|
BIO
Stephen White is the author of the New York Times bestselling Alan Gregory novels. In his books, he draws upon over 15 years of clinical practice as a psychologist to create intriguing plots and complex, believable characters.
 Official Website:
Official Web Site for Bestselling Author Stephen White
http://www.authorstephenwhite.com
INTERVIEW
 March 7, 2008
Stephen White --- the author of such novels as DRY ICE, KILL ME, MISSING PERSONS and BLINDED --- recently published DEAD TIME, his 16th book in the bestselling Alan Gregory series. In this interview with Bookreporter.com's Joe Hartlaub, White discusses the evolving relationships between the series' protagonist and various recurring characters and explains the process by which he chooses the particular narrative style of each installment. He also describes his unconventional method (or lack thereof) of planning story arcs, expresses his surprise over the unexpected success of his books despite his two-decade career and ponders the ultimate end of Alan Gregory.
Bookreporter.com: A great deal of DEAD TIME concerns a visit to the Grand Canyon that ended in the mysterious disappearance of a young woman. Much of your description of the Grand Canyon and its environs appears to be from firsthand knowledge. Given the (relative) proximity that you live to the area, do you spend a great deal of time there? Were you a regular visitor to the Grand Canyon before you started writing this book?
Stephen White: I am delighted that I give the appearance of having firsthand familiarity with the Grand Canyon. Sadly, I’ve only visited the canyon twice in my life. Neither visit was in the recent past and I’ve never made the trek I describe to the canyon floor. To fill in the voids in my knowledge and experience, I relied on the descriptions of many friends who have made more recent and thorough visits, and did a combination of old-fashioned research (books!) and modern investigations (yes, the Internet).
BRC: In DEAD TIME, the relationship between Dr. Alan Gregory and Sam Purdy is a moving force behind the story. Much is written about women’s friendships, yet men’s friendships can be, and are, just as complex. Here, the men tentatively regain contact and in some ways switch roles, with Purdy dispensing advice and Gregory in the thick of the action. Does their friendship mirror any that you share?
SW: I’ve had to think about this question for a while prior to responding. I don’t think that there is much personal experience revealed in the relationship I’ve concocted between Alan and Sam. I have some male friendships I treasure, but none of them resemble Alan’s and Sam’s. Their evolving friendship has become --- to me --- a charming feature of the series. I made a conscious decision in this story to use the telephone as a way to allow them to re-establish some of the intimacy that they had lost, to ease back into their personal connection. Ultimately, they do switch roles in this story. I think the change is an indication of the evolution of their friendship --- their relationship is based much less on their roles (detective and psychologist) than it once was.
BRC: At the close of DEAD TIME it appears that Gregory and Purdy are going to be geographically separated. Will you be bringing them back together in subsequent books, or will Purdy be offstage for a bit?
SW: I hesitate to admit this because it’s kind of embarrassing, but I don’t have a series arc in my head. When I write the last line of a book, it’s rare that I have any idea how I will deal in any subsequent stories with the circumstances I’ve just created. When I finished DRY ICE, I didn’t know how the revelations about Lauren’s earlier romantic life would be treated in the next book. Now we know. Back then, I didn’t. Much gets resolved in DEAD TIME, but the relationships, as you note, are constantly evolving. What’s next? Stay tuned. I will.
BRC: Alan Gregory’s wife, Lauren, is absent throughout the majority of DEAD TIME, yet she casts a shadow over events throughout the novel, influencing Gregory’s actions in some spheres, and not without some ultimate irony. She also, apparently, will be a moving force in the next Alan Gregory novel, given what occurs in this book. How did Lauren’s back story, which leads to her absence here, evolve as you wrote the book?
SW: I was aware from the start of DEAD TIME that the book was going to be about primitive procreative forces --- the working title of the project from day one was CLEAVAGE (THE OTHER KIND) --- and I was aware that I was going to endeavor to resolve some of the conflicts, especially in relationships, left dangling from the previous book. Shortly after I made the decision to give Alan’s ex-wife Merideth a prominent position in the narrative, I reached a conclusion that I wanted Lauren off-stage. From that point on I had a pretty good idea about what Lauren’s role would be in this story. It’s unusual for me to have that degree of early certainty about these things, but most of Lauren’s arc in this book was clear to me from the beginning of the creative process.
BRC: You do things a bit differently in each of the Alan Gregory novels. You have some books where he is heavily involved and in the thick of things, others where he is more an observer than a catalyst, and you’ve even relegated him to what might be described as a cameo role in KILL ME, where his appearance is nonetheless a pivotal one. In DEAD TIME, you change things up yet again, going from third person when discussing the past events that took place in the Grand Canyon, to alternating first person viewpoints (“His Ex, Merideth,” “Her Ex, Alan”). How do you ultimately settle on how to tell your story in each novel? Is there any particular exercise you go through? Have you ever completed a novel, and then changed the viewpoint or the method of the narrative?
SW: I love this question.
There are a number of important creative steps I go through in anticipation of writing each book. First on the list for me is, “What is this book going to be about?” This isn’t really a story question (a what’s-going-to-happen thing) for me, this is a concept question --- a way for me to identify a theme or dilemma that is captivating enough to keep my interest for as long as it will take me to write the book. The second question tags onto the first. It is, “Okay, if I’m going to write about X, what entertaining story can I tell about X?” I need to find a narrative skeleton that will permit me to construct an interesting and, I hope, enlightening book. Once I have some initial, minimal narrative components, just enough to allow me to frame what’s coming --- in DEAD TIME those components were Merideth’s situation and the missing girl in the Grand Canyon --- I’m left to face a creative decision that I often stumble over: “If this book is going to be about X, and the story will be about Y, how am I going to tell it?” To me, this question is about form, and about structure, and about architecture. It always ultimately becomes, too, a question about point of view and about narrative voice.
