life | Bertram's Blog

Deception Detection: The Truth About Lie Detectors

February 18, 2009 — Pat Bertram

I am proud to welcome Dr. Katherine Ramsland as a guest on my blog. Dr. Ramsland has published 33 books and teaches forensic psychology and criminal justice at DeSales University, where she chairs the Social Sciences Department. Among her books are Inside the Minds of Serial Killers, The Human Predator (a history of serial murder), The Criminal Mind, and The Unknown Darkness, with former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary. In April, she will published The Devil’s Dozen: How Cutting Edge Forensics Took Down 12 Notorious Serial Killers. She has also written a series of books to clarify facts about investigations, notably The Forensic Science of CSI, the Science of Cold Case Files, The CSI Effect, and True Stories of CSI. Later this year, she offers The Life of a Forensic Scientist, with Dr. Henry Lee and The Forensic Psychology of Criminal Minds. Dr. Ramsland writes:

The New York Times ran a commentary recently that noted the use of psychological evidence in serial procedurals. “The Mentalist” is one of the most popular shows on TV now, and “Lie to Me” has an intriguing premise about rare people who are “naturals” at spotting liars. Yet research indicates that there’s no simple formula for catching a liar. Even many people with repeated exposure to deception perform no better than chance when judging deception, but they can slightly improve their skills with solid observation and sophisticated techniques.

A popular notion is that lying requires more effort than truth-telling, so it produces such physiological signals as a heightened pulse rate, dilated pupils, twitches, and certain facial expressions – especially when the stakes are high. However, truthful but anxious people may also display such symptoms, while lying psychopaths may not.

Accuracy lies in questioning persons of interest long enough to observe their default behaviors. People who feel anxious usually either freeze or defend themselves, thus displaying behaviors of discomfort. While there are no hard-and-fast rules, the types of behaviors that can signal discomfort, and thus potential deception, include:

overgeneralizations, deflections, and increased vocal pitch

speech hesitations and pauses, a lack of spontaneity

an increase in number of shrugs, blinking, and nervous habits

changes in the eye pupil

venting the body, like pulling a shirt or collar away

feet pointed toward an exit

blanching, flushing, sighing

reduced use of hand gestures

These behaviors occur more often in those with motivation to deceive–possibly because they are trying to plan and control what they say.

Statement analysis is a common tool for interrogations. An investigator asks an open-ended question, “What happened?” and leaves the person to fill in all the blanks. The subject picks the starting and ending point. Statement analysis focuses on several things: what’s said about events leading up to a crime, the crime itself, and what’s said about the aftermath. Investigators watch for the distribution of detail in each area, and note whether subjects provided more information than requested or skipped something crucial. Also, a change in tone or speed of delivery can reveal their comfort (or not) with what they’re saying.

A similar method called Criteria-based Content Analysis closely examines how an incident is retold, comparing it against the typical method of recall in a truthful session vs. fabricating a supposed recollection.

Computer software known as Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analyzes written content, derived from the statement analysis approach, and looks for three markers: fewer first-person pronouns, more words that convey negative emotion, and fewer exclusionary words (except, but). The software has been more effective than human judges, but the accuracy rate is still only about 67 percent.

The polygraph in use today is a compact portable device that measures three or four key involuntary physiological responses to questioning: skin conductivity, abdominal and chest respiration, blood pressure, and heart rate. Some questions are designed to establish baseline responses, some are neutral, and others attempt to register “guilty knowledge,” or at least a sense that the person knows something that confirms him or her as a suspect. However, despite claims by examiners, the accuracy rate by disinterested evaluators is not high enough for admissibility.

Even less accurate is the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), sometimes referred to as a Voice Stress Evaluator. Supposedly, during a lie, the voice reaches a higher pitch than when someone is telling the truth. While the PSE does measure variations in emotional stress, that’s not necessarily indicative of deception.

