Interview With Author Dave Zeltserman- Book to Film

Big treat for you today- we're speaking with Dave Zeltserman, an author who's having a pretty good year.

Here's a good mug shot for a writer of crime novels.

First, he's adding to his output of books by writing a serious of successful crime thrillers for Kensington Books (note the pen name)

 And  big news is the recent release of a major film made from his book Small Crimes
(currently a steal on Kindle- grab it!).

Starring Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Game of Thrones' Jaime Lannister)

Q. So how did this novel come to be? Was it envisioned from the start as a bigger canvas, or did it expand organically out of an idea? Please tell us a bit about the origin.

A. The idea was triggered by an article I read about the Denver’s sheriff’s office in the 60s, and how these officers were robbing the stores blind that they were supposed to be protecting. I started playing what-if games with this idea of an utterly corrupt sheriff’s office, and that led to Small Crimes being born.

Q. Did you start with the germ of an idea and start writing to see where it went, or did you map a good deal out in your head (or even outline) before crafting?

A. I need a detailed outline before I start writing. At some point while I’m writing the book will become something organic and take on a life of its own. New characters and subplots will develop, but I’ll always navigate back to my original roadmap.

Q. What do you feel is the main theme(s)?

A. Small Crimes is noir. A man’s past crimes dooming him. There’s the added element that all of his scheming to try to escape responsibility ends up causing so much damage to the town, but at its heart, this is pure noir.

Q. Why do you feel this is important, and what would you want a reader to take away from reading this book?

A. I enjoy well-written noir more than any other type of crime fiction. It explores dark realms of the soul that are barely touched on by other crime and mystery subgenres. It can also be thrilling as the reader puts himself/herself in the place of the noir protagonist desperate for a way out of a doom that there is no escape from.

Q. What makes a good book or engaging story?

A. For the reader to completely disappear into the fictional world. I don’t necessarily need the protagonist to be likeable, but I need him to be fascinating, and I need to be fully engulfed in his problems and desires. There has to be a growing, nearly unbearable tension. I need to want to turn the page to find out what happens next.

Q. Are there writers with similar themes to yours? Who are your influences (can be writers, or even artists, musicians, or others) and what is it about their work that attracts you?

A. Jim Thompson and James M. Cain wrote probably the best noir fiction of the 20th century. When I reread SMALL CRIMES, I also saw in the more hardboiled action sequences strains of Dan Marlowe, who wrote the classic noir/hardboiled crime novel THE NAME OF THE GAME IS DEATH. I love noir. I love the depths it brings you to, and how it challenges you. I love the tension that great noir creates.

Q. Is storytelling mostly entertainment, or does it serve other functions? Do you have particular goals other than telling a good story?

A. Entertainment is an important element, but fiction can also help the reader better understand the human psyche, and take them places they wouldn’t otherwise go.  Some of my novels are imbued with themes I wish to explore, some are just meant to be thrilling escapes.

Q. Any other goals you've set for yourself, professionally or personally?

A. I’m trying to write professionally, in other words, make a living at it. SMALL CRIMES being made into a feature film helps. I have several other movies based on my books in development, and if those get made it will help even more. 

Q. Some writers write fast and claim not to rewrite much. Do you do this, or painstakingly revise? When you send the book off to the publisher, are you happy with it, or just tired of it?

A. I write a detailed outline before starting. This helps me keep my plot from needing much, if any, revision. I do line editing every hundred pages, which also allows me to get a feel for how the book is working, and then another pass of line editing once I’m done. Publishers will then do two passes of editing—one with the editor, the other with the copyeditor. So far the editor passes have been fairly light—mostly line editing, and none of my books have required significant changes.

Q. Do you have good editors, and if so, how do they help you? Do they look for particular things? Do you have different people for different editing levels?

A. I’ve had 4 books published by Serpent’s Tail  with one editor, and the editing was extremely light—maybe a half dozen light edit requests or name changes. With my four Overlook Books, I had four different editors, all at different levels. The Boy Who Killed Demons probably went through the most extensive editing of these. Right now I’m being published by Kensington, with the same editor, and I’m enjoying working with her.

