Volume 2, Issue 1 – February 1999
Stuart Kaminsky: Mysteries in Motion
If Stuart J. Kaminsky ever stands still long enough for me to get a good look at him, I hope I find out he’s twins. Or, better yet, triplets. I’d feel much less inadequate. But I have this sneaking feeling he’s going to turn out to be just one prodigiously talented and dedicated guy. Film historian, scriptwriter, and author of four popular and critically acclaimed mystery series — ladies and gentlemen, may I present my nominee for the hardest working writer in the business?
Crescent Blues: Your first published mysteries featured Toby Peters, a down-at-the-heels private eye in 1940s Los Angeles, whose cases usually involve real people who were in Los Angeles at the time — Errol Flynn in A Bullet for a Star, for example, and Judy Garland in Murder on the Yellow Brick Road. What was the inspiration for Toby and the series?
Kaminsky: The inspiration for Toby and the series was multiple. There was my interest in film and film history, particularly American film. There was my interest in mystery fiction in general and private detective fiction in particular. Specific influences include the novels of Raymond Chandler, the Sam Spade radio series, the Harry 0 television series, certainly the novels of Andrew Bergman, novels by Thomas Dewey, a hodge-podge of film detectives including Mike Shayne, Boston Blackie, the Crime Doctor, Charlie Chan, etc. I wanted Toby to be unpretentious (he doesn’t play chess or smoke a pipe, or quote from literature or the Bible) and at the lowest level of the professional economic scale.
How has your work in film, both as a professor and as a scriptwriter, affected your fiction writing?
My work in film has greatly affected my fiction writing. When I write fiction, I see scenes, characters and action. There may be a voice-over which is one of my characters or me or a narrator, but for me at least my fiction is visual.
How have the Toby Peters mysteries been received by the friends and families of the famous people who appear in your book?
I have had little feedback from the families of the famous people with whom I have dealt in my Toby Peters novels. Only second-hand did I hear that Errol Flynn’s daughter very much liked my treatment of her father. I met John Wayne’s daughter, Marisa. She was being considered for a movie I was working on. I liked her very much and, apparently, she liked The Man Who Shot Lewis Vance.
Do you find that movie buffs generally agree with or accept your interpretation of their idols?
I have had no negative feedback on my depiction of movie “idols” from fans. I have, I believe, treated those with whom I have dealt with respect and even love. I deal with their idealized biographies not necessarily their flaws. These are not biographies but exercises in dramatic nostalgia. For example, my treatment of Joe Louis is extremely affectionate, but I have also written a play about Joe Louis which deals with his battle with inner demons which led to his mental illness.
Are there any figures in Hollywood history that you would like to use but haven’t been able to for one reason or another?
There are a number of historical figures I’d like to use in Toby Peters novels. Some of them I have rejected because they don’t have sufficient name and image recognition for a general audience (Wheeler and Woolsey). Some I have put aside because of difficulty in finding sufficient research material (Al Jolson). Some have eluded me as potential characters — I just couldn’t get inside the character (Greta Garbo). So, I would like to do Toby novels featuring Abbott and Costello, Robert Mitchum, Dick Powell, Tyrone Power, Joan Crawford, Sidney Toler, Ida Lupino, the Ritz Brothers, Danny Kaye… There appears to be no end of potential clients.
How do you develop a Toby Peters plot? Do you start with the famous figures Toby will meet and see what hot water you can get them into, or do you start with a plot and then figure out which Hollywood denizens would fit into it?
My Toby Peters plots begin with the famous characters. I select something from their lives that gets me thinking, sometimes for months, about turning a plot on that event — Flynn’s Clinton-like inability to stay away from young girls, W.C. Fields’ hidden back accounts, Joe Louis’s affair with Lana Turner, Chico Marx’s gambling debts, etc.
In 1981, four years after your first Toby Peters book was published, Death of a Dissident launched your second series, featuring Russian police inspector Porfiry Petrovich Rostnikov. What was the reason for beginning the new series?
The reasons for launching my Rostnikov novels were several. First, I wasn’t making enough money writing just one series. Second, I had written an outline and 100 pages of a multi-generational, non-mystery novel about a Russian family. No one wanted the book. I had done a great deal of research and thought, “Why not a police series to contrast with my private eye series?” I chose the 87th Precinct novels, which I love, as the model for my Russian police procedurals. Evan Hunter (Ed McBain) has been a constant supporter, a good friend, and a generous mentor.