Psychiatrist Lawrence Farwell developed the Brain Fingerprinting process, based on the notion that all experiences, including a crime, are stored in the brain. The electrical activity of a suspect’s brain is monitored with sensors on a headband attached to a computer, while the subject is exposed to words or images that are both relevant (“probes”) and irrelevant to the crime. Certain information would be meaningful only to the actual perpetrator and would include such items as what was done to a victim, where the victim was taken, items that were removed from the victim, and items that might have been left at a scene. The subject would not see this list until the test itself was performed. Irrelevant stimuli might include a different type of weapon, the wrong landscape, a different MO, or acts not performed during the commission of the crime.

Probes are known only to the investigators, the test-maker, and the perpetrator. If the brain activity shows recognition of relevant stimuli-a distinct spike called a MERMER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response) – then the subject has a record of the crime stored in his or her brain. Innocent people will display no such response to crime-relevant stimuli. To strengthen the results, Farwell might test the suspect’s alibi for the time of the crime, by devising a scenario to test to see if the brain has a record.

At the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, fMRI scans are used to detect differences in neural activity between lying and truth-telling. In the experiments, subjects were paid to perform a “theft” of one of two items (either a ring or a watch) and conceal information from the researchers. First, each was asked neutral questions while being scanned, as well as questions about minor wrongful deeds commonly committed. This way, the researchers could identify typical neurological patterns during truthful responses. Then each subject responded to questions in a way that was truthful about an object he or she did not steal, but deceptive about the stolen object. The rate of accuracy for the fMRI was around ninety percent. Apparently, the trick lies in scanning brain regions that activate to suppress information and resolve internal conflicts; these regions are quiet when the person is telling the truth.

There is as yet no “one size fits all” signal in the neurocircuitry that a person is lying, but it does appear that brain scans are better at revealing “tells” than is watching someone fidget and sweat under questioning. Identifying the right combination of brain signals for a high rate of accuracy when a person lies or hides the truth is still in the future, but possibly not far away.

Some researchers believe that certain people with high levels of emotional intelligence have a knack for spotting a liar; in fact, they can see certain signals that others cannot. Dr. Paul Ekman and Dr. Maureen O’Sullivan float the notion that a few rare people are “naturals,” i.e., are highly accurate at knowing when someone is trying to deceive them. (In fact, these researchers consult for Lie to Me.) Often, these lie-detectors have jobs where it’s an important skill, such as law enforcement or psychotherapy. When the stakes are high, such as with a violent crime or a threat assessment, they’re even better at it, because they’re more vigilant. Ekman believes the best cues are found in the voice and face for deception about feelings, and find the best “hot spots” in gestures and words when a person lies about beliefs and actions. Extremely slight gestures can “leak” emotional states that a person is trying to hide, providing a “tell” to a skilled and observant detector.

However, other research contradicts the notion that certain select people are human diving rods. Psychologists Charles Bond, Jr. and Bella DePaulo ran a large-scale study and found that lie detection is not about the observer but the observee. A person’s perceived credibility plays a strong role in whether someone judges him or her to be deceptive. That’s not necessarily because a person is honest; it’s because they comport themselves in a credible manner. Participants in the study more often believed liars with high credibility ratings than truth-tellers who were perceived as low in credibility. When Bond and DePaul evaluated numerous other studies about deception, they realized that individual differences among judges of deception hovered near the same rate as chance (50%). No one appeared to have an innate advantage. No “naturals” stood out.

In the real world rather than a lab, lies are often identified in context, when compared over a period of time to other behaviors or narratives. The judgment generally involves a number of factors taken together, not just a person’s response to some questions at the time a lie is told, or their pupil contractions or fidgeting.

See also: Serial Killers and the Writers Who Love Them: Facts about Popular Myths by Dr. Katherine Ramsland

: : : : : : : : : : :

Serial Killers and the Writers Who Love Them: Facts about Popular Myths

February 18, 2009 — Pat Bertram

We have many myths attached to serial killers in our culture, most of them from outdated studies or from fiction and film. While those early studies had their merits, they’re not, and never were, representative of serial killers as a whole. In fact, the early conclusions about serial killers were derived from studying articulate, imprisoned, white, male American serial killers – and in limited numbers at that – about 25. Even my undergraduate Psychological Sleuthing class knows better than to accept this as sound.

