Interview with Jeffery Deaver 

Jeffery Deaver, a contributor to THE CHOPIN MANUSCRIPT, talks about why he agreed to participate in this project and his thoughts on writing the first and closing chapters of the audiobook as opposed to resuming the storyline somewhere in the middle.

Question: What intrigued you about this project when you were approached about it?  

Jeffery Deaver: First, the pro-bono aspect of helping out the International Thriller Writers. Second, the idea of doing an audiobook. I'm very interested in the sonic quality of words, and I thought it would allow me to explore a few different stylistic elements in my writing. Third, it hadn't been done before, as far as I knew, and that always appeals to me. 

Q: What drew you to write a plot centered on a music manuscript?   

JD: I've had the idea of doing something with a manuscript for some time --- either a forgery or a stolen one. I was on book tour in Poland last year and decided to set the opening chapter there. Whom better to pick than Chopin?  

Q: When you penned your first chapter, did you purposely develop challenges for your fellow collaborators?    

JD: Well, I like to think I developed "opportunities." I left it quite open-ended so that my comrades could go where they wished.  

Q: Beyond writing the first chapter, did you give any instructions to the authors along the way?   

JD: None whatsoever. I was hoping that no one would write a chapter involving alien spacecraft from the plant Zantar --- as my co-writer John Gilstrap jokingly threatened. But I gave no direction at all.  

Q: Did you see the manuscript along the way?   

JD: No. Jim Fusilli --- who by the way did a masterful job of shepherding and editing the project --- sent me synopses, but I didn't want to see the manuscript itself until the end. I didn't want to project a storyline that wasn't reflected in later chapters.  

Q: When you got the manuscript back to write the closing chapters, what were your first thoughts?   

JD: I was blown away by the quality of the writing and the imagination of my fellow authors. As you might know from my books, twists and surprise endings are what excite me most about thriller writing, and the book was filled with wonderful plot reversals. As for the ending, I did come up with a double twist, which was possible only because of the great storylines everyone created.  

Q: As this was conceived as an audiobook-only project, did you give any special consideration to that as you were developing your plot and characters?  

JD: I was particularly cognizant of aiming for realistic dialogue and sharp description, rather than internal contemplation and mood.  

Q: Do you listen to music as you write? If so, what do you listen to?    

JD: I do listen to music, though instrumental only. (Words, of course, might distract.) I listen to jazz, Celtic traditional music and classical (yes, Chopin).  

Q: You are known for being a meticulous self-editor. How tough was it for you to write something and then put it out there for others to meddle with?  

JD: There was actually very little editing of each other's chapters, and that was done largely for continuity (making sure types of weapons, for instance, remained consistent) or to flesh out or adjust a scene that would later pay off in a certain way. Besides, what a great arrangement: I got to come up with a story and not have to write the middle of the book --- which any author will tell you can be a real pain!

 

Interview with Jim Fusilli, Project Editor and Contributor

 

Jim Fusilli, the project editor of and contributor to THE CHOPIN MANUSCRIPT, discusses how he was able to assemble such an impressive group of authors to make this collaborative creation possible and the chapters of the audiobook that especially stood out for him.

Question: How did you come to this project as editor?

Jim Fusilli: M.J. Rose of the International Thriller Writers (ITW) asked me. I said yes right away --- I like what the ITW is doing for writers, and I’m an M.J. Rose fan. 

Q: How did you pull these authors together?  

JF: Jeffery Deaver was the first author we asked, and then we asked David Hewson.  M.J. invited Erica Spindler and Lisa Scottoline, and I asked S.J. Rozan, Peter Spiegelman and Ralph Pezzullo --- I’ve spent a lot of time with those three writers during the past few years. Jeff invited John Gilstrap and John Ramsey Miller. From then, it became a matter of what the story needed. When I saw that we were going to move the characters to Washington, D.C., I thought of James Grady, who wrote SIX DAYS OF THE CONDOR. I know David Corbett from various writers’ conferences, and I thought he’d be great. Same for P.J. Parrish and Joe Finder --- I like them and their work. I think we all wanted Lee Child --- like Jeff, he epitomizes the best in contemporary crime writing.  

Q: How did you assign the authors to each chapter? 

