A WORD CHOICE CONUNDRUM

by Paula Gail Benson

Recently, I explored the REVIEW function on Microsoft Word. I clicked on REVIEW and selected SPELLING AND GRAMMAR, which takes you to EDITOR. The EDITOR provides several different levels of information that can be modified depending upon what the writer wants or, if the writer does not choose, what he or she uses.

You have basic CORRECTIONS for Spelling and Grammar. Then, a grouping called REFINEMENTS, which includes Clarity, Conciseness, Inclusiveness, Punctuation Conventions, and Vocabulary. INSIGHTS lets you check Document Stats, where you can learn about word counts and readability (my Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for these two paragraphs is 11.2, but I have 20% passive voice).

I decided to click on specific functions to better understand the information they provide. For what I’ve written so far on this post, I have an Editor Score of 95% with an indication of 1 suggestion for Inclusiveness. What is that suggestion? That I change “he or she uses” at the end of the first paragraph to “they use.”

This is understandable. Rather than reflecting gender, it recommends a generic term, now being used for persons who identify as binary or non-binary.

In addition, it has historical precedent. Jennifer Gunner, in her article “Why the Singular ‘They’ Has Always Made Sense in Context,” mentions that the Oxford English Dictionary traces use of “they” as a singular rather than a plural pronoun to a 1375 romance poem, William and the Werewolf. She continues, “No one even claimed they and them were solely plural pronouns until four hundred years later—and even then, grammarians demanded that you was also only a plural pronoun (thou was the singular form).”

A writer may have to make careful choices considering historical terminology. For a short story I’m writing that takes place in the 1880s, Microsoft Word’s Editor has provided some interesting suggestions. In my story, about a young woman trying to determine what she should do in life, I mention my protagonist asking for an opinion from the headmistress of her finishing school. The headmistress tells her to consider becoming a nanny for a former classmate who is now married and expecting a child.

At this point in writing the post, my Editor Score has dipped to 91% and I have 3 suggestions under Inclusiveness. The first for “he or she.” The second and third are words I used in my short story: for “headmistress” the Editor would use “principal” and for “nanny” it offered “babysitter,” “live-in babysitter,” or “childcare worker.”

These suggestions offer gender neutral alternatives, but they are not words I would expect my 1880s protagonist to use instead of “headmistress” or “nanny.”

Until her retirement, my aunt operated a one-person United States Post Office branch. If someone called her a “Postmistress,” she would gently correct to “Postmaster.”

Am I potentially offending someone by using the terms “headmistress” and “nanny” or am I using them properly to reveal historical context? What do you recommend?

How should I ask this question if I click on the option to “Give feedback to Microsoft”?

Every Drop of Blood by Edward Achorn: A Review by Warren Bull

Image by Stephen Reeder on Upsplash

In the interest of full disclosure this is a straight history book about Abraham Lincoln’s second inauguration speech. Nevertheless, when reading it I was struck by how elements of the writing fit with writing fiction and mysteries. I found the contents fascinating, but that is material for a review in a different place.

 

In the 1953 novel The Go-Between, LP Hartley wrote, “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” Achorn took on the task of providing what it was like in Washington’s Capital in March of 1865. I think the task is similar for writers who want to show readers how a crime lab operates or what a person arrested for the first time goes through. To accomplish this the author did things a successful mystery writer needed to do.

 

He did careful research. I caught only three minor errors in the 376-page book, which is a testament to how thorough he was, as well as how obsessive I am.  He avoided the common pitfall of referring to the area as Washington, DC. which was founded later than the time of the book.  There was nothing to throw the reader out of the experience and wonder – Where did that impossible object or event come from.

 

Also, he cleverly followed the travels of various visitors to the area and was therefore able to describe places and events that a single point-of-view character would not have seen. A wounded soldier’s brother observed the terrible conditions in a hospital. A raucous young man from the country noted the bars and brothels that he passed walking along the streets. Achorn built suspense by also trailing behind John Wilkes Booth and other historical figures.

 

The reader finds out about the sounds, sights and smells as people struggle through deep mud and horse manure toward the Capital ground. The author brings in the weather which was another element adding to the vividness of the work. 

 

Every Drop of Blood is solid history told in a stimulating style that, I believe, puts him in the elite company of David McCullough, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Barbara Tuchman. 

Lawrence H. Levy Interview by E. B. Davis

http://lawrencehlevy.com/  

It's the summer of 1894, and an infidelity case has brought PI Mary Handley to a far corner of Brooklyn: Coney Island. In the midst of her investigation, Mary is contacted by a convicted man's brother to reopen a murder case. A prostitute was killed by a Jack-the-Ripper copycat years ago in her New York hotel room, but her true killer was never found. Once again it's up to Mary to make right the city's wrongs. 

