*One Star: A crime against God and man.
*Two Stars: Poor, or otherwise not ready for publication.
*Three Stars: A solid work worth the money/read.
*Four Stars: A superior, award-worthy achievement.
*Five Stars: A standard setter, a work to stand the test of time, a work to be studied and read again and again….

“Idols & Cons,” by S.S. Michaels

****

Yes, that’s right, this one’s getting four stars!

It’s award worthy. But for what? Being a horror novel? A piece of transgressive fiction? (And yes, despite being a writer, I had to look up this new-to-me genre descriptor.)

The answer eludes me, but I suspect it might not be a genre award, but one for the work’s biggest achievment: its literary merit, and structural bravery.

Let’s back up and go over the work’s plot, which is simple enough:

Poor, drug-dealing to survive, John Thomas (later given the stage name of Jake Wolfram), while engaging in one of his favorite pastimes, peeping, observes
boy band frontman Damien Tungsten accidentally(?) murder a teen groupie during a passionate bout of sex. The result, a predictable and not-so-predictable (and not always so believable) downward spiral of events that ultimately serves every character their just desserts.

Is the work “transgressive”?

According to the definition I found, yes. That said, I’m happy with calling “Idols & Cons” a horror novel, and even a literary horror novel. Because, as mentioned earlier, that’s the story’s biggest strength. The prose staples a reader’s eyes to the page, rips ‘em out, then staples them again, page after page, all the way through to the end. And does so, all the while, with the reader knowing, if not in detail, then in principle, what’s going to ultimately happen to these characters. After all, it’s inevitable. Characters, as various trains, are all set up on their speeding tracks heading towards a collision, and…

I …

couldn’t …

turn …

away.

Instead, like a voyeuristic sadist/masochist, I set up my folding seat up on a hill, glass of lemonade at the ready, shades on and with giant umbrella lanced into the ground, and watched the converging trains with glee (and with, perhaps, a bit of sympathy for John/Jake, the story’s lead).

Michaels writes with such confidence, such focus, that I can only stand in admiration, and this in a novel where the characters, nary a one, garner or are deserving of much sympathy. Not only is the prose a taut strand of barbed wire, but then there’s the story’s structure, too. Michaels, unlike the rank-and-file breakout artist, doesn’t take the safe route(or at least a “safer” route), but, instead, opts for not just a first-person tale, but a story featuring multiple first-person character viewpoints (with each appropriately flagged with their own section).

Amazing, and amazingly brave. (Brave, too, for the publisher, in allowing it.)

What about problems?

Yes, there’s those. There’s editorial gremlins. First, there’s the needed caveat that I read an advanced readers copy. Odds are that some of the glitches I found were ultimately cleaned up before final release. But, after looking at the work’s opening sample pages on Amazon, not all of them were. Example: With the first usage of the word “facade,” there’s the eye-catching cedilla (hook or tail) trailing down from the character “c.” In the next usage, the tail’s missing. In my review copy, there’s a mix of Times New Roman apostrophes, and those ugly vertical ones. With contracted words, there’s a number where the apostrophe is facing the wrong direction. Are there hundreds of these and other problems? No, not at all. Still, with a novel that in so many ways shines and shines and shines, when these gremlins did show up, they made me wince.

Next, and this isn’t necessarily a “problem,” but, instead, is part of the risk that the author took, I feel that “Idols & Cons” might, at least in the short term, appeal more to writers than to typical readers. Having more than one first-person narrator, having no sympathetic characters, having a story that from the outset, promises a Cronenberg-esque downward spiral into oblivion (and, man, how that promise is delivered!), collectively risks many readers putting the work down, and probably too soon. For those with a bit of patience, for people who enjoy downward spiral stories, these elements will not be a problem.

Last, as a personal note to the author S.S. Michaels, again, I’m thankful for the bravery shown in your writing. Such a compliment might be misconstrued as seeming to mean that your writing in “Idols & Cons” is pretentious (and I’m sure some critics believe this). I, on the other hand, took your style and structure as just what I’ve said. Brave. Brave and fun. Perhaps brave isn’t the word (at least not until after the fact). Instead, perhaps the proper term is “fearless.” I’ve the sense that you wrote “Idols & Cons” without any thought of the market, or of reviewers, peers, fans or potential ones. I’m also appreciative of the attention-to-detail taken with this no-chaff story, a tale where there isn’t a wasted scene or even a paragraph to be cut. I also apologize for not getting to this review sooner. It, unfortunately, got lost in my queue, and fell victim to my own busy drama. But what a joy when I finally got to it, and realized what a two-day thrill ride I was in for.