In a roundabout way, the initial creative decisions about story dictate the ultimate choices I make about the characters that will be featured in the story, and about the narrative voice or voices I will use to tell the tale. I don’t set out to write an Alan Gregory story, or a Sam Purdy one; instead, I populate the story I plan to tell, allowing ensemble characters to take on appropriate roles. If those roles are minor, so be it. If none of the existing ensemble characters fits a need, I’ll gladly create someone new.
The final decisions about point of view and narrative voice are questions of fit. Although I’ve never actually finished an entire novel and then gone back and changed a narrator’s voice or point of view, I have written significant portions and decided that my first instinct had been too limiting or not appropriate to the material. A good example is THE PROGRAM. I had no intention of writing so much of the book in the voice of a female narrator. Only after I’d written dozens of pages did I go back and adopt her voice. The writing immediately became effortless.
In DEAD TIME, I was enamored with the idea of looking at a slew of relationships from both sides. By allowing both Alan and his ex-wife unique narrative voices, they get to give unfiltered (and divergent) perspectives on their failed marriage. That back-and-forth created a template for examining the other relationships, major and minor, in the book the same way. The occasional use of the third-person point of view was a requirement for telling the parts of the story that were unknown to the two narrators.
BRC: You seem to be quite comfortable writing about Alan Gregory, even as you constantly, and realistically, change his life and circumstances. Do you ever foresee writing a stand-alone work unrelated to the Gregory mythos, featuring other characters or, perhaps, even outside the thriller genre?
SW: Alan is familiar to me, maybe even comfortable, but I don’t find him easy to write. I didn’t create Alan with a series in mind, certainly not a long series. Much of his complexity is internal, which is not necessarily the best choice I could have made for the foundation character of a thriller series.
The flexibility in structure and architecture that I employ (you allude to in the previous question) has allowed me to do a lot of yoga with series form, and the creative freedom granted to me by my editors and publishers over the years has permitted me to stretch the series in ways that wouldn’t be possible were I forced to focus only on writing Alan Gregory first-person narratives.
I do have story ideas that I adore that cannot be adapted to fit within the series. At some point I’m sure I will write them. For now, the series has proven to be a gift that endures and I’m yet to feel confined by its boundaries. Crime fiction readers have shown themselves to be willing conspirators as I stretch the parameters of the series.
BRC: You are well into your second decade of writing fiction. What, if anything, are you doing differently now?
SW: That is a kind description --- I’m actually huffing up to the starting gate of my third decade of writing fiction. What’s different? I’m more reflective, I think, about the work. I have a much higher degree of confidence in readers than I did when I was starting out. I hope I have surprised some readers over the years, because readers constantly surprise me. Every time I get advice (and ignore it) that something I’m doing (structurally, thematically, with my vocabulary --- whatever) overestimates readers, the readers prove the advice to be wrong.
BRC: DEAD TIME is your 16th novel. Did you anticipate your writing career continuing for this length of time, and for so many books? Which of your initial goals have you achieved? And do you have any that you plan to accomplish?
SW: I never anticipated a writing career. I didn’t even let myself think much about being a published novelist until the magical day I held my first galley in my hands.
I knew almost nothing about series fiction when I started to write the story that became my first novel. The Boulder characters were built for a sprint, not a marathon. (Okay, a pair of sprints. The second book, PRIVATE PRACTICES, became a sibling to the first because I had been way too optimistic about how much material I could fit into the first story.) Back then, I couldn’t dream about galaxies far, far away because I couldn’t even see myself on the moon.
I long ago exceeded any expectations of reward I had from being a writer. While I was a practicing psychologist (or before that, a cook and bartender), I never really considered that I could be a published novelist. I became one. I never thought I could make a living writing stories. I’ve done that. I hardly thought that the words “bestselling author” would become modifiers to my name. They have. I absolutely didn’t think I would have a writing career measured in decades. I have that career. How do I feel about it all? I marvel, and I’m grateful. Grateful, grateful.
BRC: What would you be doing vocationally if you were not writing or practicing psychology?
SW: Were I to go back to school tomorrow, I would probably study architecture and design. I have no particular talent in either, but I’ve never let that obstacle get in my way.
BRC: Given the length of time that the series has flourished, the question now needs to be asked: Do you have the last Alan Gregory novel written and waiting in the wings? Or, at the least, do you have any plans for how things wind up for Alan?
SW: The end of the series isn’t written, but I know a lot about it. I know what it’s about, I know some of the bones that will make up the skeleton of the story, and I’ve made some important decisions about the structure. When will I write it? That is something I don’t know.
 Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.com.
Back to top.
INTERVIEW
 March 23, 2007
Stephen White is the author of the bestselling Alan Gregory series, which includes BLINDED, MISSING PERSONS, KILL ME and the newly released DRY ICE. In this interview with Bookreporter.com's Joe Hartlaub, White discusses some of the recurring themes of his book that relate to his past career in psychology, and explains how his "naivete and ignorance" in fiction writing has worked to his advantage. He also credits another popular author for inspiring him to create his unlikely protagonist and explores the possibility of bringing back ensemble characters for future installments of the series.