Former FBI profiler Robert K. Ressler told Sue Russell when she was writing a biography of killer Aileen Wuornos that there were no hard and fast rules. Too many people, he said, try to oversimplify the psychology of these killers, but for every attempt to state a “truth,” one can find counterexamples that undermine it. Some killers have a victim preference, for example, but many do not. While a lot of killers grew up in abusive homes, some enjoyed plenty of privilege and experienced no abuse whatsoever. Generalizations, Ressler indicated, do a disservice to the subject.

I have examined more than 1,300 cases of serial murder, looking at several hundred in detail via court transcripts, correspondences, newspaper archives and true crime biographies. In the process I have found that there are many motives that drive these offenders, they come from diverse backgrounds, and for almost every definitive claim that has been made about them there are exceptions that undermine it.

Even the definition of serial murder can be confusing, so let me address it. While it was once the case that any type of incident that involved a number of murders was called “multiple murder” or “mass murder,” eventually it became clear that distinctions were needed. We believe the phrase, “serial killer,” was first used in The Complete Detective in 1950, but it’s generally accepted that in 1976, with the “Son of Sam” case in New York, FBI Special Agent Robert Ressler initiated its use for cases on which he and his colleagues were consulting in the Behavioral Science Unit (now the Behavioral Analysis Unit). Thus, it became common parlance for a specific type of multiple murder incident, as opposed to being a spree or mass murder. (He apparently based it on how the British had been using “serial burglary” or “series burglary” for repeat burglars.)

I usually begin my course on serial murder with the following list, and then explain why they’re not true. If you’re a fan of movies, novels, and television shows that feature serial killers, you may believe some of these are true:

THERE AREN’T AS MANY NOW AS THERE WERE IN THE 1970S AND 80S

THE FBI ALWAYS GETS INVOLVED IN A SERIAL KILLER INVESTIGATION

IT TAKES AN UNIQUE INVESTIGATOR TO TRACK DOWN A SERIAL KILLER

SERIAL KILLERS ARE SMARTER THAN MOST PEOPLE

JACK THE RIPPER WAS THE WORLD’S FIRST SERIAL KILLER

AILEEN WUORNOS WAS THE WORLD’S FIRST FEMALE SERIAL KILLER

THEY’RE INVARIABLY GOOD-LOOKING, REFINED AND CHARMING

99% ARE WHITE, MIDDLECLASS MALES BETWEEN 18 AND 35

THOSE KILLERS WITH THE MOST VICTIMS ARE FROM THE U.S.

AMERICA HAS 75% OF THE WORLD’S SERIAL KILLERS

THEY ALWAYS WORK ALONE

THEY’RE LONERS, WITHOUT RELATIONSHIPS OR FAMILIES

THEY ALWAYS LEAVE A SIGNATURE

THEY’RE INSANE

THEY ALWAYS CHOOSE THE SAME TYPE OF VICTIM

THEY ALWAYS USE THE SAME TYPE OF KILLING METHOD/SAME WEAPON

THEY’RE ALWAYS AWARE OF THE INVESTIGATION

THEY LIKE TO PLAY CAT-AND-MOUSE WITH INVESTIGATORS

THEY USUALLY TRY TO INSERT THEMSELVES INTO THE INVESTIGATION

THEY USUALLY TARGET THE LEAD INVESTIGATORS

THEY ALWAYS RETURN TO THE CRIME SCENE

THEIR MURDERS ARE SEXUALLY MOTIVATED

THEY’RE ALL PSYCHOPATHS

THEY PREFER TO KILL UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL

FROM 30-50 SERIAL KILLERS ARE ON THE LOOSE IN THE U.S. AT ANY TIME

5,000+ AMERICAN CITIZENS PER YEAR ARE THE VICTIMS OF SERIAL KILLERS

THEY WANT TO BE CAUGHT, SO THEY ALWAYS MAKE A MISTAKE

The truth is, serial killers are not all alike. They’re not all male. Some have been as young as eight or older than fifty. They’re not all driven by sexual compulsion. They’re not all intelligent, nor even clever – often, they’re just lucky. They’re not all charming. A single killer may choose different weapons or methods of operation, although they will tend to stay with whatever works best. Even with rituals, the basis of a “signature,” they often experiment and change things. They might be profit-driven, in search of thrill or self-gratification, or compelled by some other deep-seated desire, fear or need. Occasionally, serial murder is about revenge or it’s inspired by a delusion. In most cases, the killer does not wish to be stopped or caught. Yet a few do intentionally undermine themselves or stop of their own accord. Some rare killers have even professed remorse or killed themselves.