Laurels to you. I’m so looking forward to “reading” you grow as an artist.

Stay fearless when you write, and when you go to market, stay brave. Work like “Idols & Cons,” will not necessarily have mass-market appeal, but for those in-the-know (try defining that), will be appreciated as a gorgeous work of–gulp–transgressive dark art.

All my best,

Rob M. Miller

To pick up a print copy of “Idols & Cons” on Amazon, click here.

To get an e-book version, click here.

Want to get to know her better (you should!)?  Visit her Website at Slush Pile Hero.

About the author S.S. Michaels:

S. S. Michaels is a writer of transgressive fiction. She holds degrees in Business Administration and Film & Video Production.

She has lived abroad, traveled widely, jumped out of an airplane and driven a race car.

In film and television, she read slush and wrote coverage, then moved on to become a production coordinator. She finally served as a TV network financial analyst before leaving Hollywood. She lives with her husband, two kids, and two dogs.

When thirteen-year-old orphan Penny Sinclair moves to the small town of Dogwood to live with her godmother, she expects her life to become very dull. She doesn’t expect to find a strange talking fox roaming the countryside near her new home, a kindred spirit in her new friend Zoe, or the secret grove where they discover the long hidden magic of The Phoenix Girls. Learning to use magic isn’t easy, though; Penny and Zoe get their magic wrong almost as often as they get it right. When something sinister threatens Dogwood, their often accidental magic may be the only thing that can stop it.

Though I’m sure to upset some authors and publishers who, understandably, want five-star reviews, I’ve my own definition of the five-star system.

*One Star: A crime against God and man.
*Two Stars: Poor, or otherwise not ready for publication.
*Three Stars: A solid work worth the money/read.
*Four Stars: A superior, award-worthy achievement.
*Five Stars: A standard setter, a work to stand the test of time, a work to be studied and read again and again….

A further rating caveat: There having been a bit of time since my last review, it was a bit frustrating to find that hovering over Amazon’s book-rating stars, captions appeared, further defining what a star is supposed to mean, definitions that I–obviously–disagree with. And why? Because there’s nothing to differentiate between an I-love-it five-star book, and a five-star work that’s so incredible, it’s going to have to be read on an annual basis.

Now, regarding my review copy, Brian Knight’s “The Conjuring Glass”:

The work is well-deserving of “my” three-star award, because yes and yes, the story’s deserving of a reader’s time and money.

Does the work contain flaws? Yes. And were I a grumpy cat, I might be tempted to focus only on these:

Editing could have been better. There’s a sentence fragment following a semicolon (at least one), there’s at least one compound word split into two, i.e., jawline into jaw line, a few extra inserted spaces between words, a missing comma before a direct address (at least one), and a backwards sentence-closing single quotation mark.

With story structure/pacing, there’s perhaps some flaws, with the latter half to two-thirds of book perhaps being too fast-paced, and at the expense of some promising characterization and character bonding, all for the sake of plot.

Perhaps there’s some other possible shoulda-coulda-wouldas.

Thing is, if the very nature of a review is subjective–and it is–it’s even more so coming from another writer, and from a person who’s not a member of the targeted YA audience. Yet I found myself turning pages, finishing the work within a couple of days. Furthermore, my normally very critical eyes had a difficult time perceiving any glitches because I found myself simply wanting to read–and that’s the strength behind Knight’s story!

The best of children and YA fiction works at two levels, the first, of course, that a work will appeal for the targeted audience, but then again, on a deeper level, or a more subdued level, that a story will also appeal to adults. One visual example of this is the cartoon “The Flintstones,” a fantastic series that played well for me as a child, but then later into my adult years, a show that was “The Honeymooners” in disguise. Not all YA fiction achieves this duel layer, but Knight’s “The Conjuring Glass” does.

I know.

I kept reading.

And for three critical reasons:

* Great characters
* I wanted to know what would happen next
* The work was fun to read

And all that for a 45-year-old man with a know-it-all attitude. Knight, I applaud you. Not only that, but I’m jealous. Why? I’ve two young girls of my own, ages 11, and 10. Their daddy being a writer, they’ve naturally asked me to pen them some tales. And–gulp!–I haven’t. Because writing YA, least in my mind, is damn hard, and here comes along Brian Knight making it look kinda easy.

No, I haven’t talked about the specifics of the story because the product description does a fine job, and with story specifics, there’s 16 other reviews posted on Amazon about the book and I don’t want to replicate them.