Bookreporter.com: DRY ICE is your 15th novel. It takes the Alan Gregory series full circle by bringing back Michael McClelland --- arguably Gregory's most dangerous adversary from your first novel, PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. Had you always planned on bringing McClelland back at some point, or is his return the product of more recent inspiration?
Stephen White: My intent was to examine Alan Gregory's arc --- in terms of maturity, demeanor, values and character --- between the time that I originally introduced him in PRIVILEGED INFORMATION and the fictional present. I decided to revisit Michael McClelland after an image (which became the scene that begins on page 252) got stuck in my head. Reintroducing him provided an excellent vehicle for reexamining Alan, but I think I could have accomplished much the same thing even if I had decided to create a fresh antagonist for DRY ICE.
BRC: Your last book, KILL ME, relegated Gregory to a minor presence even as he ultimately played an important role in the events that occurred. In contrast, Gregory is present throughout the entirety of DRY ICE. We also learn much more about him, not the least of which is that he has developed what appears to be a serious drinking problem. The prevalence of substance abuse is the dirty little secret of the professional classes, not only with doctors but also with attorneys and accountants, among others. Was this a reason that you decided to write this into the plot?
SW: I've been aware of many details of Alan Gregory's backstory for years, his personal biography acting as a kind of writer's compass for me in terms of understanding his motivations. Until I was contemplating the DRY ICE story, I'd never seriously considered revealing any of Alan's history.
Alan's drinking --- like his difficulty sleeping and his emotional withdrawal --- is part of a vocabulary I employed to emphasize the stress he is feeling during the events in this narrative, and to highlight the apparent breakdown of his usual coping skills. I wanted to paint him into a corner emotionally as well as practically, and the drinking helped me describe a pattern of (failed) adaptation that I thought would feel familiar to most readers. I wasn't trying to make any larger statement.
BRC: DRY ICE could just as easily have been titled "Secrets." We learn, after these many years, that Gregory has a secret that has shaped and influenced his life, and that he is not the only long-running character in the series who is carrying some major baggage. Lauren, for instance, also has a significant secret that is revealed near the end of DRY ICE. Without giving too much away, do you have any plans for Lauren's secret to affect a future Gregory novel?
SW: Some of the interpersonal issues that explode in the last few chapters of DRY ICE are very much part of what the ensemble characters are struggling with in the subsequent story that I'm writing now. I intentionally wrote the conflicts that develop in DRY ICE so that they would be large to ignore from the point of view of character development. I wanted, as a writer, to be left with little sense of the status quo with any of the continuing characters as the novel came to a conclusion. I suspect readers will feel much the same way. At the end of this book, the stage is set in a way that maximizes my degrees of freedom going forward.
BRC: A recurring theme in your work is the complications that occur as the result of professional confidentiality related to disclosures between patients and psychologists, and how the rules that govern such disclosures --- which are well-intended and, indeed, necessary --- often aggravate the very problems that they are designed to resolve. You've obviously given this, and related ethical issues, a great deal of study and thought. If you had the power to change any aspect of the ethical standards for clinical psychologists, what would you change? And why?
SW: The issue once fascinated me professionally, but no longer. The issues associated with confidentiality and privilege that make their way into the recent books are merely part of the professional landscape for me --- I write about them because they are there. Ignoring them would impose an unreality on the process.
I'm actually an advocate for strict ethical standards for therapists. Over my years in practice, and having served on disciplinary and ethical review boards, I can think of almost no instance where a high ethical bar caused a patient to be mistreated, but could recite a litany of instances when lax ethical behavior injured patients.
BRC: You have kept the Gregory series fresh over the course of the past 15 years by making each book different from its predecessors, changing focus occasionally and making dramatic, not to mention traumatic, changes in Gregory's life. In some ways, the Gregory books could be considered a series of stand-alone novels with recurring characters. Notwithstanding that, do you have any plans for one or more stand-alone works, with entirely different characters who have nothing to do with the people and events presented in the Gregory books?
SW: Your appraisal is interesting. I've not heard the series described that way before. It may be apt.
I didn't set out to write a series, so I didn't enter into writing fiction with a plan about the development of something as unwieldy as a series. I certainly didn't conceptualize the cadre of continuing characters with the idea that they would be in this for the long haul. I think, in retrospect, that my naivete and ignorance about crime series fiction have served me well. Since I had no preconceived notions about solitary/multiple protagonists, enduring heroes, plot structure, book architecture, story sequencing, or long-term character arcs, I felt few inhibitions about changing things around from one book to the next. That was true right from the beginning of the series: HIGHER AUTHORITY was a major departure from the first two books.
I've also been blessed along the way with a series of editors who have supported and encouraged the course variations whenever I charted them. Brian Tart, my current editor at Dutton, could have reacted to my proposal for KILL ME with skepticism (or outright rejection). Some editors and publishers undoubtedly would have. Instead, he embraced the change of pace enthusiastically, and helped me polish the concept and enhance the execution. Similarly, he immediately saw what I was trying to accomplish as I decided to shake up the ensemble in DRY ICE. Take away the editorial trust and guidance I've received from some great editors over the years, and the series may have taken a much more predictable path.
Do I have plans for a pure stand-alone novel? I have ideas --- at least three concepts are far enough along in my head that I could begin researching them tomorrow. But as of now, I have no plans. The series has been good to me, the flexibility I've been granted to write it has never felt constraining to me, and I don't feel at all handcuffed by continuing to write it.
