Thomas Mullen

OK, as promised, here's a link to my first-ever TV interview. The fine news anchors of WIVB, Buffalo's CBS affiliate, chose my book as their April choice for their monthly book club.

I happened to be in Upstate New York to take part in the "Tale for Three Counties" community reads project, so I met anchors Lisa Scott and Victoria Hong at a coffeeshop and chatted about the book. A surreal experience indeed. People trying to enjoy their cappucinos kept looking over at us with expressions like, "Who's that guy who thinks he's so important?" I felt kind of bad about that, as it felt very much like the coffeeshop I frequent here in DC, and I'm sure I would have given the same looks if someone had shown up with a video camera and microphones. They do serve up a damn fine cappuccino at Cafe Aroma, so if you're ever in Buffalo and need to kill some time and get a nice buzz going, that's your place.

Whenever I see incredibly friendly and energetic morning anchors on TV, I assume that they can't possibly be that energetic and friendly in real life, off camera, and that it's all an act. Well, I'm happy to report that they really are that energetic and friendly, or at least Lisa and Victoria were. And, in a relatively rare event with book/media things, they'd even read the book! And liked it! (Authors quickly get used to doing interviews with radio or magazine folks who clearly haven't read it and are only working off notes based on the book blurbs; that's just the way it usually works, so it was refreshing and flattering to be interviewed by people who'd actually read the thing.)

I haven't watched the interview myself yet, as it seems kind of narcissistic, but I suppose I will eventually. Hopefully I didn't look at the camera, or play with my hair too much.

link to this | File: 

What do soldiers read? Pretty much anything they can get their hands on, I've been told, as they don't have many options. Usually that means magazines, as English-language books in Iraq and Afghanistan are fairly scarce.

But a few writers and publishers are doing their part to increase the supply of good reading material among our troops abroad. It all started with a certain Col. George Reynolds, an avid reader who was one of the first people to send an email via my Web site (which you too can do by clicking here). Col. Reynolds also sent an email to a buddy of mine, Paul Malmont, whose action-packed first novel, The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril, tells the tale of 1930s pulp fiction writers who get caught in a wild pulp tale of their own (it's a Book About Writers for people who don't read Books About Writers). After corresponding with the Colonel, Paul had a great idea: Why not send a box of his novels to troops in Iraq? And why not talk other writers into doing the same thing? By coordinating with the good Colonel, this is what happened. As a result, a dozen or so writers (at my last counting, but I could be way off) have sent off boxes of their books, and a number of publishers have ante-ed up as well.

So, if you're a writer, consider contributing by sending an email to Paul -- he's the contact for this awesome endeavor, which the Army anointed with the official and totally cool name of Operation Warrior Library. And if you're a reader, email a writer you like and ask him or her to contribute. (Other contributors include such personal favorites of mine as Glen David Gold and Alice Sebold.) It's a great, nonpolitical way to support our men and women who are out there risking their lives. Whether you're an Obamamaniac who wants the troops brought home today or a McCainiac who wants to leave them there another 100 years, sending them some quality reading material will, hopefully, provide them with some amount of respite from their challenging days and nights.

And you might even get a cool thank you gift: After receiving a couple boxes of my novel, Col. Reynolds sent me a crisp Iraqi dinar, complete with smiling image of Saddam Hussein.


link to this | File: 

Interrelated Thoughts on Sacred Games, The Wire, and Everything Bad Is Good For You

(OK, I've been slacking on the blog. I have an excuse, which will interest those of you wondering about my new book: I've been busy putting some finishing touches on the manuscript, which my agent has now read and green-lighted. So after a few more edits I'll be sending it off to my editor, and then, presumably, I'll have more time to exercise my right as a 21st Century Human by blogging. So, here goes...)

I recently read Vikram Chandra's 900-page Indian cop-gangster epic Sacred Games. Good stuff. But let me note again that it was 900 pages, meaning that it finishes second only to Infinite Jest as Longest Novel By A Non-Dead Guy I've Ever Read. And honestly, if it had a different font size and a more standard use of paragraph breaks, it probably would have been 1,100 pages. (The first sign of trouble, after noticing how impressively heavy the thing is to carry around (in hardcover!), was the fact that it didn't have page headers listing the author or title, as the book designer wisely dispensed with them to buy Chandra a few extra lines per page, which probably saved them 50 pages or so.)

I really dug this book. Taking place in present-day Bombay/Mumbai, it alternately follows a humble, hardened Sikh cop (Sartaj Singh) and Bombay's number one gangsta, Ganesh Gaitonde. Most critics spent much ink noting the crazy multinational empire that Gaitonde builds, with harems in Thailand and movies in Bollywood and money laundering in the Middle East and assassination plots in London, etc, and all the attendant statements about globalization and interconnectedness. But my favorite parts of the book were the Singh (cop) chapters. Cop stories are so easy to get wrong, as there are so many cliches waiting for the ambitious writer to trip over, and I can think of few cop novels that I've really, really liked. Chandra, though, does a perfect job of following the genre conventions just enough to keep the story going while also subverting them in interesting ways. Through Singh's investigations, we get to learn about the tensions between different castes and immigrants and religions in Bombay (tensions which resonate in any country), the complicated modern relations between men and women (there's a great blackmail plot involving an affair), and the constant presence of corruption and graft (Singh is portrayed as a Good Cop partly because he only takes some bribes, which tells you something about the state of policing in India).

