Yes, another book giveaway!
I have ten copies of the second John Sand novel, Live Fast, Spy Hard by Matt Clemens and me, and ten copies of the new Wolfpack edition of Regeneration by Barb and me. It’s first-come first serve. You must include your address (include your name as part of your address, so I can copy paste) and agree to write a review for Amazon (Barnes & Noble and review blogs are also welcome). USA only, please – foreign postage is prohibitive.
[All copies have been claimed. Thank you for your participation! –Nate]
Give me an order of preference, or if you are only interested in one title of these two.
If you read and then don’t like the book, you are released from your pledge to review it, and in fact I’d rather you didn’t. The purpose of these exercises is not to show you what a fine, generous man I am (though of course that’s true), but to attract favorable attention to these books.
You know – get others to buy them.
Live Fast, Spy Hard represents the second of what will be at least three John Sand novels. I’ve mentioned the premise here – that Sand is the spy who (reading between the lines) Ian Fleming based James Bond upon. The secondary conceit is that what happened at the end of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (SPOILER ALERT: Bond marries and his wife is killed) was not reflected in John Sand’s “real life.” He does marry, but the wife – and, so far, the marriage – survives.
I have heard through the grapevine that some readers have avoided Come Spy With Me and now Live Fast, Spy Hard because they are assuming that these are spoofs of spy novels. This may be a result of the lead espionage agent being married and teaming up with his wife for duties with a new spy agency called GUILE, which is vaguely like UNCLE in, you know, THE MAN FROM.
A couple of things.
First, these novels derive from my love for the Ian Fleming novels and the Sean Connery-starring Bond films. I only tolerate Roger Moore, and defend Timothy Dalton because his Bond is like the book Bond, and enjoy the two later Bonds (Brosnan and Craig) because they are loyal to Fleming and Connery each in his own way. As for George Lazenby, he was a faithful to Fleming Bond, too.
I’ve told the story here many times that when – at around age 14 – I ran out of Mickey Spillane books to read, I turned to the author advertised as “the British Mickey Spillane” – Fleming, Ian Fleming. And you may recall that, in junior high, I talked my parents into taking me to see the opening of Dr. No on a school night.
Second, while I was very much caught up in the spy craze that accompanied Beatlemania while I was in high school – watching every dreadful spy spoof from Dean Martin as Matt Helm to James Coburn as Flint (actually walked out of In Like Flint) – I have no love for any spoofy spy thing of the period with the exception of Get Smart. (I do love the latterday OSS 117 films from France. Also, for the record, I love both Dino and Coburn, just not in those films – though I own all of them on Blu-ray, so go figure).
Third, the UNCLE reference, which puts some people off, has a basis in Ian Fleming, thank you very much. First of all, the acronym thing was a big deal in real life, and in the reality of the spies Fleming wrote about (SMERSH being real, with of course SPECTRE a Fleming invention). Fleming named both Napoleon Solo and UNCLE, but was forced off the TV project by the producers of the Bond film series. Hardcore Bond fans may recall that “Solo” was the name of a gangster in Goldfinger.
So the presence of GUILE does not indicate that Matt and I are going down a spoofy path.
Readers who think John Sand marrying a beautiful woman means there is no sex in these books need to either (a) if single, start dating, or (b), if married, buy their wives some flowers and see what happens.
And readers who like the harder-edged side of my work – who value Quarry, Mike Hammer and Nate Heller – should not misconstrue the nature of the John Sand books, which are extremely tough with brutal action and lots of plot twists and turns. Heller fans may in particular enjoy the historical aspect. In pursuing the conceit of John Sand being the “real” James Bond, Matt Clemens and I have devised stories within the early ‘60s time frame that bring in the likes of Castro, JFK and the Rat Pack. These are at once historical novels and espionage thrillers, as well as bloody valentines to Ian Fleming.
But in some ways John Sand is a change of pace, simply because I haven’t written much espionage, although such movie tie-ins as I Spy, Air Force One and In the Line of Fire seem to qualify, as well does the Reeder & Rogers trilogy (Supreme Justice, Fate of the Union and Executive Order) that Matt and I did for Thomas & Mercer.
Here is an interview Matt and I did with Wolfpack editor Paul Bishop.
As I mentioned above, the point of these book giveaways is generating good reviews to in turn generate sales. That’s how I keep food on the table, the lights on, and you entertained. When I – or any writer whose work you enjoy – change things up with a different type of book, and you don’t like it, might I make a suggestion? If you usually like the writer, don’t write an Amazon review advising other fans to steer clear of it. Have some respect for the author, and give your fellow fans the opportunity to judge for themselves.
Now and then I see an Amazon review that begins, “I’m a big Max Allan Collins fan,” followed by a blisteringly bad review. Either I’m not writing as well, or these readers may just not really be “big” fans.
