Thanks for the praise - maybe leave out the advice?!

 With my thirteenth novel about to be published, and you know I'll be posting about that soon enough, I still enjoy hearing from readers of my other books. And, 95% of the time, when people email me it's either to say nice things or to ask when the next Hugo Marston book will be out. Or written. 

You'll notice that if 95% of the emails are lovely, that leaves 5% that are... less so. And I'm endlessly fascinated by the psychology of the 5 percenters.

Let me start by reassuring you - I'm no snowflake and I'm well aware that not all books are for all people. I've put down books that others rave about, and so I know not everyone will enjoy all of mine.

But the person who does like them, yet wants me to know their very specific criticisms... what's that about? Let us break down the email I got this morning:

Here it is in full:

I am an avid reader. Non-fiction, fiction and preferably mysteries. I am so pleased to have found your Hugo Marston series. All the elements I like—location specifics, “bloodless” murders, reasonably short chapters, interesting protagonists. Very enjoyable. But, here comes the but. With the thousands of names available to you, why, in The Book Artist for example, have detectives or characters named Marston and Marchand? Why two women named Camille and Claudia? Just to irritate readers who may get confused as to who is who? Please stop it. Everything else is great. Thanks

Right, now let's analyze this, shall we?

I am an avid reader. Non-fiction, fiction and preferably mysteries. I am so pleased to have found your Hugo Marston series. 

Lovely! Wonderful! I'm so pleased too!

All the elements I like—location specifics, “bloodless” murders, reasonably short chapters, interesting protagonists. Very enjoyable. 

Great - specific reasons he likes them, very rewarding!

But, here comes the but. 

😬

With the thousands of names available to you, why, in The Book Artist for example, have detectives or characters named Marston and Marchand? Why two women named Camille and Claudia? Just to irritate readers who may get confused as to who is who? 

Now, I will conceded that the names "Marston" and "Marchand" are quite similar in sound and appearance. I would, however, point out that "Marston" is the name of the protagonist, which means if you're confusing him with other characters after reading seven of the novels he stars in, well, the problem might not be the appearance of a character named "Marchand."

Similarly, if you are confusing Hugo's leading love interest (Claudia), with a black transgender detective (Camille), your bar for confusion might be unduly low.

And look at this line again: Just to irritate readers who may get confused as to who is who? 

What? Obviously, no writer would intentionally irritate their readers. Even me, and I've been known to intentionally irritate pretty much anyone and everyone. So this line is asking me... what? It's not really a serious question at all, is it? It's pure snark. Snark, I might wonder, included... just to irritate me!

So what's next? This line: 

Please stop it.

Stop what? I mean, do you want me to go back in time and change characters' names? Or just not do the subjectively annoying thing (to you, not one of my other thousands, nay trillions, of readers has complained about) in the future? Maybe I can email you and run my name choices past you...?

Look, I know I'm the one being snarky now but to presume to tell an author to stop doing something that only you in the entire world don't like is... well, presumptuous at best. One might even venture to use the word "rude."

And so we end with:

Everything else is great. Thanks

First, please know that he did not end with a "." I feel like I deserve a "." at the end of an email, just saying.

So here's what I'm wondering - how much of this would he say to my face at a book event? I would be chill if he did but I can imagine others cringing. I might politely dress him down, very politely, but I suspect he'd not say this to me directly. Maybe I'm wrong.

And here's the takeaway: this email will change nothing about my books, and it makes me want to not meet a human being who actually likes them. What did he achieve by taking the time to write to me? Irritation on my part? Indeed. A sense of disappointment that a nice start to an email was a disguise for his complaints? Definitely. It certainly won't result in a reply because I don't want to encourage this type of approach to an author. Anything else?

Well, this blog post I suppose. 💅

Thoughts?

**Edited to add: he's now sent me the exact same email three times in 24 hours.

Think you could never be arrested? Oh, so wrong.

One thing that has really surprised me as a defense lawyer is the number of "normal" people who get arrested.

Let me back up a moment - yes, there are many people in the criminal justice system who are dropped into it (often by their own actions) and never get out. Their criminal histories are pages long, and any damage to their reputations or job opportunities has long since happened.

In fact, in some ways these cases are (I imagine) easier to handle, because another misdemeanor plea doesn't change the trajectory of that person's life much. 

At Cofer & Connelly, where I work, we see very few of these folks indeed because we are lucky enough to be in a position where we don't need to take cases appointed to us by the courts (a whole other issue: how terrible the pay is for lawyers taking appointed cases).

So what does that mean? It means the vast majority of our clients have never been in trouble before.

I recently took a call from a prospective client who'd been arrested for a misdemeanor crime. He freely admitted to me that, before his arrest, he'd not cared much for the movement to improve jails and prisons. "You do bad," he said, "then you go to a bad place."

And then it happened to him. He spent two nights in the Travis County jail, where he said the guards treated the inmates like animals, where there was feces on the floor and walls, and where he saw literal rats running around. He was horrified, traumatized even, by that experience.

For his case, his main concern was that he never go back there, no matter the outcome, he could not go back. Fortunately, his alleged offense was such that I was able to give him a large degree of comfort that he would remain in the free.

The thing is, it doesn't take much to land a formerly law-abiding citizen behind bars. I had this conversation with my teenage son recently, because I wanted him to understand that actual innocence was no barrier to jail.

"But if I do nothing wrong, how can that be?" he insisted.

I sighed, because he's right. That's how it should be. And as a prosecutor the truth mattered more to me than almost anything. But as a defense lawyer, the truth doesn't enter the equation until long after you've been handcuff, stuffed into a police car, stripped naked at the jail, and sat in a cold, lonely (if you're lucky) cell in jail scrubs, fed undercooked fake chicken and baloney sandwiches.

"If someone tells a cop you hit them, or touched them without consent," I said. "You will go to jail."

"Even if I didn't?"

"Yes."

And that's the truth, as I'm seeing it. The fact is, and people will not like to hear this, but people call the police too often because they can't handle the situation they are in. They can't control it. And the way they reestablish control is to have the person they are in conflict with, they are angry with, arrested.

I realize that as a felony prosecutor I didn't get to witness this phenomenon, because it does mostly happen with allegations of assault, which is a misdemeanor. Or, in one case we got dismissed for a client, an allegation that she stole a dog. What she'd done was rescue a dog abandoned and abused by her ex, and when he saw how happy they were together he filed a theft complaint.

Yes, it's that easy.

So what's my point here? Maybe it's just to bring awareness where I can, to let people know that the criminal justice system is closer than they imagine. And, relatedly, to consider showing more empathy to those caught up in it. 

Because not all of them are guilty. 

Not by a long shot.

Jail v. Prison - writers, producers, and anyone else who uses words, please take note.

Here's a short post to address an issue (pet peeve?!) that I feel like I've discussed before. Somehow, shockingly, the entire world hasn't read and absorbed. 

I constantly see the terms "jail" and "prison" used interchangeably. In books, TV shows, and in general conversation.

But they are different.

You don't want to be in jail, but you definitely don't want to be in prison.

JAIL : this is where you go for short periods of time, either after being arrested or as punishment for a misdemeanor crime. Jails are usually run by the county, operated by the sheriff's department. 

There are exceptions, sure, some people spend years in jail waiting for trial or other case resolution, but generally speaking jail is for short-term incarceration.

PRISON : this is where you go after you've been convicted of a crime. These are state-run facilities and generally less pleasant places than your county jail.

Try to avoid prison, if you can.