I might even call Sacred Games a Great Book, but a 900-page Great Book, like a great marriage, is going to have its rough patches. I eventually became bored with the Gaitonde chapters; maybe this makes me out of touch with my fellow Americans, but mobster characters (Goodfellas, The Sopranos, etc) don't quite do it for me. Also, the Singh chapters were told in spare but pitch-perfect third-person narration, combining an eye for detail with a heartbreaking weariness of what Singh sees around him, whereas the gangster chapters were a cockier first-person, narrated by a total egotist who I eventually got tired of. Egotists can be either superb narrators (see Nabokov) or really annoying ones, and Gaitonde seemed more the latter to me.

But the part of the book that I vacillated between admiring and disliking, and the theme of today's post, was the many many tangents and sidebars and extraneous stories. Tangents, of course, are what can make fiction so interesting and fun, but too many of them can muddle a book. And a reader's tolerance for tangents tends to decrease on page 650 or so, when we start wanting the storyteller to get on with it already. Writers constantly face choices, choices about what to put in and what to leave out. I myself struggle with this all the time. The Last Town on Earth has chapters or long sections written from at least six major characters' perspectives, so there was a lot of balancing to do, lots of balls to keep in the air at once. But readers can only handle so much before confusion or impatience set in. As a writer, I tend to gravitate toward multicharacter, multiperspective stories (my new one has at least five characters' perspectives, as of the current draft), so I can totally relate to the desire to put more in, to add something from the daughter's perspective and something from the second-cousin's perspective and hey maybe a chapter about the immigrant waiter at the restaurant down the street and something about that panhandler guy, etc. Aiming for that epic scope, trying to tell The Complete Story, to get it all down, to encompass this great big sprawling story we call Life. But as a reader, that sometimes doesn't work, and we want the writer to use his artistic judgment to choose only the characters and stories that best tell his tale. So: why this disconnect?

Because I'm behind the times TV-wise, I've only recently started watching Series 1 of The Wire, which has been hailed by critics as the best show in the history of television. And I can't disagree: I absolutely love it. If I didn't have a toddler and if my wife and I weren't always so tired by dinnertime, we'd try to watch a season a week. What makes the show so great? The dialogue and the realism, yeah, but mainly the characters and the complexity and the many interwoven subplots. There are at least a dozen "major" characters thus far, cops and drug dealers and cop's spouses and DA's and drug dealers' girlfriends and judges and other cops and other dealers, and I'm only on the eighth episode. The show has been called "a television novel" because of its novelistic scope, encompassing so many characters and daring to go on tangents (for example, by taking time in a random episode to show ten or fifteen minutes in the life of one of the characters we hadn't seen much of before, just to flesh him or her out, to add depth, to reveal something new). It's awesome, and addictive: I want to know more about everyone. Yay, complexity! Yay, tangents! Give us more!

In Steven Johnson's provocative Everything Bad Is Good For You, he argues that societal whipping posts like TV and video games are actually making us smarter, not dumber, because they are so much more complex than they used to be. Instead of Pacman running around on a simple screen, Myst or Doom contain hundreds of secrets that need to be explored, challenging our cognitive processes. And instead of the linear storytelling and small casts of CHIPS or Starsky and Hutch, more recent TV sensations like Lost or 24 have countless subplots and dozens of characters and aren't afraid to confuse us or leave us hanging or throw out information that it might take us a whole week of water-cooler gossiping to figure out. Johnson argues that people who blindly bemoan TV and praise literature haven't noticed how far TV has come, and he makes a lot of points that intrigue and frighten me as a novelist.

Because here's the thing: Some of the aspects of The Wire that I most love are extremely difficult to pull off in fiction. Even though The Wire has been called "a TV novel," the fact is, few novels have as many characters and perspectives as The Wire has. It out-novels the novel. And it makes me wonder (or fear) whether this is a sign that TV could be (shudder) a more effective medium for complex storytelling than fiction is. Why? First of all, the visuals help: as anyone at a cocktail party or at a new job knows, we remember faces a lot better than names. So when a random, previously unimportant character wanders on screen in episode 5 and suddenly does something really important, we might not remember his name, but we do remember that he's the guy that threatened McNulty a few weeks ago. Whereas, with fiction, for example Sacred Games, when Chandra suddenly hits us on page 500-something with a 40-page chapter that's a flashback to an episode early in the life of a character whose name I don't at all recognize, because he hasn't been mentioned in hundreds of pages, I'm kind of lost, and maybe even annoyed. Second, TV and film are more social than reading; even if we don't remember who that somewhat familiar face on the TV is, we can hit pause and ask our friends, whereas reading is solitary.

(I should note that some of The Wire's extraordinary writers, like Richard Price and George Pelecanos, are also great novelists. And that, although critics and writers love The Wire, its viewership was relatively low compared to, say, Everybody Loves Raymond, so maybe viewers don't want complexity after all. Or maybe only certain kinds of viewers.)

So what does this all mean? I have no idea. I only know that, as a writer, I want to tell complex, complicated stories, and I want to go on tangents, to find a way to squeeze in this perspective and that story and this anecdote and that overlooked character. I want to get it all, even if this challenges the reader -- and maybe, if it challenges him, that very challenge will become addictive, and make the reading experience so much richer and more rewarding than a straight first-person linear tale would have been. But I have the constant fear that if I do make it too complex, if I ask too much of the reader, if I annoy him too much, he'll throw up his hands, put the book down... and just turn on his TV.


link to this | File:  Book Reviews  TV  Writing