To the Vachss..

Part Two: Pulp Pusher talks to Andrew Vachss

TONY BLACK: Given that 'fact' today is often scarier than fiction, why do we need fiction at all? Has it always been thus?

ANDREW VACHSS: Fiction often has a greater power to expose truth than non-fiction, especially given the extent to which journalism has degenerated in this country. Fewer and fewer people trust the "news" every day. Considering the amazing number of people who get their "information" from movies, never mind those who think "the Internet" is the sacred source of all-knowing truth, fiction is a very viable form of reaching out. As you know, I have written, and continue to write, non-fiction. One drives the other. The important thing to remember is agenda. It's so cool and hip to say "There's never been proof of a snuff film; the whole idea is an urban legend". But, when pressed, those same people will admit they (conveniently) define a snuff film as "one made for commercial purposes". So the tapes Brady and Hinley made of the children they tortured wouldn't qualify, because they weren't going to sell them, huh? Let's look at this:

Images, yeah. Samuel Doe was tortured to death on orders of one of Taylor's freakish followers, with every shriek of agony carefully captured on videotape by a Palestinian "journalist" they invited to watch the fun. Running a dictatorship and reinforcing it with the occasional pogrom is one thing, but Doe's regime had recognized Israel, and supporting the Zionist Oppressor is a crime against all humanity. That tape is "still commercially available," in the words of The Economist.

That's from Terminal. Just another rant from Burke, right? Try this on for size:

"He [Charles Taylor] started a civil war [in Liberia] in 1989, with the stated aim of overthrowing the dictator Samuel Doe. Doe was overthrown the next year, and tortured to death on the orders of Prince Johnson, a former ally of Mr. Taylor's. (The death was captured on viodeotape by a Palestinian journalist, who had been filming a hostile documentary about Doe, whose regime recognized Israel. The tape is still commercially available.)" The Economist, August 16th-22nd 2003, p. 39, columns 1-2 

Now what?

TONY BLACK: There's an almost frightening ring of truth to the rape scene recounted in Terminal, I put that down to your skill as a writer, but -- given most readers haven't witnessed a rape -- is it also an indictment on a society that's inured to such acts?

ANDREW VACHSS: I don't understand how any one rape is an indictment on any society. But you're right: the threshold keeps dropping, and "cruel" and "cool" are getting way too close to having the same meaning to some humans. When I wrote this:

I didn't react. Why would I want to see? This was coming too quick, secrets piled on secrets. When that happens, there's always a trade lurking close.

She got to her feet, walked out of the room. She was back in a minute, holding a slick–paper magazine with a black and white photo of a woman bending over on the cover—there was another person in the photo, but all you could see was the paddle in their hand. I stood up, joined her under the light. She thumbed through rapidly, looking for the ad. It was marked with a red ink star, hand–drawn. I held it close to read the small type:

Proverbs 13:24(!)

Next time your kid has a good one coming, make

a full–size cassette of the chastisement and send it to me.

I pay $50 for fifteen minutes, more for longer. Good

sound quality a must. I travel frequently, with my own

equipment. Write to make arrangements.

Only a P.O. box was listed, no name. A new kind of kiddie porn, legal too--I'd never heard of it before. Freaks carefully recording their own children getting whipped. To entertain other maggots. For money. I felt ice–picks of fire in my chest.

"Why did you show me this?" I asked her, my voice flat and level.

"Cherry told me. A long time ago. She said that's what you do."

"That ?"

"No. She said you … hunt people like that."

Down in the Zero (1994), pp. 135-136

... people just plain freaked out, (again!) attributing the passage to my horrid imagination. Years later, when an entire international ring selling exactly that particular "product" was busted, it sent shock-waves around the world ... as if some new perversion had just been "invented". Sure.

Look, you spend as much time as I have "interacting" with predators -- using them as informants, prosecuting them, investigating their back-trail, etc. -- your writing should have the "ring of truth".

Violence of any type is typically portrayed ridiculously by the "hardboiled" crew. I especially love those "PIs" who get shot, stabbed, and stomped in every single book, but are always ready to go by the next chapter. I acknowledge that fiction-writing need not conform to reality, but when a virgin writes a sex scene, the reader can sense it. That's fine for some writers. For me, it would be tragic, because I need people to understand the truth inside the fiction if I want my books to do their work.