   
New York City's untouchable head of detectives, Thomas Byrnes, swears he put the right man behind bars, but as Mary digs deeper, she finds corruption at the heart of New York's justice system, involving not only the police, but also the most powerful of stock titans. Disturbing evidence of other murders begins to surface, each one mimicking Jack the Ripper's style, each one covered up by Thomas Byrnes.    

As Mary pieces together the extent of the damage, she crosses paths with Harper Lloyd, an investigative reporter. Their relationship grows into a partnership, and perhaps more, and together they must catch a killer who's still out there, and reverse the ruthless workings of New York's elite. It'll be Mary's most dangerous, most personal case yet.

http://lawrencehlevy.com/books/last-stop-in-brooklyn-tr

______________________________________________________________________________

I enjoyed reading Last Stop In Brooklyn by Lawrence H. Levy. His female PI character, Mary Handley, is a progressive thinking “old maid,” at age thirty, with Irish roots and a self-determined outlook. The plot started with Mary’s pedestrian case of spouse spying and quickly incorporated the politics of the day, famous names of the times, and the issues debated then (and now). Mary’s fidelity case morphs into a personal dilemma and engulfs her in murder. What I didn’t realize fully until I read the author’s notes at the end—much of this story is based on real events and people. Lawrence Levy wove his fiction around fact—well, which is why I wanted to interview him. Please welcome Lawrence H. Levy to WWK.                                                                                                             E. B. Davis

______________________________________________________________________________

You wrote for TV, were nominated for two Emmys—why the transition to books—especially historical fiction?

First of all, whether it’s TV, novels, films or any other medium, I consider myself a storyteller and not just tied to one medium. True, Second Street Station (the first Mary Handley Mystery) was my first novel and friends of mine were amazed that I was so successful with it (numerous publishing companies bid for it), but I never considered what a long shot it was in the writing of it. If I did, I probably never would have written it. Fear and anxiety does that to you. It was merely a story I was passionate about and wanted to tell in the best way. To me, all stories boil down to the simplistic child bedtime request, “Tell me a story.” Of course, there are more nuances, details, and subtleties in adult stories, but if the bones of a good story aren’t there, you’re in trouble.

As far as the transition to historical fiction is concerned, it happened by accident. I was helping my son with a term paper about that period and came across the Edison/Tesla feud over the electricity market. I found it fascinating, especially discovering that Edison wasn’t everything that had been fed to me in school. However, I decided that if I was going to tackle this subject matter, it would be more interesting to tell it in the context of a real murder investigation that happened around that time and put the two stories together. That is when I found the real life Mary Handley. In crafting her character, I fell in love with her and she became the main focus. I decided to do it as a novel because then I would have no budget constrictions and didn’t have to worry if actors and a director would help or hurt my vision. In a book, it’s all there. Also, if I wanted to do it eventually as a movie or TV series, Hollywood is more prone to do period pieces based on books.

Your story is set in Brooklyn where Mary Handley lives. Did you grow up in Brooklyn, know the area well, or live there now?

I was born in Brooklyn and grew up in New York City. I live in Los Angeles now but go back frequently. So, I do know the area well. However, Brooklyn was not chosen because I lived there. It was chosen because that’s where Mary Handley lived and worked. I have to admit though that it was very interesting researching my hometown and learning about events that had taken place there of which I had no knowledge.

Are you a plotter or a pantser?

I would say 90% plotter. I strongly believe you can’t (at least, I can’t) write any story, whether a novel, TV teleplay, film, short story, etc. without knowing where you’re going. I’m not anal about it. I don’t work out all the details and stick to it no matter what. I do make room for ideas that occur to me in the writing process. However, I find it much easier to craft dialogue and action when I know where people will wind up. It gives me the opportunity to lay foundations early on for things that happen later in the story

 http://lawrencehlevy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MaryHandley_Map.jpg

Your story starts in 1894 with two cases of Mary’s that end up being tied together even though they are very different cases. It was the week of our nation’s very first Labor Day, which was a concession to labor by Grover Cleveland after he sent in troops during the Pullman Strike, which resulted in thirty strikers’ deaths. Why did you start your story at this time?

Ah, this was part of my plotting. I started it there for a number of reasons. First of all, I wanted the time to coincide with other things that were happening in the piece: the dates of the Jack-the-Ripper murders; Teddy Roosevelt becoming President of the Police Commission the next year, etc. When I found out in my research that was the first Labor Day Weekend, it seemed like a perfect fit.