What I will do make the following suggestions:

If you, a book buyer, are looking for a compelling page-turner to buy for a young lass, you will not go wrong with “The Conjuring Glass.” The material’s rated G, but without being boring, or arguably worse for YA work, condescending. Knight, because he’s a real-deal writer, and because he possesses that needed bit of magic that storytellers have to have, and certainly because he’s a dad, has made a grand entry into a potentially long series of coming books.

Next, to Knight, I’d say, in my not-so-humble opinion, be careful of listening to editor(s) or even your publisher regarding pacing or plot. With “The Conjuring Glass,” though it’s a fine page-flying tale with wonderful obstacles for “Penny” and “Zoe” to overcome, the strength of this particular tale lies NOT in its plot, but with its characters, and how they all believably interact. If needed, and it might be, don’t be afraid of making book two l-o-n-g-e-r.

Convention says tales have to be short, a drag-race to the finish line. There’s wisdom in this. Same time, if a story has the needed magic, even a modern child will enjoy a character-based story.

And, finally, to the publisher, JournalStone: Though I’m thankful for being provided a review copy of this work (and I so am!), consider getting review copies out to the best reviewers possible, not nit-picky jealous ones like me, but into the hands of–in this case–the real experts:

Kids! Especially girls, 10- to 14-years-old.

They’ll be pleased, and they’ll gush.

In closing, Mr. Knight, I’ve been a fan for a while now, and again, you’ve impressed me with your bravery and with your range. I hope you’re busy working, because when readers get done with your book, they’re not just going to be happy, they’re immediately going to be hungry for Book Two.

You da man,

All my best,

Rob M. Miller

Wanna give this one a try?  Pick it up on Amazon.

Kindle version here.

Print version here.

As a writer, that’s always one of the rubs, isn’t it? Which hill to die on?

And there will be dying, least if a writer is doing their job. Which is what?

Well, a lot of things: to entertain, to educate, to promote or disseminate, and on the list goes.

But somewhere on that list are the words “confront” and “offend.”

Years ago, I read that “… a writer is not only someone who has the ability, but also someone who has the courage to write what others cannot or are unwilling to put into words.”

Which hill to die on?

With Facebook, and elsewhere on the Net where I have a presence, I don’t get too much into politics, or religion, or other hot button sensitive issues. Why? I want readers, and I want them from every camp. Besides, I’ve more than enough opportunities to get into “it” with those within my sphere of influence. Same time, things do come up and I feel compelled to speak. When that compulsion or need occurs, the question then is whether or not I’ll have the bravery to speak out (or write it out).

And writers do need to be brave. Have to be. Maybe not on this topic or that, but certainly for that one over there.

Which hill to die on?

It’s a tough question, even as it is quite easy to answer. You simply pick your battles … and you do it with the knowledge that if you are going to go bravely into battle, you’re going to suffer wounds. That’s the nature of battle. You’re going to run into gainsayers, into barking dogs, and, at times, into gnashing teeth. And that’s where the budding writer gets scared. They want to communicate, perhaps even to bring about change, after all, they have something to say, to pass along, a perspective, an insight … but they don’t want to offend anyone, or make an enemy (God forbid we do that).

Which hill to die on?

The choice is up to each writer. Fortunately, we do not have to die on every hill. For blocks of time, we might not have to die at all. But if we’re going to go forth and fulfill our responsibility, that of taking this gift, curse, or fated compulsion to communicate, to write, then we have to be willing to take our lumps, deserved or not.

Which hill to die on?

Making the decision requires thought, a cost/gain analysis, perhaps some strategy and tactics, but I would offer this one piece of advice. When choosing NOT to die on a particular hill, whatever the reason(s) that are used to bypass a particular battle, let it never be that one killer of writers:

That of fear.

All my best,

R.M.M. Share on Facebook ]]> http://jaggeddarkness.com/?feed=rss2&p=558 0 http://jaggeddarkness.com/?p=499 http://jaggeddarkness.com/?p=499#comments Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:57:50 +0000 admin Scully]]> http://jaggeddarkness.com/?p=499 Continue reading →]]> What would we story-lovers do without the likes of Stephen King, Dean Koontz, John Saul … Masterton, Bradner, Clegg or Keene?

Shudder the thought, but at least there are many more beloved authors out there, and they’re not all men.

Yes, we’re aware of Anne Rice (and God bless her), V. C. Andrews, and Sarah Pinborough, but how many other female dark fiction authors can we name?

A lot.