Q. If a writer came to you for advice, how would you help?

A. Do anything but writing if you can help it. Seriously. It’s the most random enterprise you can possibly get into, and there’s so much outside of your control. But if you’re truly driven to write, and it’s all you want to do, and you want to be published, then take it seriously as a business. Read and understand the types of books the industry is looking for.  Understand that the industry isn’t looking for great books, but good commercial books. It took me years to learn that last lesson.

Q. Stories can be told by using a different medium, and Small Crimes is now a big movie. How does that alter the story?

A. Changes will always have to be made, both because of budgetary and time constraints, and of course, the director’s vision. There were quite a few changes for the SMALL CRIMES film, but somehow the director/screenwriter made it faithful to the spirit of the book. Even with the changes, I’m happy with it.

Q. What's the next step in your writing world?

A. I’m writing a serious of crime thrillers for Kensington Books. The first of these DERANGED came out in March, the second, CRAZED, will be out in September. Right now I’m writing book 4 in this series. I think these are fun, twisty books, with lots of surprises and twists, some humor, and a bull terrier!

Q. Tell us fun facts about yourself.

A. How about that I had dinner with Robert Forster during the shooting of SMALL CRIMES?
Or that I also have published two computer books?
Or that when I was in my 40s I started studying Kung Fu and earned a black belt?

Website: https://www.davezeltserman.com

Granite State Comicon

Busy weekend, as I was covering the Granite State Comicon for Jason Harris Promotions.

Had a Media Pass, my trusty camera, and a notepad, and played intrepid reporter.

Fun time at a huge, successful comic convention- for the writeup, with even more cool pictures, go here.

A taste of some of the fun below, in pictures.

Here's some places to check out:

Sci Fi Saturday Night- Great podcast from a talented bunch. News, interviews, all things science fiction

Susan Saunders- illustrator with her first book out, a collaboration with noted author Rob Watts

New England Horror Writers- Those taking part were Rob Smales, Scott Goudsward, Tracy Carbone, and Tony Tremblay

Amy Fletcher, artist and mermaid- extraordinary costumes and artwork

Janella Mele, artist/illustrator

The Ghostbusters of New Hampshire- raising money for charities

MySciFiStories.com

C.Wish Cosplay Photography

Requiem Designs

Bexx Fine- accessories

Unit 5- comic

Epic TV Saga

Silver Circle- movie

Delorean Time Machine

Mhysa Cosplay

Double Midnight Comics



The 501 Legion (Star Wars fans)

 

Batman and (?) friends

 

Batman doing better...

 

 

 Scott Pettis as Casey Jones (From the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles)

 

Contestants for the costume contest

 

The amazing Nicole Marie Jean, a professional cosplayer

 

 

Pirates!

Harry Potter Movie

We just got back from seeing the latest Harry Potter movie-- stunning! Loved by all of us. It's extra nice for us, as we were in London recently, and saw not only Platform 9-3/4 (actually at St. Pancras station, not King's Cross, as said in the movie), but were there in Trafalgar Square as the cast showed up for their British Premier! Gave it a little bit more oomph, not that it needed it.

Kind of spooky how perfect the cast is, looking and sounding like they should, over the course of quite a few years. Don't know if the originator feels the same, but millions of watchers and her readers do.

I admire the fact that J.K. Rowling created a world that so moves people. That says a lot, that she can touch others and make her story and characters matter. Kudos.

And her recent announcement that she will self-publish future books... did you hear that sound? That was another wall of the citadel of Old Traditional Publishing collapsing. She sold millions of books for the old way, and now will sell millions more the new way.

All this because one person sat down and poured forth a story that was within them. And millions responded. The power of the written word is amazing.