The other book in this week’s giveaway, Regeneration, has generated many terrific Amazon reviews, but I am always up against resistance when I try to break out of my specific noir/historical niche. I write different kinds of things to stay fresh, to stay interested. Particularly when I collaborate, as with Barb or Matt or recently Dave Thomas, I am looking to do something different. That’s on purpose.
Regeneration is a novel I’m particularly proud of. It began as a short story of Barb’s in which I saw possibilities for a novel. As the Mommy movies indicate (and the Mommy novels for that matter) (available from Wolfpack), I am interested in horror and dark suspense. My anthology Reincarnal is packed with specifically that kind of tale. And Regeneration, thanks to Barb’s terrific idea as well as her draft on the novel, is definitely in that cubicle of my wheelhouse.
Regeneration explores ageism on the one hand, and the failure of Baby Boomers to save for retirement on the other, putting them together in a darkly comic and intentionally disturbing mix that reflects Alfred Hitchcock Presents and The Twilight Zone as influences on both Barb’s and my work.
Check out the knockout cover Wolfpack has come up with for this new edition.
Here’s a podcast interview with me, nicely handled by Joe Meyers.
M.A.C.
Tags: Barbara Allan, Giveaways, Interviews, John Sand, Live Fast Spy Hard, Regeneration
A couple of additions….
When a book you win on a giveaway has not yet been published, as with the advance copies of SHOOT-OUT AT SUGAR CREEK that went out recently, Amazon will not let you do a review until the book is available, i.e., till day of publication.
Also, for anyone who might wonder — did I like the AUSTIN POWERS movies, which were (of course) spy spoofs? All I can tell you is that we went to the second AUSTIN POWERS, my wife and my son moved away to other seats in the theater because I was embarrassing them by laughing too loud and too hard.
Wow!
In other words, “positive reviews only, please!”
Amazing that a successful author of long-standing has the chutzpah to argue that the function of reviews is *purely* to drum up sales, rather than to give an honest opinion, let the chips fall where they may.
Famously, Oliver Cromwell instructed his painter to protray him “warts and all”. Would that Max Allen Collins had his courage.
Full disclosure: I am a personal friend of Mark Hunacek, who posted a couple of non-fawning Amazon reviews of MAC books. (Not horribly negative either—he gave 3 stars to this book. Change-up wasn’t the issue, since he like the first John Sand novel. The other six Amazon reviews (currently) are all 5 star. Apparently that ratio isn’t good enough for our author.)
I myself have never enjoyed a spy novel except for John le Carré (and “Our Man in Havana”, if that counts), so I would never try this book. But I think the point holds quite generally: if you’re that thin-skinned, *don’t read the reviews*!
Michael, if you buy my book, and dislike it, and wish to express that opinion in public, go for itl
When I send a book out at my expense to a reader, I sometimes suggest that if they hate it, I would prefer they keep it to themselves. Prefer, not require. And a mixed review is fine. Warts and all, but should I be sending out books for free to people who write only about warts? I think a three-star review that professes to like a book in a five-star world is worse at math than I am, but so be it. “Not my cup of tea” is one thing — advising other “big fans” not to buy one of my books is another matter.
This isn’t about me being thin-skinned, although I suppose I am, and forgive me for being human here in my mansion with my huge staff and luxurious lifestyle. I do the book giveaways, as I have made very clear, to encourage sales. That I am not wild about underwriting somebody to write a bad review and cost me sales is, I think, understandable.
And it’s not “Allen,” it’s “Allan.” Somebody slamming me ought at least to spell my name right.
At a recent writing convention, a writer asked that reviewers consider 2 things: 1) that writing is an art and not all books are for everyone. Just because one person does not care for something does not automatically mean that it is a bad book, but just that it is not for them. If there are some legitimate gripes about a book, sure, go ahead and leave a bad review, the writer told us.
2) don’t compare the book to another book when leaving the review. “It’s good, but not as good as the first, so only 3 stars.” Or worse, “I liked it, but it’s no _____ (fill in your favorite author here).” It’s not fair to the book, because there will always be something better than it.
But if it’s just that you don’t care for it, at least respect the author as an artist and either don’t leave a review, or don’t leave less than 4 stars. The lower rankings wreak all kinds of havoc on a books on Amazon. Writing is an art. Just because one person doesn’t like something, doesn’t mean that someone else won’t. I’ve left good reviews, 4 or 5’s, where I still point out things that I didn’t like. A wart doesn’t make something ugly. It just makes it something with a wart, which is human.
Personally, I am very grateful for Mr. Collins’s writing. His books have kept me very entertained since I first started reading them in the last 10 years. And while I don’t LOVE every book, I definitely want him to keep writing more books, and if my positive reviews will help that, then I will leave as many positive reviews as I can. I won’t write anything untrue in a review, but I can always find nice things to say about his books, even if one is not my favorite.
In our current world, a working writer needs to sell books to live. And right now, our world is dominated by Amazon and other sites where people are reading reviews, or in some cases, just looking at an aggregate review score. I have one self-published book on Amazon right now, and I asked every person who bought it to please leave a good review and to tell their friends to buy it. Heck, the last page of the book says that! I feel no shame in it whatsoever.