In fact, February is Women In Horror month, a celebration of female horror and dark fiction authors, an event that started in 2010.  There’s even a dedicated Website for it (here), and an organization that sponsors it (the Viscera Organization).  Nor is this just some fanzine with a favorable eye pointed towards the ladies.  Instead, they have a legitimate mission, as stated in their ABOUT section:

WiHM  alludes to a much bigger movement: equal rights.

WiHM exists to assist in this movement through the horror genre and its respective sub genres through all mediums of art: filmmaking, fine art, and performance. WiHM focuses on encouraging and educating the public in order to promote and assist underrepresented female professionals working in the horror genre.

Who are the underrepresented female professionals?

Directors, producers, writers, cinematographers, and fine artists. Those behind the lens, behind the canvas, and not in the spotlight. These are the women who are working at getting leadership positions and need the support of the public.

In celebration of Women In Horror, through Februrary, and with the bonus month of March, my friend, Blaze McRob, author and publisher, has profiled a number of prominent and up-and-coming women authors and publishers (including my daughter Annabelle L. Miller).

These ladies are more than worthy of recognition; of a truth, they need to be read.

So click away on the links below, and be prepared to make a shopping list.  Yes, there may still be a glass ceiling, but the women are breaking through–with AXES!

Belinda Frisch

Cindy Keen Reynders

Vix Kirkpatrick

Lori R. Lopez

Suzi M

Nina D’Arcangela

E.A. Irwin

Jackie Williams

B.E. Scully

Sue Mydliak

Jaime Johnesee

Annabelle L. Miller

Rachel MacNeill Rawlings

Billie Sue Mosiman

C.W. LaSart

Carole Gill

Mary L. Underwood

Denise Brown

Char Robinson

Kathy Rowe

Carson Buckingham

Carolina Richmond

Valerie Bowen

Allison M. Dickson

Monica J. O’Rourke

Stacey Turner

Dina Rae

Lisa McCourt Hollar

Women In Horror Month: An Interview with Sirens Call Publications

Nicole Hadaway

Suzanne Robb

Lauren Curtis

Chantal Boudreau

Alex Skully

Kathryn Meyer Griffith

Kate Jonez

Rebecca Treadway

Jaime Page

Lisa Costello

Jo-Anne Russell

Leigh M. Lane

Leslie Moon

Raven Bower

Jill S. Behe

Adriana Noir

Elizabeth Massie

Melissa Stevens

T. K. Millin

Marissa Farrar

Wanda S. Paryla

Megan Dorei

Lori Safranek

Joann H. Buchanan

This week’s author: Annabelle L. Miller, age 10, whose work is currently featured right here in Annabelle’s Spooky Corner.

When did you start writing stories?
Annabelle: I started to write stories when I was about 7- or 8-years-old.

What drew your interest to writing spooky tales?
Annabelle: Well, I thought it was cool that my daddy wrote spooky tales, and I thought to myself, I want to do that.

There’s at least three different categories of scary stories.  One) The psycho crazy tale; two) the supernatural freaky story; and three) B.E.M. tales [bug-eyed monsters].  Of these, which is your favorite?  Or are you planning on writing in all three areas.
Annabelle:  B.E.M. stories are my favorite, but I don’t usually write in that category, and yes, I do plan on writing in all three categories.

What’s your process like?  Do you pre-plan your pieces in advance, or do you just start writing and see what happens?
Annabelle: I just start writing to see what happens.

Do you prefer happy, or not-so-happy endings?
Annabelle: I like to go with the not-so-happy endings.

What does your family think of your stories?
Annabelle: My family thinks they’re okay, but my dad thinks they’re great–and different.

What advice would you give other children interested in writing?
Annabelle: I would say: “If you’re trying to write a story and you don’t know what to write about, stop for a second and let your imagination run wild until you get a idea.”  That’s what advice I’d give.

What’s the hardest thing so far about putting down a good story?  What’s the easiest?
Annabelle: The hardest for me is coming up with the characters, and the easiest is just coming up with the story.

Where do you get your ideas from?
Annabelle: I get my ideas from almost everything: T.V. shows, other stories, and even just playing with my siblings.

What are your plans for the future?
Annabelle: My plans for the future are to get better at writing stories, and that maybe one of my stories will get published.

Author and publisher Blaze McRob, in honor of February’s Women Of Horror month, is featuring Annabelle as one of spotlight writers.  Check it out here.

*One Star: A crime against God and man.
*Two Stars: Poor, or otherwise not ready for publication.
*Three Stars: A solid work worth the money/read.
*Four Stars: A superior, award-worthy achievement.
*Five Stars: A standard setter, a work to stand the test of time, a work to be studied and read again and again….

