You see a list of Marcus Sakey's published works -- four novels and stories in five prominent short story collections -- and you figure the guy has been at this a while. Then you look at the publication date on the first novel, The Blade Itself, do the math, and then maybe figure the guy is a hack, cranking out the four books and those stories in just two years.

Wrong on both counts. Sakey really has been in the game just more than two years, but he's no hack. Each of his novels is a page-turner with real social and moral issues at their center -- the kind of work that has made George Pelecanos a household name.

He returns this month with The Amateurs. While I still think his debut is his best work to date, I'd rank this second-best and would allow little debate. The amateurs in the title are four friends in their early 30s who gather every Thursday for drinks. Alex tends bar there, wishing he could make more so he could keep up child-support payments. Jenn is a travel agent longing to go to some of the places she sends others. Ian is a trader whose last big deal is a fading memory. Mitch is a doorman who longs for Jenn.

One night, playing a game of "what if?" Alex mentions that his boss, the shady Johnny Love, is doing a big cash deal soon and they could rob him and solve all of their problems. The discussion, lighthearted at first, becomes much more serious as each thinks of what they could do with the money. They pull off the robbery, but things go very wrong, sending the four friends into a downward spiral that, in Sakey's hands, makes for a very gripping tale.

Along the way, Sakey educates the reader about things I can reveal without giving away the plot -- such as game theory -- and others that I cannot. The result is a tightly plotted crime story that hits home because it's protagonists are the kind of people who could be reading a book like Sakey's, looking to escape their dreary day-to-day. Most of us are content to lose ourselves in the worlds created by fiction writers. Here's what happens to four friends for which that isn't enough.

TIRBD: To a certain extent, the protagonists of your first two books had things dropped in their laps, while the two most recent books find your characters bringing things on directly through their choices and actions. Does this shift require a different approach in terms of plotting and characterization? Is it more difficult to make these people sympathetic in the eyes of your readers?

MS: I like to write about people who have made mistakes, whether you're talking about mistakes of the past--the first two books--or whether you're seeing them make the tragic mistakes of their life, as in Good People and The Amateurs. But yes, I do think it's harder to evoke sympathy for characters when they are doing things that are morally questionable or even flat-out despicable.

But that's part of the joy of fiction, in my humble. I like following characters that I believe in as people, that aren't just white-hat/black-hat.

Without giving anything away, it seems as if some significant research was required for this one. Did you set out with the need to learn about specific things, or did things unfold in a less linear fashion that ultimately led you to stage events in the way you did?

All of the books have involved a fair bit of research, but each one has been quite different, and you're right, this one did require some specialized delving. I did set out to learn specific things; I need to have an idea of where I'm going. At the same time, I want to leave myself open to surprising possibility. Without giving away too much, the climax of the novel actually came directly out of something I learned in the research process.

One thing that I've always been struck by is how willing people are to help. From cops to soldiers to university professors to medical examiners, people are delighted to tell you about what they do, and to answer detailed, often stupid questions about their fields. And thank god, 'cause I've got no shortage of stupid questions.

Game theory plays a role in how events transpire in the book. What led you to use this as a device? Are you surprised, given the way the Prisoner's Dilemma so clearly plays a part in crime in general, that it is not used more overtly in crime fiction?

Funny thing, the original title of the novel was actually Game Theory.

I was a poli sci major at U of M, and one of the most fascinating classes I ever took was on game theory and persuasion. The professor was ridiculously brilliant, an ass-kicker, and his ideas about how game logic applied to decisions that literally shape the world just blew my mind.

Prisoner's Dilemma is an elegant little game. It works like this: two men are arrested for a crime, and the cops only have enough evidence to hit the for a minor term, so they split them up and question them. If both keep quiet, they'll get six months, and then they're free. If both talk, the cops nail 'em for five years. But the worst case of all is the "sucker's payout"--one of them talks, the other doesn't. The one who talks walks free; the other gets ten years.

So the question is, what do you do? Because the stakes are so high, the best solutions aren't those that rely on "soft" concepts like trust and friendship, but rather on hard, iterative logic. And that's an interesting idea, especially if you imagine taking it off the blackboard and into your life.

You continue to set your books in the Chicago area. That obviously makes it easier for you to sprinkle in geographic details, but does it present challenges as well because you must ground your settings in real life somewhat rather than simply create something from whole cloth to satisfy the story?

Actually, I find that it opens up opportunities. As I go through life, I'm always looking for interesting places to set a scene, bars that have just the right tone for a fight, sunlit streets for bad men to walk down. I love it. And when I need to, I can, and do, create things that don't exist. Sometimes that's the best solution.

Oddly, the book I'm working on now is set mostly in Los Angeles. That is challenging for me, mostly because I don't know it as intimately as I'd like.

You shifted two books ago from Minotaur to Dutton. Has that changed anything for you, or is it simply a matter of dealing with different people once you turn in your book?

One of the big reasons I shifted was to stay with my editor, a guy named Ben Sevier. He's remarkable, and was the one who first signed me, so the move was actually about keeping things the same.

Your first three books all have been optioned for films. What is the status of these projects, and does the knowledge that No. 4 and beyond are likely headed for a similar fate affect you at all (consciously during the writing or perhaps something subconscious that you detect after the fact) as you write?

I've been very fortunate. The Blade Itself was optioned by Ben Affleck's production company; there is an approved draft of the script, and talent attached that I'm not supposed to talk about yet. At the City's Edge was recently snagged by the producer of "The Departed," and the director of a wicked claustrophobic film called "Felon." And Good People went to Tobey Maguire, with Kelly Masterson ("Before the Devil Knows You're Dead") adapting.

Obviously, I hope that The Amateurs and future novels will have a similar fate. But it doesn't really effect the way I write. I think I've always written somewhat cinematically, probably as a result of having watched a lot of movies, and also of having worked in advertising. I tend to picture the scenes I'm writing, and to include only the details that bring those scenes to life.

Since we first talked two years ago, authors seem to have been given even more responsibility to get word about their own work. You're on Twitter and Facebook and still blog as part of the Outfit. Do get as much as you give to these efforts?

Well, I enjoy interacting with book people, so it's not really work.

But if your question is whether I believe those things lead to more sales, the answer is a qualified yes. It will never replace actually working your ass off to write a great novel. But it certainly helps to have a dedicated fan base.

Beyond that, there are some other benefits as well. Social networks are a great place to get feedback, to bounce ideas off a large group. Both Facebook and Twitter offer an opportunity to post questions and ask advice. I've requested research help and gotten immediate, helpful results; I've posted about contests and tailored them according to the responses. It makes the communication more two-way, which is wonderful.

Labels: crime fiction, Marcus Sakey, Monday Interview