TONY BLACK: A lot of your previous fictional, and non-fictional, writing has proven prophetic -- I'm thinking of 1973's A BOMB BUILT IN HELL about a high school massacre especially -- what do you see in the crystal ball now?

ANDREW VACHSS: I don't have a crystal ball. When I write about something the public is not aware of, the fact that it later comes to life is not my "prediction" coming true, nor is it "life imitating art". I wrote about predatory pedophiles modem-trafficking in kiddie porn 20 years ago ... you know, way before "the Internet" was being touted as the "cause" of the child porn industry (!) ... and the book was routinely dismissed by "reviewers" as "sick fantasy". Today, it's a plot device. There are so many examples of this that it would take more space than you have to list them (see last question, e.g.). Look at the passages in Terminal on urban dog-fighting "tournaments," or a convicted child rapist who happened to be a professional boxer returning to the ring after he was released (from a pathetically short prison sentence). The truth of both of those things is just being revealed. Obviously, any writer knows how long it takes a book to go from manuscript to publication, so I must have written such things way before they "happened". There's no "prediction" involved; just ground-zero observation. I'm not a "futurist". If I know something you don't, and you later find out about it, does that mean I predicted it?

TONY BLACK: What writers do you feel are getting it right today? Who do you read at present? 

ANDREW VACHSS: I don't think there is any "right" to get. Each and every writer has his/her own goals; only they would know if they hit their target. What's "getting it right" for you, Tony?

TONY BLACK: Something that sends me to look for more of an author's work. It's taste at the end of the day -- what does Andrew Vachss read is where I'm going with the question.

ANDREW VACHSS: Actually, I mostly read material related to my profession. When I read for enjoyment, I go where I know I'll find whatever I'm looking for at the time. If I want Old School PI, I want Wayne Dundee, Mike Black, Harold Adams, Robert Campbell ... different venues, same ethos. If I want hardcore serious/crime/horror/laugh-out-loud all in the same book, there's nothing but Joe Lansdale's "Hap and Leonard" series. If I want the finest fabulist writing today, it's Charles de Lint. Jonathan Kellerman never disappoints me, nor does Robert Ferrigno. I would never miss a "Jury" novel by Martha Grimes, but her other work is really incredible, albeit outside the "genre". If I want hilariously-barbed political commentary, it has to be Carl Hiassen. George Pelecanos has it down were it belongs, and keeps it there. For poetry, Keith Gilyard is destined for immortality, and Ian McBryde is closing the gap. Ken Bruen is street-level Chandler. And I'm not even mentioning the ones that aren't around to give us more. I miss my pal Eddie Little, and I mourn the loss of Judith Moore. I wish that old rogue Jack Olsen could have gone another few rounds, and that David Hechler would step back into the ring. Ah, I could talk for hours about writers I admire. What I won't do is talk about those I don't. I have often refused to review a book after I read it, because I could not honestly write a favorable review. Why people think it's cute and clever to pick at another's work is beyond me.

TONY BLACK: Do crime writers constantly have to push the boundaries now? Many have been criticised for doing so, is there a danger of some crime writers blurring into horror?

ANDREW VACHSS: I don't see much boundary-pushing, Tony. Do you?

TONY BLACK: Not enough, anyway. Experimentation is vital and any writer that goes to the edge gets my respect. That a writer gets an edgy piece of work past an agent, an editor and into print gets my applause.

ANDREW VACHSS: I do see a lot of pastiche, and way too much foolishness that apparently believes "Law and Order" is a reality series.

I don't see any "danger" in crime writers blurring into horror ... what I write about is more horrible than anything Stephen King ever found in a basement. Who's doing all this "criticism?" Who are they "criticising?" And who cares? I understand I am too "pulp" for the literati, and too "literate" for the pulpsters. Big deal. I'd rather burn a bridge than crawl over it.

Finally, genre-worship isn't one of my disabilities. Apparently, as with all religions, some people believe they can dictate definitions. I don't recall asking for the "Noir Seal of Approval" sticker on my books. I deeply appreciate actual criticism -- that is, advice on how to make my work more effective. But I don't consider some cloistered narcissist a "critic" just because he or she writes down their reaction to a book. I once thought I could learn something from book reviews. I got over that a long time ago.

Part Three ... is here