Friday, May 25, 2018

The Whole Truth?


HANK PHILLIPPI RYAN: You know, when you get writers together, there are certain things we always talk about. Writing, for one. (No surprise.) Books, and point of view, the industry, funny stories about bookstore signings, and how you can get on the bestseller lists, and on and on.  You’ve heard it. You’ve loved it. You’ve joined in, right? It’s part of our world.
One of the fun things about being a journalist—there’s the same kind of camaraderie and shared experiences.  That’s why it’s dangerous to put me in the same room with the amazing Dick Belsky. He’s a veteran journalist, and has SO many wonderful stories! And he’s taken all those experiences and translated them into riveting and realistic fiction. 
It IS fiction, right?

HONEST, I'M TELLING YOU THE TRUTH – JUST NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH
   
         The most important thing a journalist has is their integrity.

            That was the first line of a mystery novel I wrote about being a reporter a few years ago. I believed it then, and I believe it now. I speak about the issue of journalistic integrity with considerable experience, having worked in the media for many years at NBC News, the New York Daily News and the New York Post. A real-life journalist can break a lot of rules chasing after a big story, but there is one rule he or she can never violate. A real-life journalist always has to tell the reader the truth.
    
      Not so much for a fictional journalist.

    
  Clare Carlson, the TV newswoman in my new mystery YESTERDAY'S NEWS, is what has become known in writing circles these days as the "unreliable narrator."

     The "unreliable narrator" phrase became popular most recently, of course, from two blockbuster mystery novels - Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn and The Girl on the Train by Paula Hawkins – where the characters telling the story turn out not to be what they seemed when we first met them.

     But the concept has been around for a long time. The ultimate unreliable narrator book goes all the way back to 1926 when Agatha Christie wrote The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. (No spoiler alert really needed here to tell you that the narrator is shockingly revealed as the killer at the end. Hey, if you haven't read this book since 1926, you're probably never going to read it!)

   Now I didn't start out to write my own narrator this way. The Clare Carlson character is the news director of a New York City TV station who actually cares passionately about truth and integrity and trustworthiness when it comes to journalism. She teaches these rules to all the reporters who work for her, and she follows them herself in covering any news story. Her integrity is at the core of the story in YESTERDAY'S NEWS.

      But, in using Clare's voice to tell that story, I soon realized that the phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" didn't always apply here.

Look, everyone lies. There are all sorts of lies. Big lies. Little lies. The lies that people tell casually every day with little thought or remorse: Fibbing about sticking to a diet, calling in sick for work to go to a ballgame or fudging a few numbers on an income tax return. The bigger lies that politicians and real estate brokers and used car salesman tell to get us to buy whatever they’re selling. And then there are the lies so breathtaking in their scope and audaciousness that most of us could never fathom resorting to them no matter how desperate we were. A journalist’s job is to catch people in these lies and expose their lies to the world. Even if it’s the journalist herself who’s not telling the truth.

Which is what happens in YESTERDAY’S NEWS.

The story is about a legendary missing child case in New York City. Fifteen years ago, little 11-year-old Lucy Devlin disappeared on her way to school. Clare Carlson, then a young newspaper reporter, became a media star writing about the story – even winning a Pulitzer Prize for her extraordinary coverage. But now, on the 15th anniversary of Lucy’s disappearance, the story is back in the news with new questions, new leads and new suspects that ultimately force Clare to face long-buried, hard truths about herself.

I think one of the reasons some mystery authors turn to the unreliable narrator approach is because of the difficulties writing a mystery in the first person. A book that has multiple viewpoints or is done in the third person allows the author to more easily conceal key information from the reader. But, in the first person, the reader presumably knows everything that the character does from the very beginning. Which makes it tough to keep the mystery going until the end.

Hence, the narrator like Clare who tells you what she wants you to know and when she wants you to know it – while omitting some of the other crucial information until much later.

Clare herself maybe sums up this approach to learning the truth best when she talks about one of the basic rules she follows when interviewing people as a journalist. “Sometimes the important thing is not to listen to what they tell you,” she instructs a young reporter, “but to listen to what they’re NOT telling you. More often than not, that’s where the real story is.”

By the end of the book though, I think you’ll find Clare – despite her flaws – to be a pretty trustworthy character.

A person of integrity.

An honest journalist.

