Search This Blog

Friday, 16 December 2016

Crime - Frontline Spain



There are 440 organised crime groups currently operating in Spain, according to the Guardia Civil and the National Police here.  For the whole of Europe, there are about 3,600 such groups. A sobering thought.

Ten of those identified in Spain are considered ‘high intensity’ groups, which translates as having at least twenty members operating for more than three years, are trans-national and are poly-criminals – (the latter has nothing to do with the theft of parrots, but means the individuals are involved in one main criminal activity but also linked to others).

Such operations can have large complex networks, extending across borders (where border controls apply, please note, EU). They often operate under an apparent cover of legitimacy.

One example is a 40-year-old Spanish businessman in the construction industry who was arrested for running a money-laundering network in tandem with drug trafficking. Other similar groups deal in fraud as well as drug trafficking, illegal immigration, prostitution, burglaries and car theft.

Such a poly-criminal group can be found in the pages of Blood of the Dragon Trees.

“Laura Reid likes her new job on Tenerife, teaching the Spanish twins Maria and Ricardo Chávez. She certainly doesn’t want to get involved with Andrew Kirby and his pal, Jalbala Emcheta, who work for CITES, tracking down illegal traders in endangered species. Yet she’s undeniably drawn to Andrew, which is complicated, as she’s also attracted to Felipe, the brother of her widower host, Don Alonso.

“Felipe’s girlfriend Lola is jealous and Laura is forced to take sides – risking her own life – as she and Andrew uncover the criminal network that not only deals in the products from endangered species, but also thrives on people trafficking. The pair are aided by two Spanish lawmen, Lieutenant Vargas of the Guardia Civil and Ruben Salazar, Inspector Jefe del Grupo de Homicidios de las Canarias.

“Very soon betrayal and mortal danger lurk in the shadows, along with the dark deeds of kidnapping and clandestine scuba diving…”

See the reviews on Amazon.





Thursday, 15 December 2016

Writing – editing - look out!




The other day I picked up one of my wife’s newly purchased paperbacks by a successful and popular author and opened it at random, page 280. I immediately thought that the author and editor had not really given the work enough consideration, if this example was anything to go by:

            She looked alarmed. “You’ll come back to London soon, I hope.”
            “If you’re there, then I’ll devise a good excuse.” He looked at her fondly, but his smile faltered.
            “I’m looking forward to riding out. I haven’t ridden a horse in years.”
            “Don’t worry, (the horse) is very placid. She’ll look after you. And so will I!”

No author name, no book title. That’s not the point. Let's consider this as an exercise in editing.

I checked the previous page and a bit. The scene is from the heroine’s point of view. So how can she ‘look alarmed’ since she can’t see herself? She felt alarmed, if we want to be simplistic, though this is virtually ‘tell’ rather than ‘show’. She could show ‘alarm’ in several ways – stepping back, a hand to her throat or covering her heart, her lip quivering, her heart tripping, all visual or emotional responses.

As for ‘looked’ – we have variants of that repeated no less than four times in 8 lines of contiguous text in the book. They’re ‘echo words’ – lodged in the subconscious and spewed out in the first draft phase; but they should be expunged in the later editing sessions.

She looked alarmed. “You’ll come back to London soon, I hope.”
            “If you’re there, then I’ll devise a good excuse.” He looked at her fondly, but his smile faltered.
            “I’m looking forward to riding out. I haven’t ridden a horse in years.”
            “Don’t worry, (the horse) is very placid. She’ll look after you. And so will I!”

It’s quite simple to get rid of all those repetitions, look:

            Her throat tightened in alarm at the prospect of him never leaving here. “You’ll come back to London soon, I hope.”
            “If you’re there,” he said with a gentle smile, “then I’ll devise a good excuse.” But the curve of his lips faltered.
            “I’m excited about riding out. I haven’t ridden a horse in years.”
            “Don’t worry, (the horse) is very placid. She’ll take care of you. And so will I!”

As they’re both in a foreign country as they talk, perhaps she should have said, “You’ll return to London…” rather than “come back”.

And there’s still the question of why his smile faltered. Did he mean what he promised or not? As she noted it, wouldn’t she dwell on that, fearing his sincerity?

What caused the sudden switch to riding on a horse – when riding was last mentioned about a page earlier? No continuity of thought or speech, no leading phrase to generate the thoughts or words about riding; no flow.

Yes, this is a trifle unfair, a section 'taken out of context'. How many authors (me included) self-edit every little section of a book that can be about 100,000 words long? I’d argue that we try. But perhaps as some authors become successful, like this one, they become lazy and don’t exert themselves. On the other hand, in my humble opinion the editors aren’t doing their job, either.

So, look out for those irritating repetitions.