How difficult is it to do research for the Rostnikov books?
The Rostnikov books are very difficult to research. The Rostnikovs take about three times as long to research and write as any of my other books. I pride myself on being accurate in this series.
How have Russian immigrants reacted to the Rostnikov books — do they find them a believable picture of the world they have left behind?
Russians who have read my Rostnikovs — both immigrants and people inside of Russia — have been quite, quite favorable. During a trip I made to Moscow, just before the fall of the Soviet Union, I was honored by a gathering of the Union of Russian Journalists for my Rostnikov books.
Do you know if the Rostnikov books are available at all in Russia, and if so, how have they been received?
My Rostnikov novels are not available in Russia. The offers we have received are in rubles, not dollars, and the advances are quite small. Until they are willing and able to pay reasonably in hard currency, there will be no legal copies of my work in Russian.
In some circles, writers who are reasonably prolific are looked down on, considered less serious. Do you ever experience this, or have your critical success, and the awards and award nominations you’ve received helped offset it?
I have no interest in dealing with those circles who would look down at writers who are prolific. I cannot change their minds with examples — Simenon, for example — or argument. There is, however, absolutely no correlation between how long it takes to write a novel or script and how good it is. Bad writers often take years to write a book. Good writers often take a few weeks to write a book.
People who read my work can judge for themselves whether they like it or not and how good it is. I hope and expect that judgment will be made on the basis of how good they think the book is rather than how many books I have written.
Speaking of prolific writers, what about Shakespeare? There are many fine writers who write as much or more than I do. I am a great Joyce Carol Oates fan, as she knows. She is certainly prolific. I have little patience with literary aesthetes.
Did you or your publisher ever consider issuing the Rostnikov series or either of the two subsequent series under a pseudonym?
I have, from time to time, discussed with my agent the possibility of writing something under another name. I have always decided not to do so. I am proud of what I write. I want my name on it. If I were not proud of my work, I would not want it published under any name.
Since in addition to several dozen mysteries you’ve also produced works in film history and criticism, you must be an incredibly disciplined writer. Can you tell us a little about how you have achieved this — does it come naturally, or do you have to work at it?
I have to — as my wife will tell you — work very hard at the discipline of writing. It is odd. I hate to go to my computer. I delay. I wait till deadlines creep up on me and then I begin my work. When I actually sit down and start writing, I love it. I write with passion. I write as a reader. I make myself laugh. I frighten myself and I make myself cry. I want to know what will happen next and I am a bit at a loss when a book is done. I then start my cycle again.
In 1990, you launched a third series, featuring Abe Lieberman, a sixtyish Jewish police detective, and his partner, Bill Hanrahan, an alcoholic fifty-something Irish Catholic. What was the spark for this? Did you have a desire to write mysteries set in present day America, or was it more a desire to write about the specific characters of Lieberman and Hanrahan?
As for Lieberman and Hanrahan, yes, I wanted to write a contemporary series. I also wanted to bring my former boss and another mentor Don Siegel, the film director (Dirty Harry, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Shootist, Two Mules for Sister Sara, Coogan’s Bluff, The Beguiled, etc.) to life as a character. Lieberman is Don. He looks like Don, talks like Don, thinks like Don. I liked the friendship between a Jew and an Irish cop being explored, and I liked the opportunity to write about the personal lives of characters to a far greater extent in this series than in any other I write.
The Toby Peters books are told in first person, while the Rostnikov and Lleberman books are in third person. Was there a reason for the change — do you prefer one point of view?
The Toby Peters novels are told in the first person because they come from and echo a tradition of first-person private eye novels, films, television shows, radio shows. The Rostnikovs and Liebermans are cop novels, also from a long tradition, which are told in third person moving between characters. I have also written two thrillers (When The Dark Man Calls, Exercise in Terror) in which the story is told in the third person from inside the mind of the central character, in both cases a woman.
The Peters, Rostnikov, and Lieberman series all seem to feature men who are noticeably older than you were at the time you began writing them — is there a reason for this?
Alas, my series characters are not generally older than I, at least not when the series starts. You flatter me in thinking that I am younger than they are. A check of any of a wide variety of reference books will reveal the cruel truth of my age.
You’ve now also begun writing a mystery series featuring Jim Rockford of the former Rockford Files TV series. How did this come about?
