Log In | Register
This is the first part of a two part interview
Jonathan Segura's novel is, in three words or less, engrossing and fascinating. It came out earlier this month.
If you are a former journalist you'll love it. If you've always wondered how journalism really works... well, this will give you an idea except you'll need to adjust for added bits of sex and violence.
He has written a great book, managing to describe the crazy life of a weekly journalist with alcohol and drug consumption that would make Hunter Thompson and William Burroughs proud with the kind of intriguing mystery and thriller I would normally expect from a more veteran crime writer.
Let me give you an example of the writing style of the book.
I love this quote and I think it sums up my job description and attitude when I was a journalist. The comment cames after he watches world news and its usual litany of scary-as-hell violence.
It is a troubling sort of comfort this nasty @!$%# gave me. So long as people can read and there is this @!$%#ed-up @!$%# happening, there's a place for me in the world.
I could tell you more about this writer but I think it is better to just let him tell you about himself via this interview. We will talk more about the book itself in part 2.
Scott: It's a pleasure to meet another fiction writer as well as someone else who writes reviews of others fiction. I might have to start checking out Publishers Weekly to see if we agree or disagree on some writers. Do you (for either personal or professional reasons) read what other publications say about some of the books your magazine reviews? Or is that logistically impossible or an ethical no-no?
I read tons of book reviews from other magazines, newspapers and blogs. It's an, ahem, "occupational hazard." Okay. Sorry about that. Anyway, I do try to keep up with book culture, and a huge chunk of that is reviews. And, of course, since our reviews hit before any consumer mag or newspaper, I always find myself looking for traces of PW's review in other, later takes. It's often something that's there if you're looking for it, but isn't if you're not. I just happen to be looking for it.
Early in life I decided when I grew up I wanted to be a best-selling novelist. When I decided that was not an easy career path I decided to settle for reviewing books for a living. About a year ago I met a guy with my dream job, Patrick Anderson, the thriller reviewer for the Washington Post, and (after expressing my jealousy) interviewed him about his good job about thriller writers. Now I read his reviews regularly, seeding them at Newsvine and linking to them when I interview writers like Robert Crais. I might start doing the same for you. Are your reviews online? Or do you just edit others review? I'm assuming it's a bit of both.
Yeah, becoming a best-selling novelist is sort of a bitch, no? If you figure out how, let me know. But, to answer your question, most of what I do is edit reviews. PW's reviews are not bylined, but they are all online; you can find them on PW's website and on bookselling sites like amazon, powell's, B&N. I write the occasional review, but, again, they're not bylined. (I should mention also that I, too, think Patrick Anderson is one hell of a reviewer.)
Can you tell me about your job and what it entails? What is the best part and the worst part about being the deputy fiction reviews editor? How do you guys decide what to review?
This will be a long answer. but, here goes:
My beat is 'general fiction.' What that means, basically, is anything that isn't a mystery, thriller, mass market format, graphic novel, faith-based or sci-fi/fantasy-horror title. So, everything from chick lit and vampire sex novels to Salman Rushdie and John Updike. There are many small bureaucratic tasks that goes along with the editing, but editing is about 80 percent of the job. As deputy reviews editor, I'm responsible for the reviews dept. if the reviews director is out.
The best part is seeing everything that's coming out months before it's on the shelves. That's pretty great: free books, and you get them before anyone else does. Also, I really love my reviewers. They do a tremendous job.
Worst part. Well, that is tough. I suppose it's just doing all the annoying little bureaucratic tasks that go along with being an editor.
Those aren't specific to my job, but that also doesn't make them any less soul-deadening.
PW has some set rules about what we will and will not review. We don't review, for instance, reference, text books or straight-up erotica. Generally, reprints are a no-go. And there are some submission requirements--galleys have to be at PW at least three months prior to a book's publication to be considered for review. (There are a couple others, but I won't bother you with them; if you're interested, the full guidelines can be found here.