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Book review - The Traveller


John Katzenbach’s tense psychological thriller The Traveller was published in 1987. He has published a number of crime novels since.



Detective Mercedes Barren is a widow of several years and a cop. She learns of the brutal murder of her niece Susan by a serial killer. Fellow cops eventually track down the culprit and he’s sentenced, though they can’t produce adequate evidence to charge him for Susan’s murder. The murderer is a nut, hearing voices from Allah in his head. A couple of clues, insignificant of themselves, nag at her and she becomes convinced that the nut hadn’t killed Susan; her niece’s death was a copycat.

Douglas Jeffers is a highly successful photographer; he travels all the time, getting scoops with his images of disaster, war and death. This isn’t a whodunit, so we soon realise that Douglas is a nut, too; driven to kill. He kills the kind of girl who’s easily convinced she’s posing for a Playboy centrefold.

Like many sociopaths, Doug wants notoriety, though his kills are usually copycats of other serial murderers. He kidnaps Anne Hampton, an English Lit major. In an unsettling sequence, he tortures and brainwashes her to the point where she will obey him and not seek escape. She becomes his diarist, his Boswell.

Martin is Doug’s younger brother, a psychiatrist. His patients are sex offenders and killers. Martin’s unaware of his brother’s predilection.

As Merce connects the links and finds Martin, the light begins to dawn. The pair hunt Doug; he in the hope of stopping his brother committing any more murders, she to exact vengeance.

There are many tense scenes involving Doug and Anne as his odyssey takes him to old haunts, to the places where he began his extra-curricular career. And there are glimpses of clever prose and characterisation.

Merce enjoyed watching football games. “But why football?” her niece had queried once. And Barren had replied, “Because we all need victories in our lives.” And this is what drives her to track down Susan’s killer – victory over evil personified.

Merce attends the trial of a Colombian immigrant, an accused killer for the illegal drugs industry. ‘Killers were the Kleenex of the drug industry; they were used a few times and then discarded unceremoniously.’ (p42) Nice touch, that.

Despite a tendency to distance the reader from his characters, Katzenbach can tug you in: ‘… she gave in to her sorrow, capitulating to all the resonances of her heart that she’d suppressed so successfully and was suddenly, completely, utterly taken over by tears.’ (p66)

Martin likens his patients to the piano. ‘We keep pushing at the keys, hoping to find a melody, usually discovering dissonance.’ (p137)

Merce has a tragic past; her young brother drowned. ‘She thought for an instant of the potency of fear, undiminished even as it travelled over the decades of memory.’ (p170) There’s quite a bit of fear in these pages, notably experienced by Anne.

There’s a modern obsession, strongly characterised by political correctness, which is not new; definitely imported from America: ‘We live in an enlightened age which is dependent upon euphemism… prisons are correctional facilities, manned not by guards but by correction officers, and prisoners are subjects. If we change the designation, somehow we believe the reality to be less evil and distasteful, though in actuality nothing ever changes.’ (p174) This is one step removed from the knee-jerk need to be offended by terminology.

The trail leads to the place where Doug’s childhood was tainted by adoptive parents. Young lives damaged, which can evoke sympathy, but cannot excuse the multiple murders. Here, it gets a little tense, though the denouement develops into a damp squib. The ending is satisfactory, but only just.

Perhaps the title is not the most appropriate, either. So Doug travels round the country, taking photos and lives. Born to kill might have worked, as this is a quotation from Doug: “She was born to die. I was born to kill. It was simply a matter of finding one another.”

The cover image is a detail from an ‘untitled’ photo-montage for an Australian paperback (Pan). It does the book no favours.

Throughout, I was rooting for both Mercedes and Anne, and I dearly wanted Doug to get his comeuppance, so I kept turning the pages. That’s a good sign.

Editor viewpoint:

There were some annoying writing habits that sometimes detracted from smooth story-telling. 

Frequently, Katzenbach persisted in referring to his heroine and other characters with full names:
Detective Barren did this, Detective Barren thought etc etc. She had a first name, so this should have been used consistently, or even ‘she’ which is unobtrusive and preserves the point of view.

When Martin and Doug are together talking, we read Douglas Jeffers said, and Martin Jeffers laughed; in short, we’re in neither character’s head. Thus we’re not involved.

Head-jumping occurs in scenes, particularly when Anne and Doug are together; it’s never confusing or distracting, and is probably necessary to convey their thought processes as they verbally fence. But the head-jumping does bring us out of the scene, and that’s why it isn’t recommended.

Word misuse; we all do it, I guess. ‘… turned his eyes away suddenly, averting his glance.’ A glance is for a moment, a second or so, not a study or stare, so probably it should have been ‘gaze’ here instead of ‘glance’.