JF: I asked them if they wanted to be in act one, two or three, which allowed me to gauge their availability as well as what they think their strengths are. But once the story was underway, I started to deploy them where I thought they’d be best for the story. Putting Lee and Lisa back-to-back worked really well. Peter and Ralph too. Having James, John Gilstrap and John Ramsey Miller --- three writers who know Washington really well --- gave us a lot of flexibility.  

Q: Did any one chapter surprise you? 

JF: To be honest, Jeff’s first chapter was so strong that I felt guilty accepting it for the project. I’m sure he could’ve used it for one of his books. But I think S.J.’s chapter surprised me the most. She was a bit hesitant to join the project --- she doesn’t consider herself a thriller writer. I knew she’d do well, but her chapter is flawless and her choices are just great. I paid her a little tribute by picking up her thread when it was my turn to write. Also, Lisa Scottoline made a surprising choice. I love what she did. And I should mention Joe Finder. He’s the master of action in his novels, but for THE CHOPIN MANUSCRIPT, he did something quiet and introspective – which is exactly what the story needed when his turn came. 

Q: Did you make any suggestions to the authors? 

JF: Not really. I mean, what can you tell these guys about writing a thriller? I sent them a synopsis and the chapter that preceded the one they were writing. One of the joys for me during the project was opening the files each author sent me and then having the pleasure of enjoying what they’d written.  

Q: How long did each author have to work on his or her chapter? 

JF: About two weeks. We wanted to keep the project moving.  

Q: How long was the project from start to finish? 

JF: We started in January and ended in mid-July.   

Q: You are the pop and rock music critic for The Wall Street Journal, thus the theme of music must have been interesting for you to explore in this work. Peppered within the writing are numerous references to many classical and popular pieces of music. Did the depth and breadth of your colleagues’ knowledge of music surprise or impress you?  

JF: Yes, but it shouldn’t have. Creative people tend to be creative in many ways. I knew Jeff was a musician, but I didn’t realize that Lee was, or Kristy Montee of P.J. Parrish. David Corbett knows music too, and so does S.J. Ralph plays guitar. We play together whenever I’m in L.A. 

Q: Have the authors seen the completed work yet? 

JF: Yes.  

Q: Did you edit the content along the way? 

JF: Not much. I did establish some guidelines for consistency in grammar and style. But I didn’t want to impose a heavy editing hand on the contributors. I thought of my job as corralling the copy, meeting the deadline --- and writing a chapter that could stand with these terrific writers.

 

Roundtable Interview with Contributing Authors: David Corbett, John Gilstrap, James Grady, John Ramsey Miller, Ralph Pezzullo, S.J. Rozan, Peter Spiegelman and Erica Spindler

 Eight contributing authors of THE CHOPIN MANUSCRIPT --- David Corbett, John Gilstrap, James Grady, John Ramsey Miller, Ralph Pezzullo, S.J. Rozan, Peter Spiegelman and Erica Spindler --- explain how they were drawn to this unique collaboration and the challenges they faced when writing their portion of the book.  

Question: Each of you was a contributor to THE CHOPIN MANUSCRIPT. What was it that intrigued you about working on this unique collaboration? 

David Corbett: The concept alone intrigued me, and I'm never one to turn down an invitation to be clever. 

John Gilstrap: I think that first and foremost was my deep respect for all of the other authors who were involved. Also, there was something very intriguing about writing a segment of a story without knowing where it was going to go. In short, I thought it would be a lot of fun, and it was. 

James Grady: Writers tend to live in worlds of their own imagination and work solo. This project gave me a chance to work with colleagues who I admire, to come out of my own vision, use what was handed to me, and try to blaze a story forward that others could use and that readers could enjoy. Besides, it gave me a chance to help the ITW. 

John Ramsey Miller: Who could turn down the opportunity to work with Jeff Deaver? That would be like, if you were a drummer in a garage band and Eric Clapton asked you to record with him. I was flattered, and given the esteemed company, I just hoped I wouldn’t embarrass myself. 

Ralph Pezzullo: I trust Jim Fusilli. He's a man of good taste, sound judgment, a Jets fan, etc. We both like interesting challenges. He said this would be unlike anything I'd done before and he was right. 

S.J. Rozan: The chance to write together with such a great group of writers! And the idea of a serial novel -- I'd never been involved in one before. 

Peter Spiegelman: There were a lot of appealing things about the project. One was that it was such a unique venture --- a collaboratively written audio thriller was a definite change of pace from the short story anthologies I’d contributed to in the past. Of course, the chance to work with such a distinguished and talented group of story-tellers was also a huge draw. With that group, and Jim Fusilli as editor, I had every confidence that the quality would be high. And I admire ITW as an organization, so I was happy to have an opportunity to contribute to the group.   

