His Pen Was Quick

Mickey Spillane, late in life.

Mick­ey Spillane, late in life.

On July 17, Mick­ey Spillane, cre­ator of the infa­mous Mike Ham­mer PI series, died. He was 88, and by all accounts he lived a pret­ty cool life.

In addi­tion to writ­ing sev­er­al best­selling nov­els that read­ers adored, Spillane played a mys­tery writer on the 70s TV show Colum­bo, appeared in sev­er­al com­mer­cials for Miller Lite beer, and mar­ried a hot sec­ond wife, Sher­ri Mali­nou, who posed for the cov­er of his nov­el The Erec­tion Set.

There are far bet­ter obit­u­ar­ies about Mick­ey out there, so this entry won’t detail his accom­plish­ments. Rather, I’d like to talk about cer­tain ideas on writ­ing that he espoused (or sug­gest­ed through his work) and what I learned from him. For lack of a bet­ter name, I shall call these the “Spillane Prin­ci­ples.” I believe that all of us aspir­ing mys­tery writ­ers can learn a lot from Mr. Spillane.

Ulti­mate­ly these ideas all come down to the num­ber one ingre­di­ent nec­es­sary for com­mer­cial fic­tion: nar­ra­tive dri­ve. The best def­i­n­i­tion of nar­ra­tive dri­ve I have found is on the sec­ond page of Lar­ry Beinhart’s book How to Write a Mys­tery (it’s excel­lent by the way): “Nar­ra­tive dri­ve is the promise—or threat or tease or suggestion—that some­thing is going to hap­pen.”

 

Spillane Prin­ci­ple #1: Don’t take the read­er where he wants to go.

Time and again in the Mike Ham­mer nov­els, when Spillane ends a scene, the scene that fol­lows has noth­ing to do with what has just tran­spired. For exam­ple, if he clos­es a scene with Ham­mer in a lusty embrace with a nude dame, you want him to open the next scene with hot details about the act, or at least some inter­nal mono­logue by Ham­mer about what hap­pened. Instead, Spillane puts you in a room with a new corpse and three fat, sweaty detec­tives.

Anoth­er way that Spillane doesn’t take the read­er where he wants to go has to do with clues. Ham­mer finds a bul­let, a piece of evi­dence the cops miss. We want Ham­mer to start fol­low­ing this new line of inquiry imme­di­ate­ly. But no, Spillane pur­pose­ly strings you along, mak­ing you won­der why he doesn’t pur­sue this new clue, almost to the point that you get frus­trat­ed with Ham­mer, and then he goes there. The art is in know­ing how long you can tease the read­er before he throws your book in the trash.

 

Spillane Prin­ci­ple #2: Keep sequels short and to the point.

That's Sherri Malinou, one of Spillane's wives, on the cover.

That’s Sher­ri Mali­nou, one of Spillane’s wives, on the cov­er.

By sequels, I’m not refer­ring to movies like Jaws 2 or Indi­ana Jones and the Tem­ple of Doom (I loathe that movie). In sto­ry­telling par­lance, a sequel is a brief peri­od of reflec­tion and/or plan­ning by the pro­tag­o­nist fol­low­ing a scene with con­flict. The idea is that a sto­ry is a series of scenes and sequels strung togeth­er: con­flict-reflec­tion-con­flict-plan­ning-and so on.

In the Mike Ham­mer nov­els, after a scene of con­flict Ham­mer doesn’t spend a lot of time mulling over his trou­bles or what to do next. In fact, if any­thing, the crit­i­cism of Ham­mer has been that he acts too impul­sive­ly, with vir­tu­al­ly no vis­i­ble moti­va­tion. Clear­ly this approach doesn’t work for lit­er­ary fic­tion, but in the realm of genre, or com­mer­cial fic­tion, it’s near­ly a com­mand­ment.

Relat­ed to this, and per­haps obvi­ous to mod­ern read­ers, is the idea that your char­ac­ters shouldn’t take a lot of time get­ting from place to place. Mick­ey Spillane, Don­ald West­lake, and most of the noir writ­ers from the pulp era were among the first to rec­og­nize the impor­tance of this. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, some­body for­got to tell the TV writ­ers dur­ing the 1970s, because if you watch close­ly at least ¼ of every episode of Hawaii Five‑O showed peo­ple dri­ving. (I’m con­vinced the pro­duc­ers were being paid off by auto man­u­fac­tur­ers.)

 

Spillane Prin­ci­ple #3: When your detec­tive dis­cov­ers an identity—particularly the killer’s—don’t have him reveal it imme­di­ate­ly.

In the cli­mac­tic scene of I, the Jury, when Ham­mer fig­ures out who killed his best friend, Spillane strings the read­er along for a cou­ple of pages. This might seem obvi­ous, but I think that mod­ern TV detec­tive shows have made writ­ers for­get the impor­tance of delay­ing grat­i­fi­ca­tion. Even if your sto­ry is in 1st per­son, if your nar­ra­tor has been forth­com­ing with thoughts, the­o­ries and events through­out the rest of the book, he deserves a few moments of pri­va­cy. And it’s at this crit­i­cal junc­ture that I believe the detec­tive has earned that pri­va­cy.