BRC: There is a sudden, and unexpected, tragedy that occurs near the end of DRY ICE that portends significant changes for the series. How far ahead have you plotted the Alan Gregory series? Do you foresee a definitive end for the series, or do you plan to write the books as long as people want to read them?
SW: I plot as I write. I have no idea what will happen to any character arc, or to the progression of the backstory of the ensemble, as I go forward.
Series do end. Few ever get as long as this one. That acknowledged, I have no interest in hastening the end of this series or bringing it to an arbitrary conclusion. Will I have a chance when the time comes to end the series on my terms? It would be nice, but I'm not sure I will get the opportunity.
BRC: How much of Stephen White is in Alan Gregory?
SW: Beyond the obvious, not too much. And probably less now than there was early on. I do think there is a piece of me in almost every character I write, good and bad.
BRC: While you no longer engage in practice as a full-time psychologist, your books, including DRY ICE, indicate that you appear to continue to keep current concerning research on topics related to clinical psychology. Can you talk about this reading and research? Do you ever toy with practicing again?
SW: Psychology fascinates me. It's why I started in the field and it's why I continue to write about it. I'm not a dedicated student of developments in psychology these days, but when I choose topics to include in the books, I will reexamine the current literature so I don't sound like too much of an idiot.
BRC: Compare and contrast, if you would, the benefits and drawbacks for you between practicing psychology and writing.
SW: Apples and oranges. I can't imagine having my current career had I not had my former one. Now? My commute is shorter, the dress code is more flexible, and I tend to shower after I'm done with my day's work.
Both careers have provided significant rewards for me. I'm grateful I don't have to go back and choose between them.
BRC: Your older brother Richard is also a writer of some renown. What was there in your childhood, and your nurturing, that you feel may have brought out the creative side of you and your brother? And do either of you ever engage in pre-publication critiquing of the other's work?
SW: Richard and I both write. The similarities end there. Without any false modesty, I accept my position as the second best writer in my family.
Two things might be responsible for one family developing two writers: books and education. Our house was full of books. Although neither of us was encouraged to become writers while growing up, the written word was revered in our house. Education, too, was a given. I think it's fair to say that without our respective educations (Richard is a historian at Stanford), our career paths would look much different than they do.
Richard doesn't read much fiction --- by trade and demeanor, he's biased toward facts --- so my work has never been at the top of his reading list. I do occasionally get a chance to give his work an early look, but I don't critique unless he asks me for it.
BRC: Other than your brother, have there been any writers who have influenced your written work?
SW: Anyone I've ever read has influenced me, but otherwise it's a hard line to draw. Jonathan Kellerman is the horse I rode in on --- had Jon not written WHEN THE BOUGH BREAKS I'm not sure I ever would have had the idea for a psychologist protagonist. I try to learn something from every book I read, every story I see on film, every conversation I have.
BRC: I have to ask. Sam Purdy is one of my favorite supporting characters in any series. Will we be seeing any future novels in the Alan Gregory series that will feature Purdy as a predominant character?
SW: Sam obviously has a major role in DRY ICE, and he seems to be adopting a similar profile in the manuscript I'm currently writing. I enjoyed writing in his voice in BLINDED, and I don't rule out doing so again. He is a facile bridge for linking Alan Gregory to active law enforcement, so I don't foresee him fading into the background anytime soon.
Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.com.
Back to top.
INTERVIEW
 March 3, 2006
Stephen White tackles a socially controversial topic in his latest book, KILL ME. In this interview with Bookreporter.com's Suspense/Thriller Author Spotlight Team (Carol Fitzgerald, Joe Hartlaub and Wiley Saichek), White reveals how a conversation with a terminally ill entrepreneur sparked his interest in the subject, and discusses how this particular novel differs in style and format from his previous work. He also explains how his writing career began and expresses what he hopes readers will take away from this title.
Bookreporter.com: We've read that a conversation that you had with Peter Barton (co-author of NOT FADE AWAY: A Short Life Well-Lived) sparked your idea for writing KILL ME. Could you share with our readers what you talked about with Peter?
Stephen White: I had agreed to talk with Peter at the request of mutual friends about some writing he had done, and about his dream that he could condense the dozens of essays into a published book in the few months he had left before he died of stomach cancer. I thought the actual role I'd been recruited for was to tell Peter what his old friends hoped not to have to tell him --- that his writing wasn't publishable, but was rather best preserved as a memoir for his children.
I was wrong on so many levels. Much of what Peter had written was magical. The short life he had lived was in many ways a chronicle of the dreams of an entire generation. If he got the right help I thought his work was not only publishable, but needed to be published. I connected Peter with a writer friend of mine, Larry Shames, and together they created NOT FADE AWAY: A Short Life Well-Lived (Harper Perennial, 2004), a lovely, lyrical, inspiring book as different from KILL ME as night is from day. I highly recommend it.
The specific inspiration for KILL ME came on an early spring morning sitting outside with Peter at his house. He was telling me about the sudden, tragic death of a man his mother was involved with long after Peter's own father had died. I wasn't too surprised by the theme of the story; death was very much on Peter's mind those days. The man had died under suspicious circumstances in the Crestones in Colorado's southern mountains in a freak accident that involved a risky wilderness activity. Ice climbing, rock climbing, hang gliding --- something. I don't remember the details. While Peter described the man's demise the psychologist in me thought I heard some wistfulness, maybe even some envy, in Peter's voice. By then he was enduring severe pain from his cancer; his world was getting smaller as his tumor grew larger. I asked him, "Do you ever think about it? On a good day, going up into the mountains, having an accident, going over a cliff? Ending it. Dying like your mother's friend did?"