Erica Spindler: The opportunity to work with such varied and talented authors and to be a part of something so unique drew me to the project. I was delighted to be a part of it. 

Question: Were you well-versed on the work of your fellow collaborators before you started writing your chapter?  

David Corbett: A few: Jeff Deaver, S.J. Rozan, David Hewson, Lee Child, Peter Speigelman. The others have been a joyful surprise to meet, at least on the page, except perhaps for YOU KNOW WHO. 

John Gilstrap: I'm sorry to say that I had not read works by all of the other collaborators, but certainly I'd read the vast majority. 

James Grady: I've been a fan of these guys for years, and lucky enough to call a few of them friends.  

John Ramsey Miller: I’ve read one of more works of all of the other authors. Most authors have, or certainly should have.  

Ralph Pezzullo: First of all, I consider it a privilege to be included in this very talented group of writers. S.J., Peter, Jim and I are all friends from New York. I know and admire their work. Some of the others, I'm familiar with, too. Jeffery Deaver, of course. We're represented by the same agency. Lee Child is great. But these days I read mostly nonfiction.  

S.J. Rozan: Yes. I read most of them regularly. 

Peter Spiegelman: I knew the work of many --- though not all --- of my fellow collaborators quite well before this project. I’d read and enjoyed Jeff Deaver’s books, as I had James Grady’s, Lee Child’s, S.J. Rozan’s, David Corbett’s, Jim Fusilli’s, Lisa Scottoline’s, Ralph Pezzullo’s, P.J. Parrish’s and Joe Finder’s. But I hadn’t had a chance to read David Hewson, Erica Spindler, John Ramsey Miller or John Gilstrap before. I have some catching up to do! 

Erica Spindler: I don't know that I'd say well-versed, but I was certainly familiar with all the contributors' work --- and a big fan of several. 

Question: What was your first thought when you read the manuscript up to the point that you would be adding your chapter? 

James Grady: I was chapter number 3, so the story had just begun when it came to me. My first thought after reading up to where I was supposed to start writing was, "Are you nuts?" I had no idea where to go, and then it hit me: if you don't know where, work on how. I decided to get things moving fast and furious, and one thing I know about writing fiction is how to pull a trigger. 

John Ramsey Miller: Jeff, you friggin’ world traveler, why didn’t you set this in the Mississippi Delta, or North Carolina? Thanks to Mr. Grady, my chapter takes place in Washington, DC. Luckily I’ve been there a few times. 

John Gilstrap: At that juncture, I was both impressed and surprised by the scope of the story, and a little worried about whether or not I could keep it going at the breakneck pace that was set by my predecessors. 

Ralph Pezzullo: Oh my God, what have I gotten myself into?! 

Peter Spiegelman: The PG version would be “Holy cow,” followed closely by “Now what?” It was immediately clear that Jeff had given us some very fertile ground to work, and that he’d set the bar quite high in his opening chapter. The writers who’d come after had kept to Jeff’s high standard and put a lot of balls in the air, and I knew I had quite a challenge in front of me. 

S.J. Rozan: I was excited by the possibilities! So many directions available to head in, so many threads already created to be woven together or separated into individual lines. 

Erica Spindler: “Oh, man. What am I going to write? This is nothing like I do!” Frankly, I panicked. Once I’d taken a deep breath and reminded myself that the whole point of the collaboration was to feature the unique writing personalities of each author, I calmed down. I jumped on the part of the story that called to me. 

David Corbett: Candidly? "Hey, wait a minute --- that doesn't make sense." I had to retrace the hero's steps and correct a plot point rather than just barrel ahead. I'll say no more. 

Question: As you were writing, were you envisioning what future collaborators might do with your plot?  

James Grady (Chapter 3): What I wanted to do was open up options for the writers who were to follow me while I was moving the plot forward to only they would know. I created two new characters who I loved, then tossed them out there for others to do with as they willed. The last thing I wanted to do was paint any of my shadow crew into a corner --- though man, for the beast in me it was tempting to leave them a big mess to clean up, mostly in order to watch how those pros work. 

S.J. Rozan (Chapter 4): Yes, I couldn't help it, though I was sure nothing I had in mind would turn out to make sense. (And I was right about that.) 