And that’s the truth!

HANK: Suuuure!  SO—since we try to avoid knock-down-drag-outs around her, instead of talking about reporters, let’s talk about unreliable narrators. Or—your favorite books with unreliable narrators.

I’ve got to say, I remember, clearly, reading Roger Ackroyd, and just…gasping. And I LET YOU GO. Totally got me. And Gone Girl, think what you will, that twist was awesome. How about The Usual Suspects? Sixth Sense? Got to LOVE those, right?

Are you put off when you’re warned there’s a twist? Are you weary of unreliable narrators? Let us know!



R.G. Belsky is an author of crime fiction and a journalist in New York City. His newest mystery, YESTERDAY'S NEWS, was published in May 2018 by Oceanview.  It is the first in a series featuring Clare Carlson, the news director for a New York City TV station. He previously wrote the Gil Malloy series for Atria about a tabloid newspaper reporter.  Belsky himself has been a top editor at the New York Post (where he helped create the famous “Headless Body in Topless Bar” headline), the New York Daily News, Star magazine and NBC News. Two earlier Belsky thrillers that came out in the ‘90s – LOVERBOY and PLAYING DEAD – were re-released by Harper Collins recently in ebook form for the first time.www.rgbelsky.com   


67 comments:

  1. “Yesterday’s News” sounds quite intriguing . . . I’m looking forward to reading it.
    I’m really on the fence about unreliable narrators. Sometimes I’m a fan, but not always. It’s seems to be so common these days that I think it has lost the ability to really surprise the reader because it’s always in the back of your mind that the narrator may not be so trustworthy . . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed! But the thing is, no narrator is really trustworthy, right? Only the author is trustworthy. The character, just like a real person, doesn’t know everything!

      Delete
    2. i hear you, Joan. I think Clare is a bit different than the usual unreliable narrator. She really believes in truth and integrity as the most important thing she has as a journalist. Which is why it becomes such a gut-wrenching decision for her when she has to stray from the truth. I enjoyed writing about that kind of juxtaposition in here character.

      Delete
  2. Like Joan, I'm on the fence when it comes to unreliable narrators. If the twist/reveal of previously withheld information is done well, it is fine (The Usual Suspects film is a great example). But if it isn't done well, it becomes a convoluted mess and more irritating than intriguing.

    This is a bit off topic but speaking of authors gathering together, just thought I'd let the Red bloggers and commenters know that the Edith Maxwell / Barbara Ross / Sheila Connolly author event in West Falmouth, MA yesterday was a lot of fun. Informative and funny, it was nice to get to know the authors a little and learn more about their work as well as how they work. I'm sure I'll write up a slightly more detailed account in the very near future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But in the usual suspects, which I agree Jay is endlessly fascinating, when you see it again, and know what will happen, it’s even more interesting as you see all the references you missed.

      Delete
    2. Hank,

      Yes, when I watched it a second time it was nice to see how things were done.

      However, I do find it hard to watch the movie now because of that very same thing.

      Delete
    3. Oh, Jay, that event sounds like it would have been wonderful! I only recently discovered Sheila Connolly and have been devouring her County Cork mysteries. I am sad that I have only two more to go, but chagrined that my digital library doesn't have those two. Please do write more about the event -- I want to live it vicariously!

      Delete
    4. Susan, I plan to. But unfortunately it might be a few days before I get to do it.

      I got confirmation yesterday on an interview with a musician for Sunday, so that's my focus for the next couple of days as I'm likely to be spending the next couple of days prepping for that.

      Delete
    5. So great to meet you in person, Jay! (And to sign the stack of my books you brought and bought - gosh, I'm still blushing...) Thanks for making the trip.

      Delete
    6. Susan. the three of us just sat and talked about cozy mysteries, about how we write, about, well, I'll let Jay tell the rest. We had a delightful time and fielded a bunch of very insightful questions, too. (Sheila is still writing the Irish series, have no fear.)

      Delete
    7. Yes, that’s the thing about a twisty mystery book or movie, Jay. You can only really enjoy it that way once. I think that was one of the big problems (there were others!) with the Gone Girl movie. Most people knew the twists that were coming. In the book they were shocking. Like Hank, I was a big fan of the book (also loved the fact that Gillian Flynn was a former journalist too) - but disappointed in the movie.