Many more serial killers are emerging in other countries, both historically and now. Just this month, I’ve seen reports from Jamaica, India, South Korea, China, Germany, Russia, England, and Indonesia. There are as many now as there ever were, and there were plenty of killers in past history. Among the earliest documented killers, as far back as Ancient Rome, was a female poisoner, and females have been among those with the highest victim toll (American serial killers don’t even come close, with Gary Ridgway holding the documented record here at 48.)

The notion that 30-50 killers are operating in the U.S. at any given time came from FBI agents during the 1980s who were seeking funds for more resources, and the same goes for 5,000-plus victims. Although one researcher has recently revived this claim, based on how many people have gone missing in the U.S., it’s a great leap in logic to say that most must be victims of serial murder.

We have plenty of serial killers from different races, too. The reason we think that most are white is because the U. S. media has focused most often on white male serial killers. Try Japan, South Africa, Mexico, or South America. A most intriguing one right now is a woman in Germany who has been killing and committing robberies for about 15 years, leaving DNA behind but not getting caught.

Quite a few killers have had families or been in relationships. Their IQs range from borderline mentally retarded to genius, with most about average. Some have been psychotic, while about 90% are psychopaths. About 15% work in teams, and teams have range from two or three to more than a dozen.

The FBI gets involved if they’re invited or if the killer has crossed state or international boundaries. Often, they’re not the super-sleuths who solve the case, but consultants assisting with their computerized database. It’s usually a local detective or task force that breaks the case, just using good police work or catching a killer making a mistake (like driving around with a body in the car.)

Obviously, writers don’t have the time to collect and read all the cases, but accessible sources are available from criminology to allay some of these myths and provide details interesting enough for developing a fictional villain. If a criminological text or article is from the 1990s, chances are that it subsumed the FBI’s unrepresentative prison study of 25 white guys and extrapolated from there. More recent publications – including the FBI’s new report from its international symposium – provide better facts. Mostly the FBI would like writers and reporters to know, “there is no profile of a serial killer.” There is no single set of parameters or traits or behaviors that blueprint that clever, white, male, lone-wolf, game player who stands out because he’s been abused or has a head injury and is driven to sexually assault and kill white females.

See also: Deception Detection: The Truth About Lie Detecters by Dr. Katherine Ramsland

: : : : : : : : : : :

Last Day for the “More Deaths Than One” Contest

February 16, 2009 — Pat Bertram

Today is the last day to enter my More Deaths Than One contest. (Entries must be received by midnight tonight EST.)

The premise:

A friend of mine found an obituary in the paper that could have been for his mother — the woman had the same name, lived in the same general area, was the same age, had the same number of children, and one of the children had approximately the same name and age as the friend. There was no relationship, merely coincidence but, joking, I said, “What if her son really is you?” That “what if” eventually became More Deaths Than One.

The contest:

Write at least a paragraph and no more than a page, telling how would you develop a story using this scenario. The three most imaginative entries will be posted on the Second Wind site for readers to vote on. The top entry will win an autographed copy of More Deaths Than One and your choice of two other books from Second Wind Publishing. You can find the entry form at: Second Wind Publishing.

We’ve already received some really great entries, including this one:

I would not develop the story. I am a reader, not a writer. I read and analyze books, not write them. Quite frankly, I am much more interested in seeing how the author Pat Bertram develops the story rather than how I would. How does she make the coincidence believable? How does she maintain the level of suspense throughout the novel? How does the story differ from other books written in the genre? How is the book innovative? How does the story adhere to more traditional conventions of the genre? It is often said that those who can’t write, teach. On the contrary, writing and analysis (and teaching) are completely different skills, each worthwhile in its own right. I am not a writer. Rather, I am a reader who enjoys reading other authors’ books and using my imagination and analytical skills to review and share books with other readers.