Erica Spindler (Chapter 5): Definitely. In fact, with my own panicky moment in mind, I tried to lay threads for the others to pick up. I know John (Ramsey Miller) from when he lived in New Orleans and specifically brought New Orleans in, thinking of him. It was fun wondering who would pick up what thread and what they might do with it. 

John Ramsey Miller (Chapter 6): Not really. I mean who could begin to imagine what these minds would come up with? All of the chapters ahead of me introduced characters and fast action, and I decided (and Jim agreed) that somebody had to pull some of it together and do some work on the back story. So I saw my chapter as the elbow behind the flying fists. 

David Corbett (Chapter 7): Not in the least. My feeling was: Acts 2 and 3 are for suckers. And as I'd already been given a wild left turn to correct, I was fresh out of pity. 

John Gilstrap (Chapter 8): Actually, I had a very strong sense of where I would take the story after my chapter. In my head, there were some twists in terms of who would be the good guy and who would be bad, but in the end, the story ended very differently. I think that was the coolest part of this entire project: to see what comes from the collective imaginations of 15 writers. I'm very pleased with the result. 

Peter Spiegelman (Chapter 11): I was. I knew my chapter was at the start of the third act, so I felt the need to begin to tie off some loose ends --- or at least to edge us in that direction by bringing some disparate strands together. Ralph Pezzullo (who wrote the chapter that follows mine) is a good friend of mine, and he and I talked about what might happen. 

Ralph Pezzullo (Chapter 12): I had a general idea of where they could go with it, but, of course, they surprised me, which is the delight of a book like this. 

Question: What was the biggest challenge to you in writing your portion of the book? 

John Gilstrap: When it was my time to contribute, the story had taken us all around the world, it seemed, and back again. There were a lot of characters getting into all kinds of trouble, and by the time I sat down to write I felt a bit overwhelmed initially. None of the plot lines had begun to turn a corner yet. So, I decided to concentrate on the character who I thought had the most potential to make the story really compelling. I wanted to work on the heart for a while, as well as on the action, so I decided to concentrate on Felicia and the loss of her uncle. But first, I had to get her away from Faust for a while in a way that would resonate as organic to the story that had been told to that point. Frankly, the exercise was more difficult than I had expected it to be.  

James Grady: The biggest challenge for a serial writer --- whether in a novel like this or, oddly, on a TV show --- is to give up your ego, your loves and hates, embrace the work you've been given, and dance with it like a loving pro. 

Peter Spiegelman: It was definitely dealing with the lack of control. When you’re writing your own book, you’re in complete charge of the characters, the setting, the action --- everything. With CHOPIN, I had to work within an established framework --- although that framework itself was subject to some interpretation. I felt very much as if I’d walked into a movie midway through, and for me the first order of business was to figure out what was going on. I actually wrote a little backstory for myself that explained what had happened in the book to that point --- why people were doing what they were doing --- and kept that context in mind as I wrote my chapter. It really was a unique experience. 

Erica Spindler: Waiting to do it. I had already started writing my chapter before I read the preceding chapter --- I had to completely toss what I’d done. That was okay, though. I really like where it went. 

David Corbett: Providing something unique without deviating from the stylistic tone of the book up to that point, especially making sure that, despite my giving the protagonist an increasingly desperate willingness to use violence to achieve his ends, that he didn't become Peter Lorre --- though he did fear something terrible was happening to him. (I've been made to understand that some feared this led poor Harry to become a bit too extreme for a mainstream thriller protagonist, and this needed to be righted. Sheesh. What a gaggle of sissies.) 

John Ramsey Miller: I did my work on the villains. Trying to come up with Balkanish names was hard. I failed, because I did Polish names that had to be changed. 

Ralph Pezzullo: Pulling together all the different plot threads and characters and trying to make sense of the different characters' motives. 

S.J. Rozan: Keeping my own voice, but blending in with the chapters already written and those to come.  

Question: As this is an audiobook, did you think about this as a format when you were writing? If so, how did you alter your typical writing style to adapt to an audio-only experience?

James Grady: Any good prose should resonate when it's read aloud. That's also as much of a test for prose as it is for poetry; probably more so, since poetry is a more personal voice, and reading it aloud is not always a good indicator of how good the poem is. I didn't know this was destined to be an audiobook. If I had, I would have written it exactly as it is. 