I was approached to do the Rockford books. I was flattered and happy to do it. I was a great Rockford files fan. Rockford and Harry Orwell are my all-time favorite television private eyes. There was no problem writing the two Rockford books. I knew the characters intimately from having lived with them on the television screen for years. I viewed the Rockford TV movies before I wrote my first novel in the series only because I wanted the Rockford I wrote about to be the Rockford people were watching. My Rockford is the distinctly older James Garner.
Are most of the people who read the Rockford Files books fans of the TV series, or are some people meeting the character of Jim Rockford for the first time?
I have no idea who is reading the Rockford novels other than fans of mine and the series. A check of Amazon.com suggests that people who read the Rockfords are often led to read my other work too.
Do you find it easier or harder to write about one of your characters as the series continues?
I find it easiest to write about Lieberman and Hanrahan, though once I begin a novel, whoever I am writing about comes to life. I am currently writing a novel about a short, sad, balding Italian-American process server in Sarasota. He and the characters who surround him have come to life easily.
How difficult is it to balance the desire many readers have to come back to a favorite character and find him unchanged with the desire you may have as a writer to have the characters grow or develop over time?
My characters age and change as my series’ continue. I can’t worry about what some readers may think. I hope they agree with me about what I have done. In any case, I can do no differently.
Have your working methods changed over the years?
My work methods have changed. I described earlier how I currently work. When I began, I immediately, even before receiving contracts, began to write steadily at least two or three hours a day and on weekends, but that was long ago. I far prefer to work in the mornings.
What about the world of publishing, and specifically mystery publishing — how has it changed?
The world of publishing and the mystery have changed several times since I began. The big change is that when I began mid-list writers who made a profit for the publisher kept going. Now, there is a push to publish only those mysteries which have the potential to make a lot of money. Fortunately, I have loyal readers, a great agent, critical success and good luck with senior editors. I am far from a bestselling mystery writer.
Would you be pleased to see any of your children follow in your footsteps as a writer?
I would be pleased if one of my children became a writer, but I wouldn’t push them toward it. My two oldest children (sons) do not look as if they will be seriously writing. My two youngest (daughters) are both possibilities, especially my older daughter who is now 20 and has won some awards and had several stories published. She, however, is not a mystery writer or even a mystery fan.
Have there been or do you think there will be any movies made from your other series? If so, how well satisfied have you been with the treatments? If not, would you be interested in having a movie made or do you prefer to keep your characters on the printed page?
Three movies have been made from my novels. When the Dark Man Calls was filmed in France as FM starring Catherine Deneuve. It was later filmed for U.S.A. Mystery Movies as When A Dark Man Calls starring Joan Van Ark. Exercise in Terror was filmed as Hidden Fears and starred Meg Foster and Frederick Forrest. I wrote the screenplay for that one.
I liked the U.S.A. movie best of the three including the one I wrote. It is unlikely that I would turn down any reasonable offer to make a movie from any of my books. I am not independently wealthy, and even if I were, I would like to see what was done with my work.
Is there anything you would change if you were creating one of your series characters all over again?
I don’t think I would change any of my characters if I were to do it all over again. They are family now. I did, however, start a novel featuring a young Mexican-American private detective in contemporary Chicago. I wrote more than 100 pages and stopped. He wasn’t coming alive for me. Maybe I’ll try him again some time. I want to know more about his family and his future.
Do you find it hard or easy to switch back and forth from one series to another?
I find it very easy to switch back and forth between series. In fact, I find it invigorating to do so: to change voices, styles. I never confuse my characters. They are alive to me, and Toby is not Abe and Porfiry is not Rockford and so on.
How does scriptwriting compare with writing novels — harder, easier? More or less fun?
For me scriptwriting is far, far easier than writing novels. It is great fun to write the treatment and first draft of a screenplay. It is only after the first draft is done and I have to deal with producers that it sometimes gets difficult. Sometimes, not always.
When I took pictures of you and your daughter at Bouchercon, I heard you mention the name “Double Tiger.” What is the Double Tiger?
Double Tiger is the corporation for which I write. My wife is the president. I am an employee. She was a student of Chinese in college. Her sign is the relatively rare Double Tiger. We even have a Double Tiger banner on the wall of our family room.
Donna Andrews
Donna Andrews is the author of Murder with Peacocks, which won the St. Martin’s Press/Malice Domestic Best First Traditional Mystery Award in May 1998. Her second book in the Meg and Michael series, Murder with Puffins, will be released this spring.