      Delete
    8. Edith, it was great to meet you as well. And I never want to miss the opportunity to have my books signed by authors I like to read. As I told you, signed books mean they stay in my collection for sure!

      And for Susan, here's the link to my recap of the event (I had some free time at work today): http://classic-rock-bottom.ning.com/forum/topics/meet-the-author-s-edith-maxwell-barbara-ross-and-sheila-connolly

      R.G. Belsky, yes enjoying a twisty movie can really only be enjoyed once as a viewer and perhaps once as a "Oh that's how they did it" look back. I thought the Gone Girl movie failed not only because it was badly made but it didn't entertain in the least. I can deal with a bad movie that entertains but a bad movie that doesn't? KISS OF DEATH.

      Delete
  3. That sounds like such fun Jay! We love hearing stories about our writer friends...

    Now Dick, honestly I glaze over when I hear the term "unreliable narrators" and though I read both GIRL ON A TRAIN and GONE GIRL and was riveted, I did not like a single character in those books. And that matters to me! Whereas your Clare is quite intriguing. As a psychologist, I understand that people never told me everything on the first visit. It might take years for it all to come out, but that was partly because they didn't understand or remember everything. And partly, because there's only so much a mind can bear. Maybe that's Clare?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lucie, I think you should be on calls to all of us! Understanding the psychology is so key…

      Delete
    2. Wow, you may understand Clare better than I do, Lucy! I do think she’s a likeable person though - much different than the other two books you mentioned. Hopefully you’ll be rooting for her at the end of the book!

      Delete
  4. I really disliked Gone Girl and Girl On A Train (and then I wouldn't even pick up any book with Girl in the title!) but I don't think that was why. I liked I Let You Go. So I guess it just depends on how well the story is written. I'm definitely looking forward to Yesterday's News.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw the Gone Girl movie and hated it, so I can't imagine I would've liked the book.

      Delete
    2. Oh, no, J, they are so different! I didn’t like the movie either, but I thought the book was 100% fabulous.

      Delete
    3. Hank, well then perhaps at some point I'll pick up the book and see if I like it better than the abysmal movie.

      Delete
    4. I promise never to use Girl in a title of any of my books, Judi. Honest! Hope you enjoy Yesterday’s News...

      Delete
    5. Forget the movie. Then read the book.And you will see why it's possible they should have left well enough alone-the book is a masterclass. And VERY difficult to turn into a move.

      Delete
    6. JUDI! Did you see you're the winner from yesterday?? Email me a h ryan at whdh dot com!

      Delete
    7. I did not know that! Wow! Today's good news!

      Delete
  5. I loved Gone Girl - Gillian Flynn is a terrific writer, sentence for sentence, word for word... and that plot twist in the middle of the book came out of left field (I read a galley, long before there was any buzz). And I liked it MORE because I didn't know there was a twist coming. Girl on the Train I knew there was a twist... and looking for it, waiting for it, imagining what it might be, ruined she of the fun.

    RG, wondering why you chose to narrate in the voice of a *female* reporter? And were there any challenges because of that choice?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So agree! When something is proclaimed as twisty, I spend the whole time reading looking for them!

      Delete
    2. Well, this is my 11th published mystery, Hallie - and seven of them have actually featured female characters. I’ve always found women reporters interesting to write about - probably because I worked with so many great women throughout my career, all the way back to my early days at the NY Post. On this book though, it had to be a woman character because of the subject matter. Clare gets very personally involved in the story (which you’ll understand if you read it) in a way a man could not to. So that was an easy decision!

      Delete
  6. I'm on high alert when I start a book written in first person: do I trust this person? What's her agenda? What's she hiding? Does an author writing in first person automatically amp up the dramatic tension by her point of view choice?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely! Because even in the most reliable of narrators, everything is perceived, right? And the character could be wrong! I love riding in first person, because I get to know what the character doe absolutely! Because even in the most reliable of narrator is, everything is perceived, right? And the character could be wrong! I love riding in first person, because I get to know what the character thinks… But I also know, as the author, what is true.

      Delete
    2. Not sure if that’s true of all first person books, Margaret. Spenser, Kinsey Millhone, even Philip Marlowe - none of these are really hiding much from the reader. Of course, we’re reading those kinds of books for the characters we love - even more than the mystery.