My pet hates are the following: He wondered to himself… She thought to herself…  Well, as they’re thought processes, they must be generated within oneself – unless you’re an adept psychic perhaps! He wondered, she thought is adequate.

But these are quibbles and I could dismiss them to appreciate the story.

Monday, 5 December 2016

Brexit skirmish



Gina Miller is a businesswoman whose legal team won a High Court case to force the British government to put to Parliament the triggering of Article 50. The government’s appeal in front of the Supreme Court begins today.

Yesterday, Gina Miller put her case in an article in a Sunday paper. The sub-editor, presumably, chose an inflammatory heading, ‘Yes we must have Brexit – but not by MOB RULE.’ And this is a pro-EU periodical!

It is appalling that so many reprehensible individuals have threatened her for bringing legal action to trigger Article 50 by Parliament. Let’s look at her words in that article.

‘Last Thursday’s Richmond by-election – with the defeat of a Conservative and victory for a LibDem candidate who, like me, believes a parliamentary vote is necessary – has served to throw more fuel on to the fire. I believe that defeat for Zac Goldsmith in Richmond is a distraction.’

Clever wording, here, from someone who is legally trained. By the simple expedient of mentioning the so-called defeat of a Tory, she is implying that the Tory Government is losing the Brexit argument; yet, in the same breath, she’s saying, disregard that point. Lawyers use this questionable technique all the time to plant a seed of doubt; no jury, and no reader, can disregard it once it is said. Furthermore, Goldsmith stood as an Independent, not a Conservative, so the vote was skewed in that sense. Unsurprisingly, the BBC report on the by-election fell into the same Tory-bashing mode – ‘LibDems overturned a Tory majority’; no they didn’t, they overturned Goldsmith’s majority. If a Tory had been contesting, the verdict might have been different, the voting being split. In both cases, it’s what is implied that is underhand.

‘…Any first-year law student knows: only Parliament can grant people rights, and only Parliament can take them away.’ Parliament voted 6 to 1 for the referendum, and the referendum was to vote to stay in or to get out of the EU, no ifs or buts. The referendum delivered a majority ‘out’. Therefore there is nothing else for Parliament to discuss at this stage. It stands to reason that Parliament cannot publicly discuss in advance its tactics at the negotiating table with EU in the following two years. At the end of the two years, Parliament can then pass an act, when everything is established. It is disingenuous to suggest that this salvo is only about ‘democracy’ and Article 50; it is the first skirmish in an attempt to stop any kind of Brexit from happening.

‘So, to be clear, it is not the idea of Brexit that filled me with dread. It was the idea of an unchallenged, unanswerable Government taking us back to 1610 and ripping a hole through our democratic structures.’ This is selective memory working. Gina Miller is on record saying that on June 24 she was angered by the result (primarily because she feels that Brexit will damage fund management firms (reported in the FT), and coincidentally she is an investment fund manager). Presumably, only later did she grasp the ostensible democratic angle as a means to an end.

Referring to high courts judges’ ‘total independence’ on issues relating to IRA members or destitute asylum seekers is of no relevance here; mere obfuscation. ‘Our judges are not plotters or subversives – they are a repository of wisdom, independence and intellect.’ I would like to think so – up to a point. If any of these judges sat on a case when the jury was being selected, they would dismiss any potential juror who revealed any conflict of interest regarding the case. Not because the individual would be biased, but because it could be construed that he would be. Several of the judges involved in this case are known to have considerable interests relating to the EU and because of these associations could be construed to be biased. If the government’s appeal is not upheld, then protestations and assurances that ‘only the legal aspects’ were considered would be highly suspect. Only those judges with no link to the EU should be reviewing this appeal.



Write to be read

My thanks to the many readers who took advantage of the special Kindle Unlimited offer over the weekend for SPANISH EYE and BLOOD OF THE DRAGON TREES.

I often say that I write to be read, not to earn loads of money (though payment for work done is a fine bonus!), so I hope you all enjoy the books and come back for more. And please feel free to write a review, no matter how brief!



The e-book versions - and the paperbacks - are now priced again on Amazon.

Saturday, 3 December 2016

Kindle Unlimited limited offer

Like things Spain and Spanish? 

Have you tried my two books set in Spain? 

BLOOD OF THE DRAGON TREES and SPANISH EYE are free as e-books today and tomorrow only on Kindle Unlimited.

https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Dragon-Trees-Morton-Nik-ebook/dp/B00E8NE1SW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1480776100&sr=8-2&keywords=Nik+morton


here's the link for Spanish Eye:
https://www.amazon.com/Spanish-Eye-Nik-Morton-ebook/dp/B00GXK5C6S/ref=sr_1_5?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1480776197&sr=1-5&keywords=nik+morton