Ralph Pezzullo: I started as a playwright, have also written radio dramas and I'm currently spending a lot of time writing screenplays, so I'm used to working with actors and hearing my words read out loud. As a playwright and former journalist, I like to keep things strong and lean. To my way of thinking, this keeps the listener's imagination engaged. They fill in the blanks, so the telling and listening process becomes a collaboration. An actor of Alfred Molina's prodigious talent brings added dimensions of drama and character to the experience of hearing the story. 

S.J. Rozan: I did think about it. I wasn't aware of altering my style for the audio format --- all my books are available in unabridged audio --- but I was aware of trying to write as much for the senses as I could. That is, to try to make sure the reader could see, feel, hear, smell my setting and my action.

Peter Spiegelman: I didn’t give it much thought. I’m always very concerned with how my writing sounds when read aloud (it comes from being a poet). My first approach to editing is to read the work aloud, so in that respect, CHOPIN wasn’t a big adjustment. 

John Ramsey Miller: What? It’s an audiobook? Now you tell me. Who's singing it? 

Erica Spindler: I didn’t. 

David Corbett: I wrote it in Braille.  

John Gilstrap: Trust confessions time: I probably should have read my invitation letter more carefully, because I was not aware as I was writing my contribution that it was going to be part of an audiobook; I thought it was going to be a print edition.  The fact that it is coming out in audio form is very exciting. That said, for my chapter anyway, what you hear is the way I write for the page. 

Question: How long did it take you to write your chapter?  

John Ramsey Miller: It took me longer to read the chapters that were written before mine and think about how to address what was coming at me, than to write the chapter. I suppose the writing took a couple of hours, and then I polished it for a couple more. Once I know what I am going to write, it comes out in a stream. A stream of fury…well, of words of fury.  

David Corbett: It came to me in a dream, word for word, and I wrote it down by memory in a matter of hours upon waking. Then I cut out all the parts about Xanadu. 

S.J. Rozan: As long as my writing usually takes me. I do approximately 1,000 words a day; then I revise, rewrite, etc. So the chapter took me about a week. 

Erica Spindler: A good week, including preparation. 

John Gilstrap: Well, there's writing as in thinking and writing as in actually sitting at the keyboard and writing. Combined, it was probably a week, but in terms of butt-time in the chair, I think I pounded out my chapter in six or seven hours. 

James Grady: For this work, the writing fell into two stages: my submission, and working with the editor to then make my style fit the overall tone. Writing the story was also working against a weird kind of deadline. Every minute I took up meant that those who came behind me had less time. I charged this story, did it in about a week, and spent about a day's worth of emailing with the editor to get the final draft. 

Ralph Pezzullo: I work fast. Once I figure out the shape of the story in my head, the words flow and the characters speak. 

Peter Spiegelman: It took about 2 weeks. 

Question: Have you read the final work? If so, can you comment on how your chapter played into the total story? 

Ralph Pezzullo: It's fascinating really. So many unexpected twists and turns. At the point where I took over, Jim was concerned about moving events to a surprising but credible conclusion. So it was my job to reveal the "big" conspiracy at the center of all the elements that had been developed up to that point. I could never have anticipated how the story played out after my chapter. Kudos to all! 

Peter Spiegelman: I have, and I think my chapter fits nicely. It begins to gather some plot strands, but I was pleased to see that there are plenty of thrills and unexpected twists right up to the end. And Jeff did a wonderful job of bringing everything to a satisfying resolution. 

John Gilstrap: I have read the whole thing, and I'm very pleased that my chapter plays what I think is a key role in the story. I couldn't be more pleased. 

James Grady: You know, it's funny, but I have not read the final work. For this one, I wanted to wait and get it on audio how and when the audience does. 

John Ramsey Miller: Well, it didn’t sink the book, did it? I’m serious. I don’t know. I hope not. Truthfully, it’s an amazing book and working on it was a gas and an honor.  

S.J. Rozan: I picked up on a thread that had been suggested but not used before me. Although used subsequently, it remained a subplot; but actually, I think there's another book in that subplot... 

David Corbett: I've not read the whole book because I didn't want to spoil the enjoyment of the audio version. I'm looking forward to it, I think. 

Erica Spindler: I haven’t. I’m probably the only one, too. My Apple computer had a translation problem, then I hit my own book deadline. I do know my chapter was significantly altered by a decision of one of the late-chapter authors. At this point, I’m looking forward to listening to it --- the way the readers will be.