Without hesitation, Peter acknowledged the fantasy. I don't recall what words he used. I do recall what he said next though. He said, "I could never do it. The kids would wonder." He was talking about his three children, and his absolute insistence that his death, like his life, be a model for them. Enough said.
I dropped the issue. Peter and I never spoke of it again. But driving home that day, I couldn't get our conversation out of my head. As novelists do, I began to ponder something: What if someone in Peter's peculiar circumstances could do it --- end his life --- in a way that his kids wouldn't wonder, that his family would never know? Peter was a wealthy man. What if it turned out that a person like Peter had the foresight to hire somebody to end his life under circumstances that would make his death appear completely accidental? What, I began to imagine in the days and weeks and months that followed, if there were a company that would agree, for a steep fee, to kill you should you ever become so sick or so disabled that you would choose not to continue living?
That is how KILL ME was born. The seed was an unanswered question left over from a short conversation with a dying man.
BRC: KILL ME can be viewed as a stand-alone instead of as a series title in your long-running Alan Gregory series. The most immediate difference is that Gregory, while still important to the story, is a subtle, third person presence. You have taken a similar approach before --- in HIGHER AUTHORITY, for example, or THE PROGRAM --- but never to this extent. What inspired you to write this installment from a different viewpoint? How did writing KILL ME differ from your suspense novels that have Alan taking a non-narrating role?
SW: I knew within hours of leaving Peter's house that day that I was contemplating a story that I could write as a stand-alone thriller. In fact, my initial instinct was to write the story that way. I knew the concept would require the creation of a major character, and the new character would need to be at the center of the book. But, as the writer of a thirteen-book series, the decision to break from the series and write a stand-alone novel is a complex one --- it is not only a question of writing and craft, but it is also a publishing decision.
As I began to conceptualize the story, I recognized two things that influenced my choice of directions. One was that I wanted the story to have the power of first-person narration. The second was that this was a story that I couldn't tell in any fashion that approached linear. That second awareness became crucial --- the simple reality was that the story I had in my head would lose its punch and its suspense if it were told chronologically. How did I handle the dilemma? So that the narrator wouldn't seem to be manipulating the reader, I knew that I was going to need to develop a secondary character to act as a sounding board for the storyteller/narrator, someone who could hear his captivating story as the narrator chose to tell it, but someone who would not interfere with the progression of the narrative. I considered friend. I considered priest.
I chose shrink, and decided to use the opportunity to explore a new way for longtime readers of the series to perceive Alan Gregory. The bonus? For readers who have never read any of the earlier series books, I think that KILL ME reads as a stand-alone thriller. Alan's history in the series is completely immaterial to this story. It's the best of both worlds.
BRC: Your protagonist and narrator in KILL ME is unnamed. Did you set out to make him anonymous? If so, why?
SW: Initially, it was a non-decision on my part. The first chapter I wrote in the manuscript that became KILL ME turned out to be the prologue in the finished book. It was, for me, an unusual opening chapter in that it is almost all prose --- the narrator's description of a few miles he spends heading west in his car on Interstate 70 into the Rocky Mountains. No natural space existed in the exposition for the narrator to identify himself by name, so I didn't bother. At the time I was writing that scene, I don't recall giving the issue of the man's name much thought.
But when I got to the next chapter --- when the narrator is meeting his therapist for the first time --- he acknowledges a conscious intent to disguise his identity from his doctor as much as possible. I realized then that I had a dilemma. I think I recognized the dilemma so clearly because of my experience five years before writing THE PROGRAM. In that book I had to deal with a writing conundrum I created by developing characters who appear in the book using various pseudonyms. The opportunities for reader confusion were constant and required frequent remedies and reminders on my part. At some point early on, I began to think that I could avoid a similar problem in KILL ME by leaving the protagonist/narrator nameless. At first, I wasn't sure it would be possible. But I quickly realized that from a writing perspective the man's anonymity was serving the story well.
BRC: The opening chapters of KILL ME were exciting as they dealt with somewhat risky, though common, activities --- driving, skiing, diving --- in which things go badly wrong. In particular, the driving sequence was beautifully choreographed. Did you build the book from this scene, or did it come to you after you had the basic idea for KILL ME in place?
SW: The concept came first --- everything was constructed on that skeleton. When I'm fortunate enough to get an idea as pregnant with possibility as the one I had after my conversation with Peter, I find that everything in the creative process accelerates. Within a day or two of coming up with the concept, I found myself looking around for methods that an organization like the Death Angels would use to kill its clients. Every time I read about an accidental death in the newspaper or saw one on TV, I allowed myself to ponder, "Was that really an accident? Could it have been staged?" The first incident that really stuck in my head became the driving scene on I-70. I also knew when I began to write that scene that the beginning of the drive and the end of the drive were going to be divided in the book by hundreds of pages.
It's possible that no one but other writers will find this interesting (and it will mean nothing until readers actually read the book) but the most amazing thing to me about the writing process of KILL ME is that I wrote it in the precise order that it exists in the finished book. Not a chapter was moved. Why is this interesting? (Although I allow for the possibility that it's actually not interesting at all) I find it amazing because of the dozens of temporal changes that exist in the narrative. In retrospect it would have been much easier to write it in linear chunks and then chop it up.
