Much is made of Sean Chercover's background as a private investigator when discussion of is debut novel, Big City, Bad Blood, arises. That's understandable, as few crime fiction writers have such experience to draw upon. But while that surely gives Chercover's work a degree of verisimilidtude that may be lacking in that of some of his peers, it is another part of his background that has an even greater impact on his work. Before tackling his first novel, Chercover wrote for television and film, honing his craft and learning the value of economy in the telling of a tale.

We've all read books written by people who were cops or lawyers or investigators first, writers second, and it shows. The detail and grit are there, but the storytelling can be lacking. Not so with Big City, Bad Blood. Chercover's main caracter, Ray Dudgeon, feels real because he carries at least part of his creator's experience with him. But his story resonates because Chercover knows how to write. And in Dudgeon, he has created a character with legs; one feels as if there are depths to be plumbed here, and hopes for the quick arrival of future books to help flesh out what already feels like a well-developed character. The best comparison is with Michael Connelly's Harry Bosch.

That comparison is apt in other ways. What Connelly and Bosch do for Los Angeles, Chercover and Dudgeon promise to do for Chicago. The city is integral to the story here, and Chercover sprinkles plenty of real detail throughout to give the reader a true sense of place.

Big City, Bad Blood is an assured, skillfully rendered debut and one of the best crime fiction books of the year. Chercover took the time recently to answer a few questions about his book, his PI and his town.

TIRBD: This has the feel of the first book in a series. Were you conscious of that throughout, or did you drop things in later in the writing process as you began to flesh out ideas for subsequent books?

SC: It was always my goal to make Ray Dudgeon into a series character. After the fist draft was completed, I actually found myself taking things out, more often than dropping them in. I'd look at a scene and I'd say, "Don't need it here; save it for the next book," and I'd cut and paste it into another document. I wanted Ray to remain at least a little bit of an enigma, who we'd get to know over a series of books, and I didn't want Big City, Bad Blood to get bogged down in backstory.

You've said in other interviews that your idea for the second book featuring Ray changed a bit because of the things he experienced in Big City, Bad Blood. Assuming more bad things befall him in subsequent books, are you putting an expiration date on your character by taking these things into account?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that bad things are gonna happen to Ray in subsequent books, but I don't want to be sadistic about it. I mean, he really goes through hell in the first book. But it's a good question. I don't have a specific expiration date, but it is important to me that Ray grow and evolve as a character. Which means one of a number of things… He may get to the point where he just can't (or doesn't want to) do this for a living anymore, so he leaves Chicago and takes over the charter fishing business from his grandfather on St. Simons Island. Or he may come to a tragic end, either physically or mentally. Or he may find a way to do the job, while avoiding the really powerful bad guys and the really dangerous situations. In any of those scenarios, the series has a finite lifespan. But how long will it take him to get to that point? Six books? Ten books? More? I have no idea.

And of course there is another, even more horrific scenario: At some point, people may not want to read about him anymore.

The book has been called a love letter to Chicago, but it reads to me more like a love-hate relationship given full voice in the person of Ray. Was it cathartic to be able to put some of your ideas about the city's challenges in the head of your character?

You could call it a love-hate relationship, although much more love than hate. While Chicago is my favorite city, I do hate the rampant corruption, and some of the ways in which the city is changing. The key is to make it organic to the characters and the needs of the story. The story comes first, and soapbox preaching is pretty boring. But you've got to write about what bugs you in life. I mean, if writing isn't cathartic, why bother?

Why was it important to use so much specific local color?

I wanted Chicago to be a major character in the story, not just a setting. Using real bars and restaurants and local landmarks helps to make the city real, and helps to make it resonate for me. I enjoy choosing different neighborhoods and places to reflect what's going on with the characters. And I also like giving a "shout out" to some of my favorite local joints.

I read a fascinating post from you on The Outfit blog about the way crime writers deal with guns. How do you balance the desire for authenticity with the need to keep the story compelling, particularly given the fact that your peers often write sensationally about weapons and other things?

When I write, I don't think about how other people are writing. I just try to write the story that I would want to read. And as a reader, it bugs the hell out of me when someone draws a gun, and suddenly the laws of physics are suspended. If you're writing an expressionistic novel, that's one thing, but if your fictional universe is consistently realistic throughout the story, it shouldn't become otherwise when gunplay is involved. That's just bad writing. And I actually think you can get a far stronger response from the reader by writing authentic violence and gunplay. In real life, when people are shot, they do not fly through the air backward and they usually don't die instantly. That gives you the opportunity to create real and unexpected tension, when the attacker is shot and keeps on coming, for example. There are plenty of ways to write authentic scenes that are not lacking in excitement.

Did your experience writing for other media such as TV and film have an impact on this book or your other fiction writing? Do you look at plotting or action or dialogue differently because of it?

Writing for television and film teaches extreme economy. It forces you to cut unnecessary description, dialogue and even entire scenes, and it makes you start each scene at the last best moment, and end each scene at the earliest best moment. It helps to develop your ear for expository dialogue and "on the nose" dialogue. The downside is that, writing for film and television can lead you to rely too heavily on the visual, at the expense of the other senses. And you have to learn how to open up a bit to make room for your characters' interior lives. In the aggregate, I'm glad that I had the experience, and I'd prefer to write lean and then have to add words, rather than writing fat and have to cut.

Your background, including the well-publicized stint as a private investigator, seems tailor-made as a training ground for writing a book like Big City, Bad Blood. Would this book have been possible without those experiences, and if so, how would it have been different?

Well, this book would not have been possible, because parts of this book came from my experiences, and part of my way of looking at the world was shaped by those experiences. But I wanted to write crime fiction long before I worked as a PI, so I'd have written a different book, and I'd probably have written it sooner. I probably would've engaged in some wish-fulfillment with my protagonist, so Ray wouldn't have been as emotionally damaged as he is. He would've had a secretary, better relationship with the cops, and he would've been less willing to deal with criminals, probably. And he probably would've said a lot of smart-ass things out loud, instead of just thinking them. You know, the things that PIs say in books, when they mouth-off to cops and criminals. Try that in real life, and then count your teeth.

In other words, my frame of reference would've been just the PI novels that came before, rather than taking that as a foundation and filtering it through what I learned in real life.

Of course I'm speculating wildly. If I hadn't had those experiences, I wouldn't have become the person I am, for good and ill. I'd be a different person, writing a different book.

Labels: crime fiction, Monday Interview