“Progeny,” by Patrick C. Greene.

The title made the sale. And it was a hard sale. Having zero interest in Bigfoot stories, I nonetheless had to give this one a try. Be it a science fiction work, fantasy, or piece of horror fare, the word “progeny” makes quite the seductive lure. Why not give the work a chance and read a few pages? Soon, however, I found myself click-click-clicking away on my Kindle–and for far longer than planned.

Was the story formulaic?

Yes.

Was there certain things quite predictable? Like knowing at some point, the fated Bigfoot would be making an appearance?

Yes.

And that was fine.

Some formulas or recipes, when the various ingredients are properly portioned and mixed, produce exactly what’s promised, be it a fluffy omelet, a well-engineered car, or yes, a fine reading experience.

Such is Greene’s “Progeny.”

The author pulls this off by maintaining a slow, but ever-increasing engine of suspense coupled with characters that might mistakenly be thought of as cliche, but who, in reality, are merely very familiar. Because they’re human. Not entirely bad or good, but with virtues and flaws, fears-hopes-and-pains. The story’s hero, Owen Sterling, a man with his own believable regrets and self-doubts, is wonderfully painted as a divorced man who gets annual visitation time with his son, who has to struggle with reconnecting with a child who every visit, is changed, grown, and matured into a slightly different person that dad has to get to know anew. But even with the story’s “villain,” if he is one, Mr. Zane Carver, a one-eyed King amongst his inner circle, there’s a father to sympathize with, an imperfect man who desperately wants to help his boy become a man–even if it kills ‘em all.

And then there’s the creature responsible for the footprint on the book’s cover, portrayed in the novel in what I found to be a very believable and human-esque fashion.

If I wasn’t entirely riveted, I was at least engrossed and immersed.

Click click click.

What about flaws in the work? Yes, there’s those. The editing could’ve been better. Should’ve been better. But editing’s expensive, and even then, every editor has his or her own set of long suits and shortcomings. For this self-appointed expert, a writer who’s sure to end up taking his own hits, there were bugs I found distasteful: firearms listed as forty-fours instead of .44′s, a thirty aught-six from a guy running a gun store, instead of a .30.06, errant extra spaces, punctuation outside of “quote marks”, like the writer’s from England, sentences ending with multiple exclamation marks!! (if you’re going to use two, then why not three?) or worse, multiple punctuation marks?! …The misuse of elipses starting sentences without any discernible reason.

Everyone’s a critic. According to my own definition of the five-star system, I felt sorely tempted to give the work only two, as a work not quite ready for publication. So why the pass?

The clicking on my Kindle.

I read the work within a couple of days, and amidst a busy schedule, the glitches never really bumping me out of the story, and the errors, when made, at least being consistent, pointing to a style guide that needs to be improved, reminding me we’re all ignorant, just about different things.

For most, should they dare to pick up Greene’s work, “Progeny” will deliver what it promises, a tale easy-to-be-entreated and enjoyed, a simple story that holds a mirror to humanity’s humanity … and inhumanity. With the author, I’ll be looking into more of his work, believing that with every piece, the prose will only shine brighter.

As for storytelling, Greene’s already there, knowing how to hook a reader, then keeping the line taut and without ever breaking the line.

I’m glad to now have the man’s footprint in my library.

Ready to make your own decision?  If so, time to get on it: http://www.amazon.com/Progeny-Patrick-C-Greene/dp/0985911018/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

*One Star: A crime against God and man.
*Two Stars: Poor, or otherwise not ready for publication.
*Three Stars: A solid work worth the money/read.
*Four Stars: A superior, award-worthy achievement.
*Five Stars: A standard setter, a work to stand the test of time, a work to be studied and read again and again….

“Paskagankee,” a three-star, guilty pleasure.

My first introduction to Leverone’s work was through his well-written novella “Heartless.” With this second venture, that of “Paskagankee,” I’m glad to see the author still hitting homers.

The positives?

In this case, they’re the same as the negatives:

It’s a simple tale.

Jaded, fifteen-year police veteran, Mike McMahon, needing a place to rest, recover, and reinvent his life, transplants to as far away from the action as he can get. And where better than serving as the new police chief for out-of-the-way Paskagankee, Maine? Unfortunately for him (but quite fortuitous for us), he’s on the job for barely a week before the body count–and body parts–starts to rise–FAST. Quickly realizing his pocket-sized department might be out of its depth, McMahon draws strength from the budding romance he has with junior officer Sharon Dupont, a woman with troubles of her own, and the two quickly enlist the aid Native American expert Professor Dye.