BRC: KILL ME deals primarily with a man who contracts with a secretive group --- which he dubs the "Death Angels" --- to end his life, should he experience an irreversible incident, such as an incurable disease or accident. Are the Death Angels real or fictitious?
SW: I made up the version in the book.
More than a few early readers have asked me how they could get in touch with an organization like the Death Angels. Although I doubt that a sophisticated organization like the one I describe could operate with sufficient secrecy for long, I do imagine that there are many informal compacts between friends and loved ones that are designed to allow for the same kind of outcome. Someone draws a line in the sand marking the illness and/or disability they might choose to tolerate. Someone else agrees to assist that person's death should his or her health decline beyond the specified point.
BRC: There is a short, but chilling telephone conversation that takes place between the narrator of KILL ME and Lizzie from the Death Angels approximately halfway through the book. Did you build KILL ME from this exchange, or did it come about within the natural flow of the book?
SW: Although I don't recommend it as a process, I've written all fourteen of my books without an outline and without a character roster. That means that Lizzie didn't exist in my mind in any form when I wrote the first page of KILL ME. And it means that the nature of the narrator's illness wasn't determined until the page that I describe it the first time. The scene that includes the phone call between the narrator and Lizzie developed naturally as the plot unfolded in my head.
But --- at a gut level, I knew early on that there would be a scene with those stakes, and with that power, at about that point in the narrative. The daily evolution of the characters and the plot details are part of the rejuvenating process of discovery that allows writing to remain fun for me after fifteen years.
BRC: Could you tell our readers a bit about your background and share what prompted you to make the (gradual) career change from practicing psychology to writing fiction?
SW: The truth is a little embarrassing. This is where I'm supposed to discuss my lifelong dream to become a writer and all the travails I suffered along the way. What actually happened? In 1989 I bought my first computer in order to help me manage my clinical psychology practice. It came with word processing software --- Write and Spell --- that I had no clue how to use. In order to teach myself the software I decided to write a story. About five months later the "story" became PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. It was the first intentional fiction I had written since I was nineteen years old.
I've often thought that "deciding" to support a family as a novelist would be about as practical as using Powerball as a retirement strategy. I continued practicing while I wrote the next two books. I closed my practice in the mid 1990's.
BRC: Much of KILL ME takes place in New York, where you spent part of your formative years. Do you plan to keep the locale of your novels primarily in Colorado, or will you be sending your stories and characters to more varied locales?
SW: Early in my writing career I focused most of my attention on the Rocky Mountain West. But over the last few books I've intentionally begun picking locales that offer a distinct contrast to Boulder. BLINDED has big chunks that take place in Laguna Beach, southern Georgia, and Indiana. MISSING PERSONS features urban Las Vegas. KILL ME uses New York City and New Haven. Contrast, like conflict, is rich ground. I imagine I'll continue to gravitate toward environments that provide a distinctive feel that can be contrasted to Colorado.
BRC: Was KILL ME "easier" to write than your other novels, or more difficult? Why?
SW: It almost wrote itself. The only other book that was as easy to write was THE PROGRAM. Why? I wish I knew. God, I wish I knew.
BRC: Right to die issues have always been controversial, as we all have seen in recent years. You finished KILL ME prior to the end of the Terri Schiavo case, when right-to-life issues were all over the news. Did your editor or publisher express any concerns about KILL ME's storyline?
SW: I expected resistance. The expectation was based on two primary factors --- the controversial subject matter, and the fact that the format of the book would stretch the series architecture to the limit. From a publishing perspective, I feared that the latter issue would be more problematic than the former. In fact, at the meeting with my editor, when I discussed the concept for KILL ME, I did something I had never done previously in my career --- I came to the meeting with an alternative proposal in my pocket.
I didn't need the alternative. My editor was enthusiastic from day one and I've received nothing but encouragement and support from Dutton.
BRC: What do you hope readers take with them after finishing KILL ME?
SW: Mostly? I hope they enjoy it. I try not to lose sight of the reality that my biggest responsibility is to provide a good read. If I'm able to take readers for an enjoyable ride --- compelling characters, good story --- I find most are more than willing to deal with some issues along the way.
In terms of the topic, I'd be pleased if it stirred discussion. The book is about concerns and fears that seem universal. Everyone I know has been part of a conversation --- after a friend or loved one has become seriously ill or suffered a terrible trauma, or begun feeling the ravages of dementia --- when someone, maybe us, says "If that ever happens to me, I wish someone would kill me." I hope the book precipitates introspection and conversation about what "quality" means in "quality of life" and about what constitutes a good death.
BRC: What are you working on now? Can readers expect anything different for Dr. Gregory in the future?
SW: I'm cognizant that the series is mature and I'm going to try to allow whatever books remain to reflect that. The manuscript I'm currently finishing will feel more familiar to series readers than KILL ME. The underlying structure of the 2007 book is similar to many, but not all, of the earlier series books. Alan Gregory narrates and many of the series regulars appear.
But the book is a major departure in another way --- for the first time in fifteen books I explore Alan's demons and the forces that have shaped him as a man and as a therapist. It's not all pretty. The title? Stay tuned.
Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.com.
Back to top.
INTERVIEW
January 31, 2003
  Bestselling novelist Tami Hoag, author of DARK HORSE chats with Stephen White about his writing habits, characters and use of contemporary events in this special interview for Bookreporter.com's yearlong Suspense/Thriller feature. White, whose books include THE BEST REVENGE and WARNING SIGNS, is Bookreporter.com's February featured suspense author.