It won’t be long until you can answer those questions yourself.

: : : : : : : : : : :

Posted in fiction, life, writing. Tags: Contest, More Deaths Than One, scenario, Second Wind Publishing, story premise. 3 Comments »

A Spark of Heavenly Fire Update — Copy-Editing Hell

February 15, 2009 — Pat Bertram

I found additional mistakes to the proof copy of A Spark of Heavenly Fire, so it will be a couple of more weeks before it’s released. I’ve been afraid that I’m going to be stuck in copy-editing hell for the rest of my life, but I’ve decided that perfection at this point really is impossible. I had the idea that single-handedly I needed to eradicate the POD publishers reputation for releasing less than stellar books, but there is a limit to what one (untrained) person can do. I am learning how to copyedit, though, and I do know one thing: however much copy-editors get paid, it is not enough.

The thing with mistakes is that they proliferate when you are not looking. You correct one, and in the process, create another. When I finished my novel, the manuscript was almost perfect — I’d read the thing out loud, so I would be sure to look at every single word, every single punctuation mark. Then . . . I did one final polish, took out all the extra justs and onlys, the particularlys and practicallys, the barelys and hardlys, the began tos, and the wases. The problem is, other words got deleted along the way (don’t ask me how, because I don’t know) and I didn’t catch them. Yikes.

And then there are the choices to be made. Is it ill-prepared or ill prepared? I originally had ill-prepared, but MSword said that was wrong, so I deleted the hyphen. And now I want it back for the simple reason that the hyphen is how it is commonly used. And what about brand new? My dictionary says it’s brand-new, but common usage has it as brand new. So which do I use? I think I’ll leave out the hyphen; that way there will be one less change to make.

Some of the changes that need to be made entail rewriting a sentence. In the proof copy, smelled is on two lines: smell-ed. Smelled can’t be hyphenated, so now I have to decide how to rewrite the sentence so smelled can fit on one line. I had “He fell silent for a moment, savoring the feel of her tee shirt- and jeans-clad body next to his. She smelled clean and fresh, like cucumber, or melon, or pear.” So how do I change the sentence, so that smelled can fit on one line? “savoring the fell of her thinly clad body”? savoring the feel of her tee shirt-clad body”? Neither of those do it for me. But now, writing this, I see what I can change. I can take out “for a moment”. (Yes, I know that the period belongs inside the quotation marks, but this is proofing, and perhaps whoever is making the changes to the print copy will think the period needs to be taken out.) See what I mean? Copy-editors are not paid enough.

Well, now it’s put up and shut up time. Make the important changes, and try not to sweat the small stuff. I can guarantee, though, that whoever came up with that particular phrase is not a copy-editor. With copy-editing, it’s all about the small stuff.

: : : : : : : : : : :

Posted in fiction, life, writing. Tags: A Spark of Heavenly Fire, brand new or brand-new, copy-editing, copy-editor, editing, ill-prepared or ill prepared, self-editing, writing. 5 Comments »

Did I Really Write a Feel-Good Book?

February 8, 2009 — Pat Bertram

It will be interesting to see what people say about my books; I’m beginning to think I have no idea what I wrote. For example, A Spark of Heavenly Fire is the story of four ordinary people who become extraordinary while struggling to survive quarantine and martial law in Colorado. It was supposed to be a hard-hitting novel with an edge, but my proofreader told me, “You might do well. I think people are ready for a feel-good book.”

A feel-good book? Where is the edge? The horror? The feeling of doom? According to said proofreader, “Those elements are in the background, but the characters are the story. And they are heartbreakingly real.” Oh.

