if, there will be more. Matt from TV Guide says it will be back . . . but ABC has yet to announce it officially.

No major spoilers, but some general commentary.

CASTLE has a great premise and strong acting. I adore Nathan Fillion (Malcolm in FIREFLY, a brilliant show that was killed by the station that moved time slots around and showed the shows out of order.) I think the actress who plays Kate Beckett is good, and I really like the supporting cast, especially Castle’s daughter.

The show in a nutshell: Successful crime fiction author helps detective solve cases in NYC.

As a writer, I find the show’s writers have done a wonderful job getting into the mindset of a crime writer. I really enjoy Rick Castle’s humor, the way he looks at the crime scene, the way he takes parts of his books. “Like in XYZ, the killer did 123.” Kate Beckett, a fan, is more serious and resents being forced to let Castle tag along—think a more hands-on ride along program They don’t ridicule writers, yet expertly showcase their foibles and fears and frustrations. As well as the hard work that goes into writing the books. (Though I think Castle must be a night owl since he’s hanging with Kate during the day . . . )

I can buy into the premise very easily, and am willing to suspend disbelief to enjoy the banter between the two protagonists. I like the characters very much and think that the show could be terrific.

But there are a few problems that I hope the writers will address if the show returns next season.

1) Humor. I love the humor. I think it’s strong. But when I watched the five minute intro to the show–sort of a pre-show–and they hit me over the head with the fact that it wasn’t going to be a dark program, that it was light and humorous while dealing with some darker aspects–but it’s not dark, no, it’s funny! Think Moonlighting. Maybe I went into it skeptical–but I think they are trying so hard to keep it light that’s it’s almost become a cozy. A little darkness is good. I’m not opposed to cozies, but the premise and the subjects of the episodes I’ve watched aren’t really cozy set-ups. Keep the humor by all means, I love the chemistry between Kate and Rick, but don’t after-school-special the conflict.

2) Plot. I hesitate to mention this, but after five episodes I’ve discovered the formula and I am banging my head. There’s a crime. They have a lead. They pursue it, confident they’re right. They’re wrong. They ponder. Rick has an idea based on one of his books. They pursue it, confident they’re right. He oversteps. They’re wrong. They ponder. Kate has a lead based on evidence. They pursue it, confident they have the killer. They’re wrong. They ponder. Rick uses psychology to figure out what’s what, Kate’s skeptical, but pursues it, and voila, case is solved.

Okay, maybe I’m simplifying it, but I have the sensation that everyone is moving in one direction–the same direction–and then as lemmings do, following en masse off the cliff. Whoops, that didn’t work, let’s do something else. En masse they go in another direction. Charge! Sometimes, they all just seem dumb as far as crime solving is concerned. Maybe I’ve just watched too much Law & Order, but I just don’t get the feeling that I’m dealing with super smart people. Fun, yes. Funny, yes. Interesting, yes. I just hope as the show grows into maturity, that the stories themselves don’t follow the same format.

So while I’m having some trouble with CASTLE, I’m sticking with it for at least one more season if it returns (it’s apparently on the bubble.) I’d love to see Castle at the ITW conference this July where there’s a murder and he’s one of the suspects . . . Just this once, I’d love to be a script writer.

Where I have unwatched episodes of CASTLE on my Apple TV, I don’t have unwatched episodes of FRINGE. Why? Because as soon as I started watching it, I was hooked. I have to know what happens. The show is smart, savvy, with great acting, strong characters, and a fantastic conspiracy plot. Think: CSI meets the X-Files. It’s already been renewed. No surprise there. It’s officially my second favorite show, and my favorite since season one of HEROES . . . I have the same strong feeling of anticipation and have to watch as I did then. (My favorite show is SUPERNATURAL . . . but I can write 10,000 words on that show, so I’ll save it for later.)

What is FRINGE doing right?

First, Joshua Jackson. Need I say more? My only quibble . . . give him more screen time. Please.

Okay, seriously:

To like FRINGE you have to buy into the premise of “fringe science”–ideas that are theoretically (cough-cough) possible in science, like telepathy, time travel, telekinesis and teleportation. And like the X-FILES, there’s an over-arcing conspiracy plot that is unraveling slowly, taking the characters in new directions so you never quite know what to expect. But, also like the X-FILES, there are “stand alone” shows that, while they may loosely connect to the over-arcing storyline, they “stand alone.” This helps if you miss an episode or have a bad memory

CHARACTERS: I was skeptical about Agent Olivia Dunham. I really didn’t want to like her. I’m picky about my female characters, maybe too picky. But by episode two, I was hooked on her. She’s smart and strong without being masculine and bitchy. She’s pretty without being drop-dead gorgeous. She’s resourceful without being a superhero. She’s driven without being obsessed. What’s not to love? She was betrayed at the beginning of the season . . . or was she? She’s the best female law enforcement character since Dana Scully and Olivia Benson. The show did something smart right off the bat–they gave her a family. True, a sister and young niece, but it helps soften her enough so that she’s not obsessed.

