Ben RehderMystery Author

• Holy Moly
  Below is the cover for Holy Moly, which will be published in May. The designer might still make some changes to the cover. Or he might not. Did you know that you can already pre-order it? Here's the link: http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Moly-Blanco-County-Novels/dp/0312357540/ref=pd_sim_b_img_4 Hey, I have an idea. Let's play a fun game! Let's see how high we can raise the Amazon rankings in the next day or two! Wouldn't that be fun!? Right now, Holy Moly is sitting at 245,085, but I know you can do much better than that. [[IMAGE:http://images.blogstream.com/i/userImages/100/100972_37198.jpg,400x400]]
• Bowling For Columbine
  As you've probably gathered from previous posts, I'm a gun owner and I support the Second Amendment. There are, of course, times when I wonder if that's a mistake. It's hard to justify gun ownership after a mass murder like Columbine or Luby's takes place. Not to say that people don't cite all sorts of reasons for ownership after a tragedy like that, it's just that the anti-gunners have an advantage, because they can play up the emotional aspects of the situation. ("What are you, a monster?! You still support guns after THIS?!") Regardless, I watched Bowling For Columbine with an open mind, and it was very entertaining. The problem was, Moore's narrative seemed unfocused, and it tended to wander. I wasn't sure at times what point he was making. I knew, though, that he'd eventually blame guns for all our ills. He did. He pointed out that plenty of other countries have the same cultural influences as ours--bloody movies and video games, inciteful music like Marilyn Manson, histories of violence--yet the murder rate in these other countries is tiny. What's the difference between those countries and the U.S.? Well, guns, of course. But then Moore seems to contradict himself. He visits Canada, interviews a bunch of natives, and points out that, even though they have plenty of guns, they don't shoot each other very often. What? Wait, doesn't that disprove his point? Lots of gun, but very little gun-related crime. You lost me, Mike.
• Talking Tough
  I'm reading a book right now--a highly praised debut novel--that just isn't doing it for me. Here's my problem: The author is trying too hard to make his text sound "street." In other words, he's going to great lengths to make all his characters sound like hardened thugs. You aren't in prison, you are "inside." If you're a criminal, you're "in the game" or "living the life." Characters talk about drug sales in terms of "weight" and "product." Everybody seems to have chipped teeth or a broken nose or a haunted past. It's all just too much for me. Seems artificial. For some reason, though, Elmore Leonard can get away with that sort of thing. His tales always seems to have a sort of wink between the author and reader, almost like he's saying, "Yeah, I'm making these guys a little outrageous, but it makes for a good story, doesn't it?" There's an irony to his writing that makes it work. Of course, the book in question appears to be selling well, so what do I know?
• Maybe I'm Omniscient
  I've run into a strange situation with my current manuscript, and I thought I'd share this quandary with you. Here's the deal: About a month ago, I wrote about a character who goes to garage sales, buys items that are way underpriced, then sells them for a profit at his own garage sale later. Not a unique proposition. Lots of people do that in real life. Then, just this past week, I started reading The Kite Runner (which, by the way, is an undeniably brilliant book). It features a character who goes to garage sales, buys items that are way underpriced, then sells them at a flea market. You can see the problem I'm facing. If I keep my character as is, some people might think I stole the garage-sale idea from The Kite Runner. I didn't, but they'll think I did. So...should I change the character? I decided I wouldn't. If I had read The Kite Runner several months ago, then wrote my character, then realized that I'd created an accidental similarity, I'd change it. But my character came from my own imagination, without knowing about the character in TKR, so at least I'LL know I didn't heist it. This is not an unusual phenomenon. I've read other books in which I've seen eerie similarities to my books. Some of the books came out before mine (meaning mine seem to copy them), other books came out after mine (meaning they appear to copy me). I have no explanation for it. I think there's even a phrase for this sort of occurrence, but I can't remember what it is. At least my main character isn't from Afghanistan.
• Oh, The Irony
  Illegal Immigrant Rescues Boy in Desert November 24, 2007 - 1:27am By TERRY TANG Associated Press writer PHOENIX (AP) - A 9-year-old boy looking for help after his mother crashed their van in the southern Arizona desert was rescued by a man entering the U.S. illegally, who stayed with him until help arrived the next day, an official said. The 45-year-old woman, who eventually died while awaiting help, had been driving on a U.S. Forest Service road in a remote area just north of the Mexican border when she lost control of her van on a curve on Thanksgiving, Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said. The van vaulted into a canyon and landed 300 feet from the road, he said. The woman, from Rimrock, north of Phoenix, survived the impact but was pinned inside, Estrada said. Her son, unhurt but disoriented, crawled out to get help and was found about two hours later by Jesus Manuel Cordova, 26, of Magdalena de Kino in the northern Mexican state of Sonora. Unable to pull the mother out, he comforted the boy while they waited for help. The woman died a short time later. "He stayed with him, told him that everything was going to be all right," Estrada said. As temperatures dropped, he gave him a jacket, built a bonfire and stayed with him until about 8 a.m. Friday, when hunters passed by and called authorities, Estrada said. The boy was flown to University Medical Center in Tucson as a precaution but appeared unhurt. "We suspect that they communicated somehow, but we don't know if he knows Spanish or if the gentleman knew English," Estrada said of the boy. "For a 9-year-old it has to be completely traumatic, being out there alone with his mother dead," Estrada said. "Fortunately for the kid, (Cordova) was there. That was his angel." Cordova was taken into custody by Border Patrol agents, who were the first to respond to the call for help. He had been trying to walk into the U.S. when he came across the boy. The boy and his mother were in the area camping, Estrada said. The woman's husband, the boy's father, had died only two months ago. The names of the woman and her son were not being released until relatives were notified. Cordova likely saved the boy, Estrada said, and his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals. "They do get demonized for a lot of reasons, and they do a lot of good. Obviously this is one example of what an individual can do," he said.
• A Second Amendment Shoot-Out
  You've probably heard that the Supreme Court will be addressing the Second Amendment next spring. This is from the New York Times... WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would decide whether the Constitution grants individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for private use, plunging the justices headlong into a divisive and long-running debate over how to interpret the Second Amendments guarantee of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The court accepted a case on the District of Columbias 31-year-old prohibition on the ownership of handguns. In adding the case to its calendar, for argument in March with a decision most likely in June, the court not only raised the temperature of its current term but also inevitably injected the issue of gun control into the presidential campaign. Okay, me again... The odd thing is, the amendment is somewhat ambiguous. Here it is, in full: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Anti-gunners say the amendment clearly intends to allow gun ownership only if you are in a militia. Pro-gunners say that's untrue, that the amendment grants an individual right, not a collective one. I happen to think that the pro-gunners are correct, and not just because I'm a gun owner myself. The writer part of me thinks the first clause in the amendment is simply citing a reason why each person individually has the right to bear arms. If the amendment were intended to allow gun ownership only if you are a member of a militia, it would've been written to clearly state that restriction. It doesn't help that the amendment says "the people," which seems to address the population as a collection rather than a group of individuals. But look at the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." See how it uses "the pe