Tami Hoag: The dreaded question: how do you do that voodoo you do? Meaning, what techniques keep you at the keyboard making the pages fly? Where do you work? How did you establish your routine, or lack of routine, and what is the most welcome interruption --- the one that actually makes you feel like you can conquer that pesky plot problem?
Stephen White: It's funny, but I don't dread the question as much as some writers do. Years ago, when I was a graduate student in clinical psychology at the University of Colorado in Boulder struggling with my doctoral thesis, my dissertation advisor sagely told me that the most important thing a writer does each day is put his butt in the chair. My current writing technique largely involves following his advice. I'm in my office --- I've co-opted our rarely used living room for the space --- by seven-thirty every morning. When I'm actively writing a new book I write six, sometimes seven days a week, not taking my butt out of said chair each day until I've written at least three manuscript pages.
"Pesky plot problems," I've discovered over the years, tend to be soluble in very hot water. Fortunately for me a long shower usually provides a solution to almost any narrative dilemma. In those rare instances that a shower fails to inspire, however, I've found that a good massage will certainly take care of things --- or at least permit me to forget what I was worried about in the first place.
Tami Hoag: You've written many novels in which your main characters --- Alan Gregory, his DA wife Lauren Crowder, and of course Sam Purdy --- return to work together, or in parallel, to solve crimes. What challenges do returning characters pose? How do you keep the complicated, and life --- like, relationships clear in your mind -- and have you found yourself to be surprised with the strains, turns, changes among these characters? Do you ever tire of them? What happens then?
Stephen White: This is certainly the type of question that writers ask writers.
Unlike some --- maybe even most --- writers of successful series fiction, I didn't set out to write a series. If I was lucky, I thought, my first novel, PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, would have a sibling. It turned out that I was lucky and that imagined sibling became my second book, PRIVATE PRACTICES. That was as far in advance as my crystal ball could see in those days. Now, twelve books later (I'm including next year's release, which is already in manuscript form) I'm living with a cadre of characters and an inventory of situations that I initially created for short-term use only. Does that create dilemmas? Sure it does. Certainly, poor Alan Gregory has been in enough harrowing situations over the last decade to cause a lesser soul to crack and one of the issues I try to deal with over time is the cumulative effect of his travails on his psyche. But the biggest challenge of having long-term continuing characters is the challenge of keeping them fresh. I confront the issue by allowing --- insisting might be a more apt word --- that each of the main characters show development and growth over time. The nature of that development often does surprise me, and although I'm not quite psychotic enough to believe that these characters are beyond my control, it does often feel as though I'm half a step behind them rather than half a step ahead.
Tami Hoag: Each of your novels seems to take a moral question and dramatize it without ever trivializing it. Are you consciously exploring issues of justice versus our judicial system, or bureaucratic corruption versus personal evil, etc.? How does this work for you?
Stephen White: Depending on the individual, the act of reading a book like one of yours or one of mine takes a typical reader a limited number of hours spread, usually, over a matter of days or weeks. Writers know, of course, that the act of creation of each book was actually more akin to a marathon that included --- perhaps --- years of pondering and many, many months of writing and rewriting. Painfully aware that writing a book is a major commitment of time and energy, I try to choose topics that are interesting enough and multi-faceted enough to carry me along for the duration of the journey. I find that writing about fractious issues works well. Why? From controversy comes point of view, from point of view comes conflict, and for me conflict is the lifeblood of narrative fiction.
My underlying assumption is that if a topic has enough moral texture to captivate me for the many months it takes to write it, it's also likely that it has enough intrinsic interest to keep my readers captivated until the last page is turned. The reason that the books are topical, sometimes even controversial, is that I find the most meat on those bones, and that meat sustains my interest and my passion as I write.
Still, the most important single criterion I use in choosing a topic is a simple one: Will it make an entertaining story? No matter what else I consider, I consider that first, and I consider it last.
Tami Hoag: Your novels address contemporary events such as Columbine as well as the rule of patient/therapist confidentiality as I extends to criminal justice; does your professional experience as a psychologist continue to inspire your writing?
Stephen White: THE BEST REVENGE had its true genesis in the summer of 1997 when I was invited by a Denver television news reporter to accompany her while she did a Death Row interview with a convicted murderer just prior to his execution at the Colorado State Penitentiary. The episode moved me in many, many ways and on the long drive back to Denver I felt a surety that a core idea for a book was hidden somewhere in what I'd just experienced. It took a few years for the concept to coalesce into a story idea and along the way a number of contemporary social and political issues inserted themselves into the mix, including the profound impact that DNA identification has had on the confidence we feel in the convictions of those serving on our country's death rows, the ongoing political and personal arguments about justice and reprisal for capital crimes, and even the social and international aspects of the US response to the events of September 11.
Although in many ways clinical psychology is a world that I feel I left behind in the mid 1990s, I remained convinced that I wouldn't have the career I have as a writer were it not for the perspectives and experiences I gained during my almost twenty years studying, researching, and practicing. At this stage of my writing life I'm not sure that psychology provides inspiration for me as much as it provides context. Any facility I'm fortunate enough to possess with motivation, character development, or dialogue has been sharpened by my knowledge of psychology and enriched by my experience as a clinical psychologist.
Back to top.