I thought I couldn’t write good characters. Most books on writing (and many authors) say that a writer has to feel what her characters feel or else the reader won’t feel the characters’ emotions. If you don’t cry, neither will your reader. But I don’t feel what my characters feel. Writing erases emotion, takes me to a place of serenity. And serenity is not generally where you want to take a reader. But I am deliberate in my choice of words and in the details I include. Perhaps those elements combine to help overcome my lack of emotion.

Of course, I generally don’t feel the emotion in the books I read, either. Often, despite the blurbs and reviews that extol the great characters, the characters seem to be only props on which the author hung the story, and a banal story at that.

Perhaps, after all, I won’t mind if I haven’t written a book with an edge. There are plenty of those out there. But I do like my proofreader’s description of my book. He wasn’t the first to use the phrase “heartbreakingly real” about my characters, and with any luck, he won’t be the last.

I can live with that.

: : : : : : : : : : :

Posted in books, fiction, life, writing. Tags: A Spark of Heavenly Fire, character development, character's emotions, characters, creating characters, feel-good book, writing. 4 Comments »

Blog Exchange

February 6, 2009 — Pat Bertram

Aaron Paul Lazar, the author of LeGarde Mysteries and Moore Mysteries, is blogging at one of my other blogs — Book Marketing Floozy. (I split the promotion aspect of writing off of Bertram’s Blog and set it up on a separate blog with an index so the articles will always be easily accessible.) Aaron’s blog post is Writing Columns and Branding. Stop by and say hi. I’m sure he’ll appreciate it.

I will be blogging at Murder by 4 today, talking about becoming my own genre. The article was written half-tongue-in-cheek, half seriously, but in the end, one cannot be their own genre. Where on a bookstore shelf would the book be placed? Of course, mine will only be available online for a while, so the bookstore placement is not an issue. I do wonder, though, if people who expect A Spark of Heavenly Fire to be a mystery will be disappointed. The mystery is only a small part of the story, though it is a thread that runs through it.

Either way, publication date is drawing closer. I should get another proof copy in about a week, and if there are no mistakes (keeping my fingers crossed even though it does make typing a bit rough), it will be available on Amazon a couple of days after that. (It is available for pre-order from Second Wind Publishing.) And then I will be a published author. I wonder if I will feel any different? Well, you will be the first to know.

(And don’t forget to enter my contest so you can win the first autographed copy of More Deaths Than One.)

: : : : : : : : : : :

Posted in blogging, books, internet, life, writing. Tags: Aaron Lazar, book marketing floozy, genre, Murder By 4, Second Wind Publishing. 3 Comments »

“More Deaths Than One” Contest. Win Free Books!

February 2, 2009 — Pat Bertram

Win an autographed copy of More Deaths Than One (my very first autograph!) and your choice of two other titles from Second Wind Publshing LLC.

The premise:

Rules:

One paragraph to one page of your own version of the “What if?” from above.
Submitted by Midnight (12:00) EST Monday February the 16th 2009.
Only one submission per person.

Judging:

Pat Bertram and Second Wind management will read over all the entries and decide which three are the best — completely subject to our personal opinions as publishers and writers. The three best will be published on the Second Wind website on or around February 23rd 2009. From then you will have a week to vote on the best of the three entries. The top voted entry will receive the books.

: : : : : : : : : : :

Posted in books, fiction, internet, life, writing. Tags: Bertram contest, Contest, More Deaths Than One, Second Wind Publishing, story premise. Leave a Comment »

A New Era in Publishing

January 31, 2009 — Pat Bertram

When I was studying the publishing industry, trying to figure out how to get published, one thing bothered me. There you are, a debut author, and because the publisher does not promote you — spending their promotion dollars instead on the big names — your books sit on bookstore shelves or in warehouses until finally the publisher gives up on you and remainders your book. That is the best scenario, because if it is remaindered, at least it will still be available for a time. Generally what happens is that it is pulped. 25% of a publisher’s total output (including your beloved book) is destroyed. This after shipping costs incurred to and from the publisher’s warehouse.

