Literary Spotlight: Gillian Roberts

Gillian Roberts (the pseudonym of Judith Greber) is the author of the Anthony-award winning Amanda Pepper mystery series that features a Philadelphia high school English teacher and her significant other, C. K. Mackenzie. She has also written two books in a second series, featuring the pair of private detectives, Emma Howe and Billie August.

Q: You are a former English teacher as is your fictional character, Amanda Pepper. Are you an example of the old adage: write what you know? How does she differ from your teaching persona? How can writers develop a character from their chosen profession without it being too close for comfort?

A: I have honestly never found a murdered woman in my living room, or in the schools where I taught, and I have never solved a crime—except on paper. So I’m not writing “what I know” except for my protagonist’s profession, and that began almost by accident. My first draft of what became Caught Dead in Philadelphia had a housewife-protagonist, but she kept winding up at the school: PTA meetings, teacher-conferences, etc., etc. Only then did it dawn on me that my story was determined to be in school, and I turned Amanda into a teacher. After a while, I happily realized that a school was a wonderful setting because it’s a microcosm of the world, with all the passions, politics—and population—to provide Amanda with lots of mysteries to solve.
One of my pet peeves in fiction is a character who supposedly has a job but never needs to work at it. What we do all day seems central to our lives, and so I think it’s terrific to use an occupation you know—or do some serious research. The writer needs to know the obligations, frustrations, joys and restrictions that job would put upon her character. Toss all of that into the mix, and you’ve got a richer, more interesting book.

Q: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle faced tough criticism when he attempted to kill off Sherlock Holmes. You have recently ended the Amanda Pepper mysteries. What is that like for you and for your fans?

A: First, it’s quite exciting to be in the same question with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle! Amanda’s move to New Orleans with C. K. hasn’t caused quite the same stir as did Holmes’ going over Reisenbach Falls. But then, she’s quite alive and involved in new adventures. However, I have gotten hundreds of the most wonderful letters from readers saying they’ll miss her. None of the “tough criticism” Doyle faced. My readers are obviously nicer than his. Parting, after twenty years and fourteen books, was and still is bittersweet. I do miss her, but we’ve both moved on to new adventures before, I hope, the old ones became stale.

Q: Why did you decide to write the nonfiction, “You Can Write a Mystery”? Have you had any feedback from readers who have tried out your theories?

A: I was actually asked to write the book by Writer’s Digest Publications. I’ve been teaching writing for a few decades and had copious notes and a sense of how I like approaching the topic, so I was happy to do it. I’ve been delighted to receive many letters over the years from writers saying the book helped them.

Q: Some say that certain genres such as romance and mystery amount to “formula writing” with only the names, places and times changed. What is your response?

A: I once had a workshop instructor who pointed out that the only difference between Anna Karenina and a soap opera script is the writing. They’re both about an illicit love affair and its repercussions, so was Tolstoy writing formula?
There are good, mediocre and downright bad novel writers. There are also lazy writers who hit upon a winning pattern and repeat it book after book. But in actuality, a mystery has few requirements—it needs a crime, a resolution, and in between, an author playing fair with the reader. I don’t think that can be called a formula. I certainly tried to never repeat myself even though I had the same protagonist in those fourteen books. I consciously worked at making the situation, the ideas or issues, the structure and as many characters as possible fresh and new. Otherwise, if I were working from the same pattern year after year, I would have bored myself silly long before I bored my readers.

Q: Various authors offer mixed messages to would-be authors regarding the importance of a consistent point of view. What are your thoughts?

A: If we’re talking about point of view, and third person narrative, I’m all for staying in one point of view in any given scene or chapter, and for letting the reader know when you switch into another point of view. I have no problems with multiple points of view and in fact, I’ve written six books so far using them (four non-mysteries, two mysteries) and I’m working on a seventh. It’s fun—but I don’t like it when the point of view changes within a scene because it pulls me out of the story. I want to stay with a character—be that character and live in his head—for a scene, even if next chapter I’m going to live inside somebody else’s head.
And having said that, I have to also say I’ve read some dazzling books (Russell Banks comes to mind right away) where the author uses an omniscient voice and goes into any mind or place he likes, and makes it work brilliantly. Any “rule” is breakable if you can make it work.

Carlotta Holton is the author of Salem Pact, Touching The Dead and Vampire Resurrection, and is a member of the National Federation of Press Women and an affiliate member of the Horror Writers Association.