Thank you, Rob. People do not understand that writing is a cottage industry. I have been blessed to make a living at it for about fifty years. I think your experience writing yourself is key to your insights. I have not reviewed another author negatively since I was once negatively reviewed by a well-respected bestselling author who I thought was a friend — it was a classic example of hitting down, and I’ve never wanted to do that to anybody. In recent years, in this very personal blog, I’ve allowed myself to be critical of films, but I probably shouldn’t — I quit as the longtime movie reviewer for Mystery Scene after I made the film Mommy and learned how very hard it is to make a movie. Gene Siskel is likely in Purgatory until he can make a film as good as the worst film Ed Wood ever made.
But one thing all writers who get bad reviews should remember: there is nothing easier to write than a bad review. Nothing.
Even though it’s possible that it was my three-star review of Live Fast, Die Hard that may motivated, at least in part, this blog post, I was initially not planning to comment, but your response to Rob Brooks’ comment demands some response. Initially, though, let me say that I have never gotten a book from you for free; mostly I get them from Kindle Unlimited, which is, of course, something that amazon charges for. And now to the substance of your response to Mr. Brooks:
First, I strongly disagree with your statement that there’s nothing easier to write than a negative review. It is certainly easy to just write “This stinks” and leave it at that, but a decent negative review carries with it an obligation on the part of the reviewer to explain just why the reviewer was unimpressed. It’s no accident that my review of LFSH is the longest of the reviews that appear on the amazon page for that book. One five-star review of your book Girl Can’t Help It reads, in its entirety, “Great read”. Quite a few other five-star reviews were one or two sentences long. I assume you were delighted with these reviews, but do you really think that my considerably longer and much more negative review was easier to write?
Second, in the very same blog post that prompted your comment about how easy it is to be negative and how you now realize that it is very hard to make a movie, you say that you can “only tolerate” Roger Moore as Bond, without even explaining why. Are negative reviews of books prohibited, but not actors? And for another example, you might wish to reread what you said on December 29, 2020 about the latest Wonder Woman movie—you spend quite a lot of time dumping all over it, and even commit the cardinal sin (according to you) of saying you liked the director’s previous work. Since you like the director, why did you not follow your own advice about declining to review the new movie, and let people decide for themselves? Presumably it’s because you, like millions of other people (including me), enjoy expressing an opinion. That’s fine, but it seems to me that if you’re going to dish it out (which, of course, is your privilege) then you should at least learn how to take it.
Mark, it amuses me that the very reviewers who are offended by anything negative I might say about their reviews consider me thin-skinned. I have never seen anybody with thinner skin than such individuals. Obviously a one- or two-line comment attached to a starred reaction to an author’s book is not a “review” — just a comment. I like seeing positive reactions because, frankly, those don’t cost me any readers. Your three-star review may have, so I don’t love it, but I already stated clearly that if you buy a book of mine, and don’t like it or have a mixed reaction and express yourself in a review, I am absolutely fine with that. What I don’t like is sending someone a free book at my expense and then getting a bad review. (I routinely spend $150 on each book giveaway at the minimum, and my wife and I do all the packaging, addressing, etc.) Even so, I’ve never gone farther than to say anyone who didn’t like a book of mine won in a giveaway is released from the obligation of having to review it.
Your friend complains about me and then goes on to say he doesn’t read spy novels (they why the hell is he weighing in) and quotes Oliver Cromwell and lets us know he reads John Le Carre and Graham Greene to show what what an erudite individual he is. That’s the sound of me blowing a Bronx cheer in response to that pretentious posturing.
I admit to being uneasy about commenting negatively on films. I enjoy film reviewing, in my informal way at this blog, and usually write positive reviews. I have written and directed four indie films and two feature-length documentaries and know how much blood, sweat and tears goes into it. And I would not — despite opportunities to do so — review a film outside the personal boundaries of this blog…at least not negatively. I walked away from a movie review column in MYSTERY SCENE, as I said. On the other hand, my experience in smalltime filmmaking — while it gives me a certain insider’s view — probably does not preclude me from commenting negatively on big-budget blunders like the new WONDER WOMAN movie…and mine is hardly the only negative review of that one.
I do take offense at reviews from people who portray themselves as huge fans of mine and then proceed to chase readers away from a book of mine. And I stand by my opinion that writing a negative review (not a brief comment) is much easier than a positive one. I say this having written two review columns for national magazines (MYSTERY SCENE and ASIAN CULT CINEMA).
Enough, already! MAC is offering you a *free* book, and making a reasonable request: If you don’t like it, don’t publicly review it. That is a small price to pay for a *free* book.
If you feel compelled to write a negative review, then go *buy* a copy and review it. Then you will have done so on your dime, not on his.
“[T]hey are assuming that these are spoofs of spy novels.”
Thanks for clearing that up. I, too, had that mistaken assumption.