Movie Review- Hanna

Okay, this is a toughie. We left the theater wondering what we'd just seen. Was it an awful mess of a mashup, or a much smarter, sleeker, subversive film that should really make you think? Tell you the truth, I'm still not sure. My 13-year old daughter has eloquently defended much of the confusion of the movie as deliberate, to show character frames of reference. Feral child, paranoid dad, obsessive-psycho baddie lady. Hmm. As the movie is about the confused coming-of-age of a lethal child prodigy, there may well be something there. I was going to trash it as an out-of-control failed experiment, but I think it's much more.

It's difficult to think of the director knowing what they're doing, when a movie seems way out of control. But it's possible. This is being advertised as a Hollywood-style big budget action flick, but it should really have been shown in arthouses and indie festivals. Having a foot in both worlds, however, gets it welcomed in neither.

What should we think of a film that mixes elements of a dozen different types of movies, Fellini symbolism, fairy tales, a coming-of-age story, a revenge/action flick, a big government-psycho-genetic-experiment-gone-wrong thriller, and a director enamored of long, slow pans and extended, lingering shots of unchanging facial expressions?

My first thought was that it's another of the current horrible trends of moviemaking-- throw everything against the wall, in the hopes something will stick.

While moviegoers don't need everything spelled out for them and wrapped up at the end, should they all leave the theater scratching their heads in complete baffled puzzlement? The big problem- so much of the time it seems the filmmakers didn't know what kind of movie they were making. So it looks like they threw everything in the blender and hoped for the best. That's why I reacted with scorn- that kind of moviemaking is crap, it's sloppy, and it's lazy.

The director loves the film Run, Lola, Run, and he replicates that, showing people in open-handed sprints to pounding techno music. Okay, you want that to illustrate your point, but there's too much of it.

Nice hommage references to the 30's German movie 'M', as the psycho assassin stalks the child. But there are too many references to bits and pieces of other, better things. Characters and settings seem like leftovers from other movies. People are paraded across the stage with an interesting quirk or two, and then we dash off to something else. We jump and juke from one disjointed image to the next, in a story version of ADD. Is it because there is no control, or is that really the point?

At first I thought it was like a failed Saturday Night Live skit, where the bong-hits produced an interesting idea that didn't go anywhere, and went on too long.

Now I'm re-evaluating, and that in itself is good. I like movies that make me think, while many people say they don't. The case can be made either way for this one- confusing, pretty mess, or pointed, arthouse barb in disguise?

They do present it as a fairy tale, and in fairy tales magic happens; things do not have to believable, or rational. If I look on it like that, the movie makes better sense.

Don't See Robin Hood!

Q: What has 18 movies mashed together and still doesn't move?

A: The awful, crappy new movie of Robin Hood, starring Russell Crowe...

This riddle was inspired by one of the bits of business in the film. It comes right after the homage to Monty Python. Yeah, Monty Python. They had no idea what kind of movie they should make, so they took every sword film that made a buck in the last twenty or so years (longer for Python, I know), mixed in a few others, and threw it against the wall to see what stuck. Well, none of it stuck, but it stunk. It's a runny, nasty, mess, and it reeks. It's also an offense to history, and good filmmaking. Sure, there are bits and pieces of it that look nice, but they're gleaming specks of Fool's Gold in the dungpile.

About three minutes and six eyerolls in, my wife turns to me and says, “I didn't know this was supposed to be a comedy!” Now this could be a fun film if you wanted to make a parody that incorporates bits of other movies to make fun of them, a la Scary Movie, Hot Shots, and that genre. Maybe that's how it started. But they played it straight (mostly), and the result is the crud at the bottom of the pool at the sewage plant. No one should go watch this bilge-- it's not even bad enough to be fun. And this from a guy who LOVES sword movies and Robin Hood. It's not often that a film offends me so strongly, and on so many levels, but this one managed. So why is it so bad? Oh, so many reasons. Here's just a few.

1: Needless, hyperactive jumping around in time and place, like a bad thriller novel.

2: A complete lack of internal logic, with stupid plot holes you could drive the French Army through.

3: Modern bits of business that don't belong in a period piece.

