Sunday Smatterings in the Sunshine

Of course I'm leading off with this piece of news: a new collection of Shel Silverstein poems will be published by HarperCollins' Childrens Books in Fall 2011. This is awesome. What would be more awesome is if some more of his works for adults, currently buried in the Archives in Chicago, would see the light of day. One can only hope!

Oline Cogdill reviews Linda Fairstein's new mystery, HELL GATE, for the Sun-Sentinel.

At the Guardian, Laura Wilson rounds up new crime novels by Jo Nesbo, Sophie Hannah, DJ Taylor and Julie Zeh.

Margaret Cannon analyzes new crime fiction offerings by Jo Nesbo, Carol Goodman, Keith Thomson, Kelli Stanley, S.J. Parris and William Peter Blatty for the Globe & Mail, which also gives Nesbo the Q&A treatment. 

Another big Jo Nesbo fan: Katherine Dunn, who reviews THE DEVIL'S STAR for the Oregonian.

Paula Woods has her say on Philip Kerr's new Bernie Gunther novel IF THE DEAD RISE NOT in the LA Times. Kerr was recently in Australia to promote the book and talks to the Sydney Morning Herald's Jason Steger.

The Independent on Sunday's Mark Timlin is bowled over by Lee Child's 61 HOURS, which sets things up rather nicely for the next book to follow this fall. 

Also in the Independent, Sophie Hannah explains why she sees the good in everyone and refuses to judge her characters in the pursuit of writing some very psychologically unnerving crime fiction.

Retired pathologist and crime writer Bernard Knight tells the BBC why he's calling it a day as a writer - because of a combination of getting older and the CSI effect.

Ian Rankin defends the genre of crime fiction (not that he has to, but I guess it was warranted?) to Deutsche Welle. Oh and looky, now it's a controversy! FFS.

Meanwhile, fellow Scottish writer Louise Welsh, whose new novel NAMING THE BONES is just out, doesn't care what label is attached to her, as she tells the Irish Times.

Alafair talks with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review about her new thriller 212.

Will the Babysitters Club novels, about to be reissued on masse, help tweens and their parents learn how to be more resourceful and independent? So posits Laura Vanderkam in a WSJ op-ed.

The Observer reprints a chapter from Tom Bissell's forthcoming book EXTRA LIVES - a piece that goes deep into his twin addictions to cocaine and video games.

Michiko Kakutani ponders the mash-up, gets pissed off by David Shields' REALITY HUNGER, and is made uncomfortable by the internet's effect on culture, but I guess that's to be expected. In the Book Review, Ward Sutton plays with the mash-up theme in graphic format.

Finally, this is exactly why every one should and must know about jury nullification.

Comments

[Mary Arrrr]

The article you linked to about Peter Watts is grossly incorrect. He was not found guilty of assaulting an officer - only of "obstruction" - which means not following the officers orders at the scene to their satisfaction. He faces two years in jail for asking "why?" when asked to get out of his car. Boing Boing has a far more accurate take on the matter: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/20/peter-watts-may-serv.html

[Maxine]

I like the word "Nords" in that Orgegonian piece. (She writes about the genre sometimes being called "Nordic" crime fiction, and then the people who live in Scandinavian countries as "Nords".)

[Karen C]

Every Sunday I look forward to reading your blog and sorting through all the great crime fiction reviews. Thank you so much for doing this every week.

I have to comment on the last link. The article makes no attempt to investigate why Peter Watts was convicted but rather, it assumes from the outset that Watt's version of events is true and he is simply the victim of some poorly written law and abusive American guards. This lack of objectivity and depth is poor journalism. The article headline claims he was convicted of assault when per the boingboing article he was not, he was convicted of obstruction.

I'm also bothered by the sensationalist aspect of this article, that he COULD spent up to two years in prison without any examination of how he is LIKELY to be sentenced. If he has no record and his conduct was as minor as alleged, obviously the judge would not opt to impose the maximum sentence. As someone who has worked in American courts for years, it would seem most likely that Peter Watts is going to end up with probation and community service, or minimal local time.

I normally wouldn't comment about an article that I disagree with but what really concerns me is how you characterize the article. You write, "This is why everyone should and must know about jury nullification." I am troubled by this comment because 1) you are accepting the validity of this simplistic story and Watt's underlying claims without any critical evaluation and 2) advocating people to "nullify" is asking jurors (who have sworn an oath that they will follow the law) to disregard the law, the judge's instructions and do whatever they want if they don't agree with the law. If a person doesn't like the law and thinks it's wrong then they can tell the judge they could not be fair on the case and should be removed from the jury. If they don't like the law, then they can work with like-minded citizens and work on changing the law. Maybe I misunderstand but if you are advocating jury nullifcation, aren't you essentially advocating that that they violate their oath and disregard the law?

Karen C

[Tom]

Karen, I've been following the Peter Watts story rather closely. If you'll look it up at Making Light or on John Scalzi's Whatever blog, you'll see that nullification, in this case, would have been the correct course.

The jurors didn't want to convict, have said so in the aftermath, and didn't know they had an option.

The most egregious of Watts' crimes – according to witnesses – was not that he didn't obey (after being struck by the officer), but that he *hesitated* to obey. Under an absurd law passed in haste without due oversight, this now makes Watts a felon.