Which still hasn't answered your question. I don't want to speak for the other editors, but in terms of how I decide what to review, I definitely want to cover every house's major titles each season, and I cover small, indie and university presses as much as I can. We run about 100 reviews a week in the magazine (this number doesn't count the web exclusive reviews we do), approximately 20-25 of which are general fiction, and I've found we rarely miss anything of note. I also like to think, especially in the case of indie publishers, that we help put things on the map. Look at BLACK FLIES, a novel from Soft Skull Press: it got two reviews: a starred PW (march 31) and the cover of the NYTBR (may 25).
How has reading other fiction - or reviews of others fiction - affected you as a fiction writer?
Well, reading is a huge part of my job, and I have read so much stuff I wouldn't have otherwise gone near, but what I've picked up (and I hope comes through in the next book) is a heightened sense of what not do to. Identifying mistakes is easy and helpful. Figuring out what works and why--well, there isn't a formula for that.
What writers do you most hope to be compared to favorably? In your nightmare scenario (and I think every writer has this scenario) who would you be compared to?
Radar dropped Elmore Leonard, which I was happy to read. PW dropped Arthur Nersesian, which was also nice. Both of them also dropped Chuck Palahniuk, and I suppose I wouldn't kick him out of bed, either. But, man, would it break my @!$%#ing heart if I read something like, "It's like the staid love-child of that nutty night when Garth Stein and Nicholas Sparks slipped Danielle Steel a roofie at Brother's Lounge…"
Your book draws from your experience as a journalist in Omaha, right? When did you work there and what did you cover?
I was a reporter and editor at the Omaha Weekly from 2000-2002. I also freelanced for The Reader in Omaha before I got the staff gig at the Weekly. The Weekly was a life-altering experience for me as a writer and as a person--I had a great editor in John Heaston, and because we had such a small staff, I was cranking out 3,000 to 4,000 words a week. I met a lot of weird, wonderful people. Most of what I did was covering city hall and courts. Some cops stuff. Throw in the occasional feature or profile. It was a lot of work, and we'd often be in the office closing an issue until 3 in the morning. Good times.
Did you cover the events that (according to the press release) inspired this book, namely an alleged sex ring scandal at a credit union? How do the real alleged events compare to what you depict in the book?
I did not. The Franklin Credit Union stuff went down in 1988. I was ten years old at the time, so was more concerned with boners and stuff (or whatever 10-year-olds are into--it's been a while). The real events are murky, and nobody's made a definitive case about who did what to whom and when and for how much, etc., but the allegations were outrageous and still pop up every now and again. (Remember Jeff Gannon/James Guckert, the guy the Bush II administration allegedly planted in the White House press corps to lob softballs? Right, well, there were allegations that he was a child prostitute in the Franklin deal. Nutty, but you can google it.) Anyway, I primarily relied on the urban myths and the rumors that still float around, because those are golden and facts are very inconvenient.
The press release for the book notes that the book is "narrated by Bernard Cockburn (that's pronounced Co-burn, thank you)" Is that a reference or shout-out to Stephen Colbert (and how he pronounces his last name?) or just because of that unfortunate name? As someone with the last name of Butki (pronounced butt key) I can certainly relate to that.
Excellent question, and, no, it is not a ref to Colbert. I liked the disparity between how the name was spelled and how it was pronounced. (So much so that that was my original title. I'm not surprised it didn't stick.) There's a very well-respected and talented political reporter named Alexander Cockburn, and I hope, if I pop up on his radar, that he doesn't think I'm @!$%#ing with him. Cockburn really is pronounced "co-burn," though.
Will those who know you recognize you as a character – hopefully not the pedophile – in the book? How are you similar and how are you different from the protagonist?
Long before I married my lovely and patient wife, she asked if she could read my manuscript, and I finally forked it over after she promised that she wouldn't think that the narrator was me. I worked at an alternative weekly, say "@!$%#" a lot, listen to @!$%#ty punk rock and drink more than I should. But that's where the similarities end. I'm not into pharmaceuticals or coke, I've never knocked anyone up and my worldview is slightly less bleak. My parents are allegedly proud.
What are you working on next?
I have got a couple things in the hopper. I started another book with Cockburn and then put it in the drawer. I am not sure how much of an appetite the reading public has for this guy. So I started this other project that's completely different in just about every way except for the setting. I am still in Omaha.
