Over the last few weeks I’ve been doing a lot of reading for
research. Most of the books are on technical matters, to help me recall terms I
used to know but have mostly forgotten. Some of the more commonly used ones
came back right away, but others still look a bit funny. This got me thinking
about other purposes for reading.
When I began writing fiction I had to unlearn writing like
an academic. I had written a novel and short fiction in college, and been
published in student literary and humor magazines. I turned to scholarly work
in graduate school, and focused on academic work for years. Returning to
fiction meant unlearning one style of composing and recovering other ways of
thinking on paper.
Of course I read a lot of crime fiction over the years and
that certainly prepared me. I thought in terms of clues and characters, and
laying things out in a pattern. But I found that I was terse in narrative
passages. To overcome this I turned to writers who were almost prolix. I read
classic mysteries such as Wilkie Collins’s The
Moonstone, Anthony Trollope’s The
Eustace Diamonds, and A. Conan Doyle’s The
Sign of Four. I also read Anne Perry’s mysteries for the leisurely way she
sets a scene or builds up a location and setting.
For capturing character and the sinister feeling of a
stranger I can think of no better writer to study than Edgar Allan Poe. He goes
so deeply into his characters’ feelings and attitudes that I sometimes wonder
if he was slowly driving himself mad. Ruth Rendell achieves much the same
effect with her many novels. One of the best in my opinion is Judgment in Stone, which follows the
inevitable path to murder of an illiterate housekeeper.
Other writers have taught me other skills. Some writers are
strong in dialogue, and others can explain the technical working of anything.
The latter is a skill no writer should fail to learn. Once I learned the
sequence of steps in making a particular machine work, I could see other
processes more clearly even if I wasn’t writing about them. I think of this as
understanding the bone structure in a face while you are sculpting or painting
a portrait.
Setting a story in a location not well known to all readers
requires a judicious use of details, knowing what to include and what to omit.
James Lee Burke is well known and admired for his rich depiction of Louisiana, and
Dana Stabenow has made Alaska her own as well as a vivid location accessible to
readers. Nevada Barr explores the natural world in various parks, and Agatha
Christie has set novels in ancient Egypt and then contemporary Middle East. I
have learned from all these writers how to make a location come alive and
ground the mystery. I use India as the setting for the Anita Ray series, a
country I for the first time visited in the 1970s.
All books teach us something but not the same thing. Writers
have to read as widely as possible, especially in areas that don’t normally
appeal to them, if they want to ensure that their work is as strong as it can
be. I try to read against my interests to broaden myself. At present I’m
reading about a certain sport. I’m not a sports enthusiast but I want to be
sure that my descriptions are accurate and that my character’s behaviors are
plausible.
Reading with a purpose, as a writer, is far more than
reading good literature to expose ourselves to the best the written word has to
offer. Reading with a purpose is a way to absorb the skills and abilities of
other writers we do not ourselves possess.
Susan Oleksiw is the author of the Anita Ray Mystery series, featuring Indian American photographer Anita Ray, as well as the Melingham series featuring Chief of Police Joe Silva. www.susanoleksiw.com