Henry L. Norcross, the U.S.’s first suicide bomber in 1891, entered capitalist Russell Sage’s office and exploded a bomb. Although he is no hero, there are sympathies to his message to the robber barons because he chose Sage to victimize, who ended up walking away with barely a scratch. Sage was known as a greedy capitalist, which later he proves in his legal dealings with William Laidlaw. Did Sage have undo influence during that time? Would someone be able to appeal five times today and never pay a cent to his victim? 

Sage did have a lot of influence at that time, but to counteract that, Laidlaw’s lawyer, Joseph Hodges Choate, made sure that he was portrayed as a greedy coward. That solidified Sage’s decision to fight Laidlaw no matter how much it cost. In the long run, he may very well have paid more in legal fees than Laidlaw would have taken in a settlement. (I believe one of the appeals was made by Laidlaw.) As far as it happening today, I’m not completely sure how many appeals a person can get today, but depending on the circumstances and evidence, I’d say it is entirely possible. Money talks.

Many of the real characters you’ve included are shown to have great shortcomings. (Andrew Carnegie, Russell Sage, Jay Gould, etc.) Are there any dangers in highlighting their faults? Recriminations from family members, renegade historians?

I guess you always run that risk, and that was a concern of mine. However, I was careful to be historically accurate with those figures. Besides, it’s a work of historical fiction, and I emphasize the fiction part. My publisher told me there was nothing to worry about.

Mary’s mother fixated on Mary’s single status and her brother’s anti-dating stance causing much fighting during the family’s weekly dinners. Did the mother have a personality disorder, disrespecting her children’s boundaries, or was she merely a frustrated housewife with too much time to think?

I would say that their mother, Elizabeth, was a product of the time and the conventions of that society. She truly believed that if her children would only heed her advice, they’d be happy. There was also the public embarrassment for her in front of her friends, etc. that her children were odd. Being a control freak, Elizabeth’s relentless attacks were hurtful and wrong, but she knew no other way and thought it was for the greater good. God knows how many wrongs have been committed for the greater good!

There were many societies at that time bent on discrimination against just about everyone except those of Anglo-Saxon heritage, such as The Immigration Restriction League and Austin Corbin’s American Society for the Suppression of Jews. Were they all based on eugenics?

It’s hard to really answer this question. I’m sure eugenics played a part, but I would say though that it was good old-fashioned prejudice; the “I don’t want to see or deal with these people because they’re different.” Of course, myths (lies, really) grew and were embellished about the immigrants – that they were criminals, lowlifes, classless, etc. and ruining our economy. Sound familiar? I’m sure it was also very irritating to these people when immigrants became successful and took business away from the “pure Americans.”

Mary is asked by a condemned man’s brother to help exonerate him. The murder of Carrie Brown and subsequent incarceration of Ameer Ben Ali for the crime was real (and eleven years later, he was released). Your invention of his brother, not only links the two cases, but gets Mary involved. How did you blend the real with the fictional, creating characters when needed?

What it gets down to is this. I start with the real life case, and then try to figure out how Mary would get involved. That is how the brother was invented. Of course, I try to introduce him in an interesting way, and I believe I do that. The same thing goes with Andrew Carnegie, Russell Sage, Thomas Byrnes, and the other real characters. I start from what they really did and what really happened in their lives and then decide how I can weave those events and characteristics into the story I want to tell.

Ameer’s case comes down to fingerprints, which in 1894 hadn’t been used as evidence in a U. S. court of law. Juan Vucetich, an Argentinian police official, was the first to fingerprint criminals in 1891. It wasn’t until 1911 that the U.S. court system allowed fingerprints to be evidence of identification in criminal cases, but could fingerprints eliminate a suspect in 1894?

Not in the United States. However, I had Mary use them in the book as another piece of evidence added to the mounds of evidence she had already collected. She figured that should at least earn Ameer a new trial, if not set him free. Of course, Thomas Byrnes’s ego was at stake, and he was not budging.

Arthur, a white man, runs the “Kill the Coon” arcade on Coney Island, and yet he wasn’t prejudiced. What explains this contradiction?

I portray Arthur purely as a business man and not a bigot. He was making money with the “Kill the Coon” game and that’s what mattered. If a “Kill the White Guy” exhibit would have made him money, he would do that. Also, Edgar was such an engaging guy that, if Arthur had prejudicial notions, dealing with Edgar probably changed his mind.

Edgar, a young black man, is an admirable character. Tell our readers about Edgar.

Edgar was one of those characters and subplots that came along as I was writing. When I read about the “Kill the Coon” arcade attraction, I began to wonder who would agree to become the target of such a disgusting game. Instead of just making him a poor African American who was down on his luck, I decided to make Edgar more interesting. I gave him a strong career ambition and a strong personal reason to be working at Coney Island. He’s also bright, charming, and a good, caring person. Possibly more important, he’s very human and can get angry and make mistakes. It shines a spotlight on the wholesale prejudice against him and all African Americans, making it look absurd and just wrong.