Sound familiar?

It is.

And thus it remains throughout the novel, familiar tropes, characters, and menace.

A simple story.

A simple story the way, many times, Richard Laymon simply wrote simple stories.

What saves the work is Leverone not padding the tale with extra slabs of non-nutritional story-fat, or trying to embellish the tale to make it more than what it is, which is a page-turning pleasure, a horror novel version of a cozy. And that’s fine. Not every novel needs to be a genre-defying-redefining-masterpiece, a “Swan Song,” “Carrior Comfort,” or “It.” Not every story needs to be akin to some $200 meal at a posh restaurant. “Paskagankee,” instead, reads like a nice steak dinner at “Sizzler’s.”

It’s simple and well-written.”

And thanks to that writing, and thanks to sympathetic lead characters that Leverone presents and so well characterizes, the story works wonderfully. While on a busy schedule, I finished the work within a couple of days, my thumb, Kindle-trained, clicking away, the digital pages flying. And with that, my appreciation for the skill and discipline of the author, for him just doing his job, that of delivering his story as clear and concise and honest as possible.

A risky move. In today’s climate, there’s a lot of pressure to have the next bestseller.

My fear is that some might discount this work. After all, it’s not Cronin’s “The Passage.”

But make no mistake. A story doesn’t have to be an epic to be successful. What it does have to do is one very important thing, that of getting the reader to turn the page … to want to know what happens next. With an author, with their work, they directly and indirectly make promises to their readership, that if the money and time is spent consuming their product, then the story addicts out there will be able to get their much needed fix.

I’m quickly coming to believe that Allan Leverone is a pusher of the utmost integrity.

Why?

I’ve now visited out-of-the-way Paskagankee. I’ve met their police chief, Officer Dupont, and others–and I like ‘em. I’m starting book two of the Paskagankee series tomorrow.

For I’m a story addict, too!

*One Star: A crime against God and man.
*Two Stars: Poor, or otherwise not ready for publication.
*Three Stars: A solid work worth the money/read.
*Four Stars: A superior, award-worthy achievement.
*Five Stars: A standard setter, a work to stand the test of time, a work to be studied and read again and again….

“90 Minutes to Live,” a Three-Star Knockout!

Not long ago, I was pleasantly surprised to find in my mail an unsolicited ARC (Advanced Reader Copy) of “90 Minutes to Live,” an anthology of 13 tales that compromise the best of the publisher’s (JournalStone) 2011 Warped Words Short Story Competition. This themed contest threw out the challenge to tie together two story elements: that of a lock of hair, and the very intriguing time-crunch of having only 90-minutes to live. Stories were submitted in multiple genres: horror, science fiction, paranormal, fantasy, and young adult. “90 Minutes to Live” contains stories from all of these.

The result?

A surprisingly fun time.

The Positives:

The cliche holds that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. For this book, in my jaded view, the weakest story out of the book’s 13, is–on its own–a pretty darned good piece. That said, though, there are truly many excellent stories, with more than one bordering on being literary.

The first piece in the book, and apparently the author’s first published piece (which might be a lie, ’cause it’s just that well-written), is a tale called “Dead Already,” by John La Rue, an incredible science fiction Trojan horse story, and one written in that most difficult of points-of-view: first-person. Written and told so well, that soon I found myself all but divorced from the mechanics of reading. Instead, it felt like I was watching a one-hour “Outer Limits” episode, with not a wasted word, an incredibly visual piece (despite the point of view), dark, full of emotion, and starting and stopping at just the right spots. If this really is the author’s first published piece, it’s certainly not his first piece of writing. The work’s too refined and disciplined. This author’s name will be seen again … and again. In the book, this story’s identified as being the 1st Place winner of the 2011 Warped Words contest. I’m not surprised.

Second story is “Godforsaken,” by Brad Carpenter, a horror tale concerning an indie horror movie, a work that, at first, reminded me of John Carpenter’s “Cigarette Burns,” which was kinda tough, ’cause the Carpenter short is amongst the best work that the famous director has ever done. Soon, however, any fears about having a derivative tale were dispelled. Instead, this 2nd Place winner quickly moves into being its own self-defined, very disturbing, and darkly comic piece of work. Brad Carpenter (and how fortunate to have a surname so recognizable) nailed it with this one.