4: Historical detail of a history that never happened. Your audience members are not as stupid and ignorant as your scriptwriters, guys.

5: Characters acting like idiots, and for no reason.

6: Other laughable dumb stuff.

7: The “Kitchen sink” theory of the more crap you stuff in, the better someone will like something.

8: Bad guys have shaven, bald heads, kings have long curls and ringlets, good guys have short hair. And every adult male has one prominent scar.

9: Horrible lines and dialogue.

10. Obvious thefts from better movies, and too many of them. A partial list:

Gladiator (Russell Crowe is the noble guy who stands up to the black-haired, suddenly-crowned, psycho despot, and suffers)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (None shall pass!)
Braveheart (Freedom! Uh, these bozos live in monarchies, and that's treason)
Lord of the Rings (Robin Longstrider- Aragorn/Strider)
Peter Pan (This one is especially puzzling- see below)
Kingdom of Heaven (Modern multicultural sympathy for the Muslims, from the Crusaders)
A Knight's Tale (Right down to the chubby, funny sidekick from that film, playing the chubby, funny sidekick, Friar Tuck)
Saving Private Ryan (They love that D-Day landing footage so much, they recreated it-- in the Year 1200, and had the French invade England (already done, dimwits, ever hear of 1066?), with LST's no less, a type of landing craft not invented until World War II. WTF? Why didn't they just mount machine guns on them?)

Some things to smack the producers of this crapfest in the head for, for wasting two hours and twenty minutes of my life:
--The Magna Carta was not created circa 1170 by a stonemason, and it was not created to provide all the common men of England with rights. It was a forced agreement from a bunch of rich, powerful guys who wanted to show the King he wasn't as big as he thought he was.

--So you admit that King Richard had been held for ransom for 4 years on his way home from the Crusades-- so where does this “along for the ride” Crusader army spring from? I guess they just hung out in the woods for 4 years, huh? Yeah, that would happen. And if Richard is “pillaging his way across France”, where's this mighty French invasion force that comes along a short time later? I guess they were building their WWII-era LSTs and couldn't be bothered to stop him.

--What the hell is up with the Peter Pan-like/Lord of the Flies Lost Boys? They keep getting tossed into the plot for no reason, like a bad spice. And at the big battle scene, poor, foraging forest kids suddenly show up riding tiny horses (Shetland ponies?) and plunge into battle (for what possible reason?) with little more than fur loincloths and sticks, against well-equipped soldiers. Yeah, pit the equivalent of a couple of fifth-grade soccer teams to fight fully-armed combat vets-- that should be entertaining, for about five minutes-- if you want a bunch of needlessly dead kids.

--A soldier's sword was a necessary piece of equipment, upon which his life depended, and would have cost quite a bit-- and yet in this move, they use their swords as prybars (snap!), hammers, can openers, whatever. The lead doofus pounds the hilt of his his weapon (also an important heirloom) on stone slabs, which would break the sword-- despite the fact he has a 6'9” guy behind him with a giant war hammer!

--Apparently, Robin's men can teleport, because they're on the cliff tops in one shot, and two shots later are in the thick of battle. How'd you guys do that?

--Robin sleeps a few feet in front of an absolute roaring, six-foot high fireplace bonfire. Know how much heat that puts out? They don't, obviously. Robin would have roasted like a chicken. Oh, and with no grate, the floor in front of this bonfire is covered with nice, dry straw. Let's just say Locksley Hall would be a black pile of ashes by morning.

--Wow, coronations for the new King of England need no ceremony, just mom picking up a crowned helmet and slapping it on her other son's head. Done deal.

--Numerous “proclamations” nailed to a tree (oops, Harry Potter snippet) for an illiterate populace, when paper was ridiculously valuable. And a guy yelling for a nail, like everyone's carrying them around in their pocket. Yeah, even nails were worth a bunch back then, and not that common.

There's so much more, but just don't bother. This movie should not have been made, and should not survive and flourish. If it makes money, there will be more crap films like it, so let it die like the stinking turkey it is.