My books, More Deaths Than One and A Spark of Heavenly Fire are being published by Second Wind Publishing, a so-called POD publisher, and because of it, I do not have to fear my novels succumbing to such a fate. Nor do I have to fear an inadvertent error showing up in thousands of volumes. As soon as an error is found, it can be corrected. Because of POD technology, there is no reason to destroy unsold merchandise. There is no reason to stop publishing a novel because it does not live up to the bottom-line demands of the traditional publishing houses.

Small presses today are where independent movie producers were in the late eighties and early nineties. They have the ability to publish books that need time to reach an audience, books that might not appeal to the masses but could still be loved by many (and turn a tidy profit in the process.)

Though POD still has the taint of vanity press, my books did go through a submission process, and I like knowing I was chosen. I like having a say in the editing, the cover choice, the arduous copy-editing. I even like promotion — what I’ve done of it, anyway.

So, new era in publishing? Good for us all. And I am pleased to be a part of it.

: : : : : : : : : : :

Posted in books, internet, life. Tags: A Spark of Heavenly Fire, More Deaths Than One, POD publishers, publishing, small presses. 13 Comments »

Where We Stand on Selling Non-Fiction vs. Fiction

January 29, 2009 — Pat Bertram

Today I am honored to have as a guest blogger Seymour Garte, PhD. Dr. Garte is Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences of the Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, and a member of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute in Pittsburgh PA. Dr. Garte writes:

Last year I became a published author for the first time. How did I get so lucky, you ask? Do I have sister in law who is a literary agent? Did I write a masterpiece that was saved from slush pile oblivion by a saintly and brilliant junior staff person at a prestigious publishing house? Did I send out 15,000 query letters until an agent finally decided to actually look at my synopsis, and loved it? Did I succumb to the temptations of self-publishing, and sell my book out of the trunk of my car, until word of mouth led to huge sales, and a great book deal with a real agent and a real publisher? Am I lying?

No, none of the above. What I didn’t mention is that my book is not fiction. Which means all the rules of how to get published listed above do not necessarily apply. Yes, there is a world of difference in publishing non-fiction compared to fiction, especially if the non-fiction book is a technical expert author book, like mine.

My book Where We Stand: A Surprising Look at the Real State of the Planet (Amacom Press, 2007) is about environmental trends that takes a very different approach from most books on the environment. The tone is optimistic, and rejects the atmosphere of doom and gloom that pervades this category of books. I instead point to the enormous improvements that have been made in the environment and public health over the past decades, and discuss how these changes came about.

Non-fiction books fall into a number of categories of course, but I like to think of them as one or the other of two main types. My own book is typical of the expert-written book, where the author is, (and is touted as such on the cover) an actual expert in the subject of the book. This would include medical and diet books written by doctors or dieticians, books by lawyers (the Nine by Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer, was very successful), cook books by cooks, and much more rarely, science books by scientists. There are some great science books by scientists, such as Lewis Thomas, SJ Gould, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Oliver Sachs, etc. but most non-fiction books on science are written by non-scientists.

Most non-fiction books, in general are not written by experts, but by people who are writers first (often journalists) and experts either second, or not at all. The reason for this is simple. People don’t buy textbooks unless they have to. If they buy a book on the Supreme Court or the life of Einstein, or the state of the environment, they want pretty much what they want when they buy a fiction book — good writing. Even if they buy the book because they want to learn something more than to be entertained, good writing is the first requirement. Accuracy, research, and good coverage of the field are all critical, but if the book is not written very well, people wont read it.

And most experts are not good writers. At least for the public. Scientific writing for example is completely different from “real” writing. In scientific writing, the passive tense predominates. Not so in books for the public, as my copy editor told me pointedly and repeatedly. Jargon is critical for a scientific paper, but terrible in a mass market book. In fact the best compliment I got for my book was when I saw an email from an editor to the acquisitions editor saying, “I read part of Garte’s book. It’s good. The writing is not at all scientific.”

So how did I get this book published? Actually, as happens quite often with technical books by experts, I was invited to submit a proposal. I was picked from a list of environmental experts and got an email. I responded with a proposal (standard publisher book proposal form), and two sample chapters, table of contents, a statement of audience, etc. It went back and forth, was eventually approved and a contract signed. That gave me one year to write and submit the actual book.