Doing this allows you to entice the read­er to the solu­tion, and it gives the read­er an oppor­tu­ni­ty to solve the case her­self. The idea is that if you’ve played fair with the read­er, pre­sent­ing all of the infor­ma­tion and clues your detec­tive uses to solve the case, your read­er should be able to solve it as well. Cre­at­ing this brief delay between the detec­tive fig­ur­ing out who­dunit and the sum­ma­tion allows the read­er to par­tic­i­pate, invest­ing her more deeply in your char­ac­ters and the sto­ry. And if you do it right, and the read­er guess­es incor­rect­ly, she will para­dox­i­cal­ly love and respect you all the more.

 

Spillane Prin­ci­ple #4: Sex and vio­lence, in their vary­ing degrees, are real­ly the only two col­ors on the writer’s palette.

This is the Spillane idea I’ve got­ten the most out of. When you think about it, all scenes have (or should have) a con­flict with tinges of sex or vio­lence in them. Now, by sex Spillane didn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly mean hard­core, on the rug, chic­ka-wa-wa screw­ing; sex can be a kiss, the promise of an embrace, or as lit­tle as a flir­ty exchange. And by vio­lence he didn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly mean that one char­ac­ter had to pum­mel anoth­er one with a pipe (although this hap­pens, and aren’t we read­ers glad for the cathar­tic joy these events bring?); vio­lence can be extreme­ly sub­tle, like one char­ac­ter nudg­ing anoth­er while on a line, a woman’s cat­ty remark about anoth­er woman’s shoes, or sim­ply one character’s refusal to do some­thing anoth­er char­ac­ter wants.

Think­ing of scenes and inter­ac­tions between char­ac­ters in this way has, for me, sim­pli­fied the writ­ing process. I’m not say­ing it’s easy or that I’ve mas­tered it (or even think I will). What I’m say­ing is that approach­ing the writ­ing of fic­tion with this metaphor in mind has giv­en me some­thing con­crete to gauge my writ­ing against. I think of the sex-vio­lence writ­ing palette metaphor as those slide bars in Pho­to­shop that con­trol col­or, bright­ness and con­trast. For every scene, at least sub­lim­i­nal­ly, I think about what degree of sex I want to con­vey, and what degree of vio­lence the scene should have. This idea of Spillane’s, besides the nov­els them­selves of course, is his great­est gift to writers—especially those of us endeav­or­ing to write com­mer­cial fic­tion.

 

Spillane Prin­ci­ple #5: Be clear about why you write.

Spillane when he was a young buck. I love how naturally he's posing, pointing at the book.

Spillane when he was a young buck. I love how nat­u­ral­ly he’s pos­ing, point­ing at the book.

I’m not sure if this is apoc­ryphal or not, but alleged­ly Spillane only wrote when he need­ed mon­ey and spent the rest of his time deep-sea fish­ing. In a 2001 inter­view, he told the Asso­ci­at­ed Press that writ­ing “…is an income-gen­er­at­ing job.” Think­ing of writ­ing this way, I believe, keeps it clear in the writer’s mind exact­ly who they’re writ­ing for. It shouldn’t be for your­self. It should be for the read­er, the guy or gal who’s going to plunk down $24.95 for your hard­cov­er book.

And even if you don’t care about sell­ing your work, remem­ber that writ­ing is only blank ink on paper or dots on a screen until some­body reads it. As my first writ­ing men­tor, Thomas Gal­lagher, once told me (two weeks before his death), “Chris, writ­ing is com­mu­ni­ca­tion.” Sounds like some­thing the vil­lage idiot would say, but it’s actu­al­ly a pro­found point. Until some­one takes in your mes­sage, process­es it and is affect­ed by your words, you haven’t done any­thing.

I’m sad­dened by the death of Mick­ey Spillane because I always thought his fic­tion was rich­er and bet­ter writ­ten than the crit­ics ever gave him cred­it for, and while he won some awards dur­ing his life­time and was rec­og­nized by his peers, the “literati” wrote him off as a hack. This is unfor­tu­nate because I believe that in 20 years or so, aca­d­e­mics will do seri­ous “stud­ies” of 20th cen­tu­ry pop fic­tion and dis­cov­er that he was one of a hand­ful of writ­ers who gave birth to mod­ern com­mer­cial fic­tion.

How­ev­er, I have to admit my feel­ings of loss aren’t entire­ly altru­is­tic. I’m also sad­dened by Mick­ey Spillane’s death because as soon as my mys­tery nov­el, A REAL PIECE OF WORK, was accept­ed by a pub­lish­er, I planned on fly­ing down to Flori­da and beg­ging him (or fight­ing him—he was 88, so I prob­a­bly could have tak­en him) for an endorse­ment of my book. That isn’t going to hap­pen now.

Good­bye, Mick­ey, and thanks for your wisdom—even if you didn’t know you were teach­ing us. And say hel­lo to Doyle, Ham­mett and Chan­dler for me, would you?

By Chris Orcutt

CHRIS ORCUTT is an American novelist and fiction writer with over 30 years' writing experience and more than a dozen books in his oeuvre. Since 2015, Chris been working exclusively on his magnum opus. Bodaciously True & Totally Awesome: The Legendary Adventures of Avery “Ace” Craig is a 9-episode novel about teens in the 1980s. It’s about ’80s teens, but for adults (in other words, it’s decidedly not YA literature), and he’s applied this epic storytelling approach to the least examined, most misunderstood, most marginalized narrative space in American literature: the lives and inner worlds of teenagers.

Comments (0)

Comments are closed.