Walter Bishop, brilliant scientist, is both a driving force of the show as well as comic relief (especially him and his son Peter Bishop, aka Joshua Jackson.) Walter isn’t all right in his mind and quite eccentric, but he also has secrets . . . which makes him even more intriguing. How much is an act and how much is him? What does he really know? And Peter also has secrets–there are people who want him dead. But he’s also very smart intellectually, as well as street smart–so Olivia, the trained agent, doesn’t emasculate him. (I don’t think anyone can emasculate him . . . )

Yeah, yeah, yeah, get on with it.

The secondary characters all have a part to play–they are pivotal. They aren’t just window dressing. There’s a purpose and they may only be on the show for a short time, but you know that they are not window dressing. They are all deeply developed, from Olivia’s friend and second-in-command of the fringe science department, Charlie to Astrid, an agent who assists Walter to Nina Sharp, the gatekeeper of Massive Dynamics. Everyone has secrets, everyone has allies and enemies, and Olivia is “us” — she’s the constant. We might know a little more than her in some areas, but not much, only enough to know that she’s important to certain people . . . but why?

Hand-in-hand with great characters is great acting. The show was smooth and polished from the first episode.

STORY: They said that “character is story” and that is always true, but more important is how the characters react to conflict. Unexplained paranormal phenomena is always an allure, but more than that is how the situation drives the characters into both external and internal discoveries. So not only is the crime solved (or explained, or not solved, or partly solved), it has a lasting effect. It’s like each episode is building a foundation, and you just know that the next stone is going to make it even better.

I have not been disappointed.

I think the reason this show draws me is not just that it’s original–or rather an original treatment of common themes–but that it’s intelligent. It doesn’t overexplain. The characters are growing, and you can see the hero’s journey unfold, particularly with Olivia Dunham. All the classic archetypes are present–the mentor, the trickster, the gatekeeper. She has allies and enemies, and sometimes her enemies are her allies and vice-versa. There is a classic story element laid over the new and original contemporary science fiction storyline. It’s like season one of HEROES is that way.

Maybe that’s my problem with CASTLE. The character growth from episode to episode is practically the same. It’s the coolness of the plot twists and the dialogue that makes the show. With FRINGE, it’s that everything that happens has an impact on the characters, and that impact is taken into the future. It creates a sense of forward motion, impending doom, all leading to a final confrontation that Olivia and the others have been unknowingly preparing for.

On a personal note, I finished CUTTING EDGE over the weekend and have started writing the first book of the Seven Deadly Sins series. We’re talking titles now . . . I can’t wait to share when they’re settled. Toni helped me work out some hiccups in my premise, and I think I’m good to go. I have 80 pages written from long ago, but they need major editing. Tuesday night I wrote the prologue, which takes place during and immediately after the fire at the end of “Deliver Us From Evil” in the anthology I share with Rocki and Karin, WHAT YOU CAN’T SEE. And, before I blog here again in two weeks, FATAL SECRETS will be out! Yes, it’s on sale on May 19! RT Book Reviews gave it a Top Pick: “A master of suspense, Brennan does another outstanding job uniting horrifying action, procedural drama and the birth of a romance — a prime example of why she’s tops in the genre. “ And my mom just finished it and told me she really liked it, and she doesn’t lie Oh, and watch for the July issue of RT Book Reviews . . . I’m on the cover (gulp) and Brenda Novak interviewed me for the article. But even more fun, I wrote an article about Brenda, myself, Anna Stewart and Regan Taylor visiting the morgue . . . and the fun that ensued! We took pictures and more . . . I don’t know what’s going to make it in the article, but I really had fun writing it.

So what’s new with you? Read any good books lately? Watch any good shows? Seen any good movies? Anyone looking forward to the Star Trek movie coming out . . . when? This weekend? Next? And . . . today is my son’s birthday! Brennan #3 is EIGHT YEARS OLD. I’m having TEN little boys over at the house on Saturday . . . yep, I’m feeling every one of my nearly forty years . . . .

OH!!!! And before I forget . . . check out Brenda’s Diabetes Auction. I know many of the MSW gals donated items to the auction, and some of us are bidding (and losing!!! damn! gotta go back in . . . ) I donated a Crime Fiction Readers basket that includes all eight finalists for Best Romantic Suspense in the Ritas, and the 10 finalists for Best Novel and Best First Novel of the Thriller awards, plus many more goodies including my books, my favorite season of CSI and more. AND I donated a Crime Fiction Writers basket with my favorite research books, writing books, and . . . a 50-page critique. Shoot me now. I just had one of those moments. Believe me, they are rare. But it’s for a good cause!

Now I’m really going . . .

1  1