      Delete
  7. Interesting post. Thank you. Gone Girl? I eventually disliked the characters, as almost everyone did, but I thought the structure was handled brilliantly.Truly. I admire deviousness in a mystery writer! It's a crucial skill and one I'm not good at. In general, I don't have strong feelings about unreliable narrators. It's just one more tool in the kit and the author handles it well or not. Now serial killers? That, I have strong feelings about. And cats. I don't think cats belong in a mystery. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m with you, sister! Structure is the ball game!

      Delete
    2. No animals are harmed in the writing of my books, Triss. Not even fictional ones. I can write a bloody serial killer scene, but I draw the line when it comes to any harm coming to an animal.

      Delete
  8. I do like the unreliable narrator - to a certain extent. I will say that they are everywhere these days. I'm finding that I have to have some other books squeezed in between or I get really annoyed. I have read the Christie book years and years ago - think I read somewhere that she was one of the first to try that. I've read Gone Girl and Girl on the Train - liked them well enough for the plot twists - did not like the characters. Like Lucy, I really need at least one character to like. Ha! I recently read another debut - Sometimes I Lie by Alice Feeney - oh, yes, all kinds of crazy there - not sure which way was up. As a totally different book, I also recently read Dear Mrs. Bird by A.J. Pearce - lovely WWII book to sandwich between the thrillers. As a crime/mystery/thriller reader, I love the puzzle. Love figuring things out. So bring on the twists!

    Also, I enjoyed meeting RG at Malice and also getting Yesterday's News. And I'll be 'meeting' Clare very soon. Can't wait!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I am eager to read the Alice Feeney book! And I think with an unreliable narrator, the key is to make them not too crazy. When it is all about alcohol or drugs or some sort of weird “reason” then I think it gets to be like the Author’s convenience. And an excuse for the character to be stupid :-). But when they are actually just doing what they think is right, or psychologically affected in someway by something, then I think it is terrific and realistic.

      Delete
    2. Thank you, Kay! Had a great time at Malice...hope you enjoy Yesterday’s News. Let me know your thoughts when yiou’re done...

      Delete
  9. Congratulations RG! I think my favorite unreliable narrator continues to be Roger Ackroyd.

    Mary/Liz

    ReplyDelete
  10. As most people here already know,I am a huge fan of unreliable narrators. I think they are becoming almost too commom, but there are still ways to make the trope feel fresh.

    Too often unreliable = unlikable these days. And that is getting annoying. There are so many reasons that one can be unreliable (as Hank says, isn’t everyone unreliable to some extent), but falling back on alcohol, drugs, or what have you is starting to feel like an easy way for authors to unsuccessfully manipulate readers.

    Recent examples where it is done right include the already mentioned Sometimes I Lie - I mean you can’t get more unreliable than a character who tells you right from the get-go “sometimes I lie.” Jennifer Hillier’s epic Jar of Hearts, in which everyone has a reason for obfuscating the truth, and The Wife by Alafair Burke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's a great distinction, Kristopher, that unreliable doesn't have to be unlikable. That brings us to the age old question, does our main character have to be likeable or just relatable?

      Delete
    2. Oh, I am dealing with that very thing right now! I keep thinking, though--we are all unreliable in some way..

      Delete
    3. Another discussion that never gets old. Personally, I don’t always have to like the characters - but I understand that most readers want someone they can root for. Relatable is so important and can not be discounted. For me, as long as I can understand why a character is doing what they are doing, I don’t personally have to agree with or like their choices.

      Delete
  11. Readers will never tire of unreliable narrators -- it is so amazing to reach the point when it all comes clear! And, it is very much like "real life" when we hear one side of a story (in both our private and our public lives).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kristopher and Denise, I’ll just say that I think its a lot harder to keep secrets in a first person narrative than a third person or multiple POV. Which, for me, is part of the fun of writing it that way!

      Delete
    2. Definitely. First-person comes with several such challenges. My favorite unreliable narrators are those that don’t necessarily know they are unreliable.

      Delete
  12. The Sixth Sense - it took me until the end of the movie to figure it out. Now I have to go back and re-read Roger Ackroyd - and find Dick's book! Congratulations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s actually fun to go back and watch The Sixth Sense once you know the ending - you see all the clues you missed before. Assume the same is true with Roger Ackroyd. Hope I can keep you guessing in Yesterday’s News, Edith.