The third story, and 3rd Place winner, is “Acapulco Blue,” by Bruce Golden, a fun, emotional, science fiction story that blends together fragments of a recognizable world (ours), with one several generations in the future, with a protagonist interacting with his great, great granddaughter, a gem of a piece that introduces a quirky, futuristic set of diction and slang, as well as many science fiction elements, but never at the expense of the stories sense of … humanity. This tale’s an achievement, one I could see winning an award.

Other stories of particular note?

Yes.

“City of Fire,” by Timothy Miller, a science piece that takes place in some future post-apocalyptic world, one that’s both familiar and NEW at the same time, and that somehow, by that strange gift of magick that some writers are capable of, seems self-contained and fully-realized, despite the reader only getting a short glimpse. Though it’s easy to see why this work’s included in the book, it’s also kind of fun to ponder how close this one might have come to placing.

“Roque’s Requiem,” by Bill Patterson, another science fiction piece that wonderfully balances science fiction with that most important story factor, the study of the human animal. Interesting to note that on Good Reads, author Bill Patterson, lauds “Dead Already,” the book’s 1st Place winner as being a superior story. Humble man. He may be wrong, though. Might just be that this story is different. For this reader, this is one of the most outstanding stories in the whole book. And for that matter …

… so is the book’s one honorable mention, that of “In the Shadow of the Banyan Tree,” by Jennifer Phillips, a wowzer of a tale told in a minimum of words.

The most surprising thing for me, when it came to enjoying the works, was how, right from my having completed the second story, and something wonderfully maintained throughout the entire book, I didn’t mind having all the tales contain something relating to a lock of hair and that of having only 90-minutes to live. If anyone had asked beforehand my prediction about having such a themed collection, I’d've said it sounded too risky … too easy for writers (the lazy kind, obviously) to hastily “contrive” the required story elements. I’m so glad to’ve been proven wrong in this regard.

Now, on to the negatives….

I received an A.R.C., an advanced reader’s copy, which typically means, and in this case did, a work that has not yet gone through the editing process–or at least through a final edit. It’s my hope that the work, now, in its final form, has. The copy I read contained numerous errors. On the plus side, the errors were at least consistent, and so I imagine were an easy fix. Fingers’re crossed.

Next, was the format, or the decision to release the stories in the book according to placement. At least in regards to the stories taking first, second, and third place. I understand the need for acknowledgment, but would’ve have preferred the recognition to appear in the book’s front- or back-matter. Why? Was easy to be tempted that after reading the first story, it was all going to be downhill, which each subsequent tale being of inferior quality. But this was not the case. Of a truth, because the work contains stories from multiple genres, genre-bias might easily come into play, not to mention the subjective side of things. For example, were one a fan of young adult shorts, but not necessarily science fiction, they might wonder why “Uninvited,” by JG Faherty, didn’t place, a story that’s flat-out wonderful.

Some anthologies are uneven, with tales ranging from so-so to good to pretty good to excellent–to maybe one or two outstanding pieces. In this case, the work may be a bit uneven, as well, but more along the lines of good, good, very good, and then numerous excellent pieces of work. If I could, and again, according to how I define five-stars, I’d rank this one a 3 1/2.

Even better, I’ll be setting my eyes on JournalStone’s 2010 contest, and will be looking forward to their next Warped Word’s release.

And you should, too.

Rob M. Miller

Where can you get this fine piece of work?

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/JournalStones-2011-Warped-Words-Minutes/dp/1936564335/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Today, for example, I got acceptances from two authors who’re writing/story gods in my own personal pantheon of literary giants, two incomparables: Gary Brandner and Graham Masterton.

If any reading this are not familiar with the work of these two gentlemen, I don’t know whether I should pity or be jealous of you. Of a truth, would almost be grand to un-read these guys only to rediscover their work again, fresh and new.

In the case of Graham Masterton, we even chatted this morning, where by some crazy version of finger-stutter, I nearly forgot how to type. But besides biting my tongue with the man, and holding off on the million questions had, and as much of the rock star worship that I could, I did find good reason to visit his Website.

I’d advise many of my scribbling siblings to do the same. With the link below, you’ll find Mr. Masterton’s Rules of Writing, a list of wisdom-nuggets not unlike that of Richard Laymon’s, and just as much fun to read, and equally accessible for those with eyes-to-see!

http://www.grahammasterton.co.uk/rulesofwriting.html

With Gary Bradner, what can I say? The man’s work took me through the 80′s and beyond. Though probably most famed with his “Howling” series, every title of his is well worth the read.