This is similar to the process for publishing monographs, and other technical books for specialized audiences, like textbooks, and for some mass market technical books. But it is not how most non-fiction books are sold. If you write a biography of Charley Chaplin, or a book about your own experiences as a young American traveling through Europe, or a book describing the best way to meet singles, or any other non-fiction book that does not fit into the expert category, you will need to do pretty much what fiction writers need to do, get an agent, pitch the idea, and the market, and hope for the best in a tough competitive climate.

For any non-fiction book, (as opposed to fiction) there is always an element of personal biography of the writer in the pitch. This could relate to experience, expertise or knowledge. Publishers want to know this upfront. If you have written an amazing new diet book (heaven forbid) it is helpful if you yourself lost 250 lbs using your amazing new diet method. Perhaps you are writing a new history of the American West. The publisher will be happy to learn that you possess some diaries of an ancestor who went west for the gold rush in 1849.

In my case, my credentials as a Professor of Environmental Health and Ph.D. in Biochemistry were critical in getting the book accepted. If you have strong credentials in the field of the book you want to write, it is possible to contact a publisher directly, without going through an agent. This is especially true if you use one of the many University Presses, which generally publish monographs, and a few mass market books by experts. These publishers tend not to do extensive marketing, so don’t expect huge sales from a University Press, although there have been exceptions.

If your credentials are on the light side, and you do not have an in (like many journalists, free lance writers and others already in the business have) you will need to find an agent to sell the book, and that means the queries, the synopsis, and all the angst you need to go through to sell your first romance, sci fi or other fiction book. There are agents who specialize in non-fiction, and in certain types of non-fiction, such as memoirs, humorous, travel, biography, etc. As for any non-fiction book, your query should include who you think the audience is, why they will want to buy THIS book, and any experience or background that sets you apart. (“I wrote this book on blind dates, after having 35 blind dates in two months.”)

This pretty much sums up the big difference between selling a non-fiction book as opposed to a fictional work. For non-fiction, you need to sell yourself as well as the work, much more so than for a novel. I don’t know if it’s easier to sell non-fiction, but I do know that good writing is essential. This is true not only for selling the work to a publisher, but for selling it to readers. Which is a whole nother story. Maybe for next time, if Pat wants me back.

Also by Dr. Simon Garte:
Selling Your Book to Readers — Part I
Selling Your Book to Readers — Part II

: : : : : : : : : : :

Posted in books, life, writing. Tags: non-fiction, non-fiction vs. fiction, selling non-fiction, Seymour Garte PhD, Where We Stand, writing, writing technical books. 16 Comments »

What is Talent?

January 28, 2009 — Pat Bertram

I quit a job years ago so I could write a novel — the sensitive and wise story of a love that transcended time and physical bonds. I sat down at my desk, pen in hand, and waited for the words to flow effortlessly from my subconscious, through my fingers, and onto the paper. I waited, and I waited. The paper remained blank.

I couldn’t understand the problem. I’d written poems and short stories, and even summoned the nerve to send one of my better efforts to Alfred Hitchcock Magazine, though they declined to print it.

(Since you asked: the story was about a guy on a train who got stuck sitting next to a smoker. He asked the smoker to put out the cigarette, and when the smoker refused, the guy shot him, proving that smoking really is hazardous to your health. This story may not make sense now, but I wrote it before the prohibition of smoking in public places.)

I thought that since the novel didn’t come effortlessly, didn’t come at all, I had no talent. Perhaps I didn’t. But what I didn’t know then is that by learning and perfecting the craft of writing, one can fake talent. Or maybe talent is perfecting one’s craft. Doesn’t matter. All I know is that now when I sit down to write, I do not expect the story to appear on paper by mental osmosis or as some form of automatic writing. I consciously choose every word. I consciously develop every character. I consciously create every scene. And when the novel is completed, I rewrite it, edit it, polish it. None of it comes effortlessly. But so what if it takes a year, two years, ten years to complete? The joy is in the process, in the effort.

What do you think talent is? Is it something you can learn, or is it innate?

: : : : : : : : : : :