      Delete
    2. Sadly, I didn't see The Sixth Sense until it hit home video and a movie magazine I subscribed to at the time spoiled the ending before I saw it.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I agree it's fabulous to watch it again! It makes it even better. A whole new experience!

      Delete
  13. Picking up on what Denise Ann was saying about public lives and unreliable narrators. Within the last few years the whole issue of the public trust in the integrity of journalism is being questioned. Did this start with the reporter who won a prize for a made up story? From there we moved to people saying if a story was not liked it was not truthful. From there the new generation of unreliable narrators became popular.
    I am a trusting soul, I want to believe my narrator. On the other hand, mysteries are all about someone not telling the truth. Authors who can be part of a trend while writing engaging plots are a reader's dream. It sounds like Yesterday's News will be one of these books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Questions about the integrity of journalism have been around for a long ti9me, Coralee. (Check out the history of the Spanish-American war). But integrity is definitely at the core of Yesterday’s News. I think my message is that integrity and being completely truth is not always as easy as it seems.

      Delete
  14. I'm not crazy about books with an unreliable narrator as the central character, not even Roger Ackroyd. As Lucy says, I really need to like at least one character and I want them to be, at least mostly, truthful. However, because I write multiple viewpoints, not all of my viewpoint characters are reliable and it's often because of what they DON'T tell you.

    Dick, I think I would like your Clare, and the story premise is fascinating. And I'm echoing Hallie's question about why you chose a female protagonist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said to Hallie, Deborah, I’ve written female characters a lot during my career as an author. I find them more fun and challenging and rewarding to do in many ways. Plus, in this case, the book requires a woman journalist, instead of a man, to tell the story I wanted to tell. You’ll understand that more once you read the book.

      Delete
  15. I've actually guessed big twists without starting a story simply by knowing the basic premise and the fact that there is a big twist. Don't know what that says about my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I like big twists, Mark - both as an author and as a reader. Without big twists, it’s not really a mystery for me!
    —R.G. Belsky

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have enjoyed several books with the unreliable narrator. It's not always a matter of deliberately hiding information. In some cases the truth is so recent and painful the character tries to skirt around it. Maybe if you don't think about it it didn't really happen. I prefer my characters to be likeable, but you don't always get what you want! I need to read Roger Ackroyd again. I can't remember the story.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another great book with a kind of unreliable narrator is Presumed Innocent. You don’t really know everything Rusty knows while he’s relating the murder story....

      Delete
    2. Yes! That was a good one.

      Delete
    3. LOVED Presumed Innocent! A true classic. And Defending Jacob!

      Delete
    4. Oh Defending Jacob. We have talked about this often, Hank. That novel deserves so much more attention. That ending...WOW!

      Delete
  18. I get tired of the "trendy" books. "Well, xyz was a huge bit last year. Let's jump on this train and everything we're going to publish will have xyz, too!" So unreliable narrator gets done to death, everything has "Girl" in the title, etc. Bah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it seems like there's some sort of collective unconscious...because much of the time, those books aren't discussed and planned as coattail books, you know? (Of course, some are...) But you know the publishing cycle is years, so...it's pretty fascinating. DIdn't someone count 113 books with "Girl"? But the good ones are SO good! I just don't want to be TOLD there's a twist, or that the narrator is unreliable. Just let me find out, that's the fun part.

      Delete
    2. This is a tough one, Hank. As a reviewer, I often find myself walking a very fine line between hinting at a twist enough so foils who like those know this is a book they need to check out and not saying too much so as to have readers looking too hard for that twist. When I nail it, as I did in the Jar of Hearts review, I feel it in my gut.

      Delete
    3. HANK HERE: Looking for that review right now!

      Delete
    4. I sent this to Hank, but for others, here is my review of Jar of Hearts. Currently my choice for the book of the summer: http://bolobooks.com/2018/05/jar-of-hearts-the-bolo-books-review/

      Delete
    5. HANK HERE: Hurray! Thank you. Book review room service. Got to love it.

      Delete
  19. I love, love, love a good twist and your description of your protagonist Clare sound too good to resist. Yesterday's News is moving to the top of my TBR pile!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, now those are the words an author loves to hear, Jenn! Hope you enjoy it...

      Delete