Mary Handley’s nemesis, police Inspector Thomas Byrnes was a real character who was only ousted from office, along with Captain Alexander “Clubber” Williams, after Teddy Roosevelt was persuaded to become president of the police commission. Why can’t Mary’s friend police Superintendent Campbell fire Byrnes and Williams?

This story takes place when Brooklyn and New York were still two separate cities (which I address in Mary’s previous book, Brooklyn On Fire). Brooklyn and New York didn’t officially merge until 1898. So basically, Campbell had no power over Byrnes and Williams.

What’s next for Mary?

I haven’t come up with a title yet for Mary fourth adventure. It will involve Mary trying to solve several murders, one very close to her, and a group of privileged men (and this is fact) who, like out of the headlines today, would drug young women to have sex with them. I hope to keep Mary busy for a long time.

Are you a beach or a mountain guy, Lawrence?

Much more beach than mountain, although when you write all day in your office at home, there’s not much time for the fresh air of the outdoors.

                  http://lawrencehlevy.com/bios/lawrence-h-levy

Playing with Historical Fact and Fiction by Anne Louise Bannon

There’s a story told that back in the early 1920s, when Will H. Hays first arrived in Hollywood to clean up the movie business, a bunch of producers and studio executives treated Mr. Hays to a dinner party at the opulent Coconut Grove nightclub in the recently opened Ambassador Hotel. Near the end of the party, Mr. Hays gave a speech thanking everyone for such a warm, sober welcome. The catch? Almost everyone in the party had been drinking very heavily and most were pretty hammered.

But is the story true? And as a writer of historical mysteries, it’s my job to decide whether I think it is or, more interestingly, whether I think it matters.

Hays, by the way, is the man who lent his name to the Motion Picture Production Code that up until the late 1960s profoundly influenced what and how much sexy stuff was seen on movie screens in America.

So, did Hays really commend a bunch of drunk studio execs on their sobriety? I don’t know. My husband, a film historian, told me the story, which he remembered from reading a memoir by someone in the business during the time. Assuming my husband’s memory is correct about what he read (which it usually is), the story is still suspect. By the time it appeared in the book, it was several decades old and a personal memory, at that.

And if it did happen, it’s entirely possible that Hays’ remarks were more ironic than not. After all, before he went to Hollywood, Hays was a member of President Warren G. Harding’s administration and that crew was known to hit the sauce pretty hard. It’s hard to imagine that Will Hays did not notice that all those teapots on the tables at the Coconut Grove did not contain tea. It was well known that you could get any libation you wanted at the nightclub, and liquor was frequently served in teapots during the 1920s and Prohibition.

While I did not get to use this particular story in my latest Freddie and Kathy novel, The Last Witnesses, it’s the sort of story I love using as background for the series, which takes place during the Roaring Twenties. Freddie ends up staying at the Ambassador in this latest book and dines with studio executives at the Coconut Grove, which is why I was thinking about Hays.

There are times when I’m pretty strict about sticking to the historical fact of a given  setting. Such as the reality that the early moguls were probably making more money on their real estate holdings in Southern California than they were on the movies they made. I want to be sure that the cars Freddie drives are the right models for the story, that he and Kathy are wearing the right kinds of clothes, that what buildings were where is described accurately, that you hear the roar of typewriters in a typing pool. These are the details that can bring an era alive and make history real, not to mention shed some light on what it was like during a given time.

But I have been known to play with historical fact here and there to good effect. I’d heard third-hand from a friend about his father’s friend, who during the ‘20s, used to fly tequila into Los Angeles in his old Sopwith Camel. Do I know it as a fact? No, but when I allude to it in the second Freddie and Kathy novel, Bring Into Bondage, I don’t need it to be a fact. It’s not an unlikely happenstance for the time and in the circumstances of the story, it doesn’t have to be right factually.

The bottom line is that I’m writing fiction, not history. I need the history to be mostly accurate to create the scene well. I’ve noticed that in those stories where the creator takes the time and care to get the historical details right, she or he usually also makes sure to get the other details, such as plot and characterization, right, too. I also need to get as much right as possible so that I can get away with alluding to possibly apocryphal stories, like Hays’ address to the studio execs, which may not be factual, but expose a certain truth about an era.

As I said, I didn’t actually use that particular story in The Last Witnesses – I had others that worked better for the plot. But I might eventually. Maybe in another Freddie and Kathy story. Maybe in another series. It’s still a good story. And sometimes the story is better for a novel than the fact. Not often, but sometimes.