And who are these two again? Just a couple of guys. I know this. How could I not? They’ve had their pleasures and pains, successes and failures, just like anyone else. Perhaps my eyes are too star struck, but that’s okay. I’m ready to do more than forgive myself. I’m giving the reflection in the mirror permission to stay awed–to stay AMAZED. For these two authors, among a long and simultaneously short list of others, have taken me on many an amazing journey. Explorations for which no set of words can truly give thanks. The only way to understand is to have been taken away in like manner–and I know there’s many of you out there.

The day I’m no longer amazed will be the death of something beautiful and wondrous, and that’s a death I’ll work to keep from ever happening.

For the rest of you out there, readers, writers, and authors, I encourage you to stay amazed, as well. Send off those FRIEND REQUESTS. Write reviews. Write your own gods their deserved fan mail.

STAY AMAZED!

*One Star: A crime against God and man.
*Two Stars: Poor, or otherwise not ready for publication.
*Three Stars: A solid work worth the money/read.
*Four Stars: A superior, award-worthy achievement.
*Five Stars: A standard setter, a work to stand the test of time, a work to be studied and read again and again….

“Frankenstein,” by Shelley, much like Stoker’s “Dracula,” is not nearly as familiar a work as people might otherwise think. Yes, the tale’s iconic, as are a couple of the principle characters: The Doctor, of course, and, yes, his monster. Unfortunately, I’m of the mind that the work, again, like Stoker’s “Dracula,” is not often read, in its entirety, and in its original form. Rather, often, people presume the know all the relevant details. This is a shame, for the novel’s a phenomenal piece of work, and despite the familiarity of the concept (the warning?) of the story, and the ease in which the iconic Universal Studio monster is recognized, the original work is more than worthy of a reader’s time.

Shelley wrote “Frankenstein” in an epistolary fashion, i.e., in letter format, the work documenting the letters between Captain Robert Walton and his sister, Margaret Walton Saville.

In another review, Mosiman’s tale is called a “unique” take on the story. I’ve a differing opinion.

With “Frankenstein: Return From the Wasteland,” Mosiman, who typically does have a signature kind of style with her quality of writing, has managed to take herself out of the tale, removing any sense of Mosiman-esque author intrusion, and instead, has managed to capture the flavor and much of the voice (and literary value) of Shelley’s work, to the end that a person could read Shelley’s orignal, close the book, and then the next night, pick of Mosiman’s story, and feel like they’re getting a seamless continuation.

How does she do this? Well, if I really knew, and could bottle it, I’d be quite the wealthy man. On the other hand, the answer’s also simple: She took Shelley’s work, and using it as a template, continued the style of story.

“…Return From the Wasteland,” also written in epistolary style, continues with the same narrator/character, that of Robert Walton, and of him writing to his sister Margaret, and kicks off approximately 20-years after Frankenstein’s creature walks off into the wasteland.

And what a start.

As has been stated elsewhere, the work harpoon’s a reader with its opening lines:

My Beloved Sister,

I write to you about a deadly serious and Olympian idea. It is of a monster. I know you recall the one I mean, the only one that has ever been allowed entry into the world since Neptune was purported to rise from the deep blue ocean waters.

And the beauty continues…. Often with genre fiction, and not to say it’s a bad thing, a given work merely entertains, and does so on the most superficial of levels, the work being quickly consumed (even, dare I say it, skimmed!), enjoyed, and then forgotten. Being a man, I can’t help but think of a food comparison…in this case, a work not unlike a Happy Meal, some kind of stomach-filling fare that keeps a story addict from jonesing.

But then there’s fine dining. There’s stories that rise above mere entertainment, that become an experience. Such is Mosiman’s novelette. “Frankenstein: Return From the Wasteland,” is not meant to be skimmed, but read, with every word articulated, either out loud, or sub-vocalized, but READ. An ideal setting, would be in front of a fire, the work in-hand, a snowy landscape outside, and a large mug of hot chocolate sitting close, the reader journeying along with Robert Walton, and bearing witness to man’s obsession and journey into madness, his search for a god, and the ultimate fate whenever a god is found.

In the front matter, Mosiman has the following simple dedication:

… to Mary Shelley who gave us our first monster.

I love that, and love it for its simplicity, and for the fact that the author refrained from using the overused word “homage.” But make no mistake, that is what Billie Sue has managed to do. Without overwriting, without being pretentious, and without having to “say it,” but letting the work simply show it, she’s written an homage…a story that could be read the day after closing Shelley’s original, and without having any sense of being in an alien land.

A tremendous job, worth the read, worth the time, worth the money…and worth the patience to wait until the work can be consumed in a sitting, every word articulated…with that hot chocolate at-the-ready.

Rob M. Miller