INTERVIEW
February 7, 2003
In this interview with Bookreporter.com's Suspense/Thriller Author Spotlight team (Carol Fitzgerald, Joe Hartlaub, and Wiley Saichek), Stephen White discusses his characters and writing habits, and gives readers a teaser about his next novel.
BRC: Unlike many series, your Alan Gregory novels show the viewpoint of many characters, not just the first person point-of-view of your main character. Why did you choose this way of storytelling?
Stephen White: Ignorance can be a wonderful thing. When I started writing novels, I was naïve about the attachment that readers, and publishers, have for series fiction and series characters. When I began to develop story ideas that didn't focus on my primary continuing protagonist (such as in HIGHER AUTHORITY or THE PROGRAM) I didn't hesitate to alter the point-of-view and/or narrative voice to fit the story. Fortunately for me, throughout my career I've had editorial support and guidance that has allowed me to explore different ways of approaching series crime fiction.
BRC: In your acknowledgments for THE BEST REVENGE, you write that you were invited to witness an interview with Death Row inmate Gary Davis in 1997, and that helped create the idea for this book. Did you accept the interview invitation as a novelist or a psychologist? Were you working on another book that was put aside for THE BEST REVENGE? If so does that happen often: ideas for other books popping up that may make you want to set aside a book you're working on? If you don't put aside a current project, do you work on more than one book at a time?
Stephen White: I was invited to the interview as a psychologist and a crime writer. If I were only one or the other, I'm not sure the opportunity would have come my way.
The gestation for the idea that started on that trip to the Colorado State Penitentiary was almost four years in duration, so I wasn't forced to set aside anything else to work on it. In fact, I don't think I've ever set aside a book-in-progress during my entire writing career. I may be editing one while I'm writing another, but I write only one at a time.
BRC: In your acknowledgments for THE BEST REVENGE, you cite a number of books about the FBI that gave you background on the Kelda character. How, besides reading, do you conduct research for your books? On an average, how many law officials and legal experts do you speak with while writing/preparing a book?
Stephen White: Each book requires a unique amount of preparation. For example, HIGHER AUTHORITY took a year of constant research --- reading, traveling, interviewing, while another early book, PRIVATE PRACTICES, took very little research. Typically I can cover the crime aspects of each story with background reading and one or two consultations with experts in each field I'm writing about.
BRC: Has there ever been a character in one of your novels that people clamored to see again, but you just didn't want to bring back? If so, which character?
Stephen White: Carl Luppo from THE PROGRAM is --- by far --- the single character that I'm most requested to reprise. I actually have no reluctance to do so, but because of his unique life circumstances it's not going to be easy to find a story that permits him a graceful encore.
BRC: Do you have a character that is your favorite to write? Does writing that character come easier over time?
Stephen White: Favorite? Not really. The easiest character I've ever written was Kirsten Lord/Peyton Francis in THE PROGRAM. While I was writing the book her voice was so distinct in my head that there were times when I felt that I was channeling her. But --- so far --- she hasn't reappeared in any other books.
BRC: Do you keep notes on the details of your characters so you don't accidentally misstate something? Have you ever made a mistake and gotten away with it?
Stephen White: Here's a secret: I actually unintentionally changed a character's name from an early book to a later one. So far I haven't been called on it. But I don't expect to get away with it forever. And no, I'm not going to say which character.
I wish I'd had the foresight to keep character notes, but I didn't. I usually rely on an imperfect memory to try to keep things straight, though I recently asked the three thousand or so readers on my website mailing list to help me with a character-history question for the 2004 book. The response was wonderful, and it's nice to know that the help is out there when I need it.
BRC: Dorsey Hamm was an intriguing character in WARNING SIGNS. Did you meet "real-life" equivalents to Dorsey and her canines in your research for the book?
Stephen White: I love dogs and greatly admire those who train them, but Dorsey was a whole-cloth creation.
BRC: We all appreciated the Photo Gallery on your website thinking it was incredibly clever to show readers these real-life places in your books. What inspired you to do that?
Stephen White: I can't take credit for it. I have an incredible webmistress named Jane Davis who runs my website for me. Virtually all of the creative flourishes on the site are generated by her. She tells me what to go out and take pictures of, and I go out and take the pictures. If people enjoy the site, and I hope they do, the credit should all go to Jane.
BRC: Have you ever thought about writing a book outside the series? If not, what keeps you from doing this?
Stephen White: Sure, I think about it. I'm aware of the fine writers whose careers have taken a great leap after they branched out into stand-alone fiction. I think that the flexibility that I've been able to build into my series (within the series I've written books from various first person points-of-view; I've written books in the third person; and I've written books that combine multiple points-of-view) has insulated me somewhat from the kind of ennui that sometimes propels writers to take a break from an existing series. I do think that once the series has run its course I will enjoy the opportunity to explore a couple of ideas that I've been playing with for a few years.
BRC: You have a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. What would you consider to be the most important advancement in the field in the past 15 years?
Stephen White: Advancement? Easy: psychotropic medication. Detriment? Just as easy: managed care.
BRC: What are you working on now?
Stephen White: I've done a book a year for a while, which means that I'm expected to have one done when one hits the stores. The 2004 book --- still untitled --- is mostly finished with the editing process. What's it about? Marriage and serial murder. It is, no surprise, a series book. Alan Gregory narrates about half the book. The other half? For the first time I've written a story from Sam Purdy's point-of-view. I hope readers have as much fun with Sam's perspective as I did while I was writing.
© Copyright 1996-2008, Bookreporter.com. All rights reserved.
Back to top.
|
