Robert James Bidinotto (1949- ) is a contemporary novelist, journalist, editor, and lecturer. His 2011 vigilante novel,Hunter: A Thriller, is the first in a series.
He is perhaps best known for his critiques of the criminal justice system, and of the environmentalist movement and philosophy. Bidinotto advocates the philosophy and writings of Ayn Rand, and from July 2005 until October 2008, he was editor-in-chief of The New Individualist, the monthly magazine published by The Atlas Society.
Bidinotto has written for many different publications. He also hosts his own website dedicated to criticism of the environmental movement, publishes a blog, and lectures at colleges and universities.
Here is a link for the e-book version: http://amzn.to/naHYGp
Robert's blog: http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/
And, he informs me of a new blog called "The Vigilante Author," which will be devoted exclusively to his fiction, and will be here: http://www.bidinotto.com/
Here is the current roundup of how well the book is doing:
Here is a link for the e-book version: http://amzn.to/naHYGp
Robert's blog: http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/
And, he informs me of a new blog called "The Vigilante Author," which will be devoted exclusively to his fiction, and will be here: http://www.bidinotto.com/
Here is the current roundup of how well the book is doing:
As of this posting, HUNTER has generated 47 Amazon customer reviews, an amazing 46 of them rating it "5 stars." (The lone exception gave it 4 stars and compared Bidinotto to thriller master Michael Connelly.) Because of these stellar reader ratings, Bidinotto's debut thriller now stands at #1 on three Kindle "Top Rated" lists: "Thrillers," "Romantic Suspense," and "Spy Stories & Tales of Intrigue." It is also customer-ranked #2 among all "Mysteries & Thrillers" and "Romance" titles, #6 in "Genre Fiction," and an astonishing #19 among all "Fiction" titles on the Kindle. HUNTER also stands at #86 among all 969,000+ Kindle ebooks -- both fiction and nonfiction.
In sales, HUNTER appears on the Kindle Top 100 Bestseller lists in both the "Romantic Fiction" and "Spy Stories & Tales of Intrigue" categories.
I guess that lately I have come into the business of talking about authors. Maybe it is the journalism background in me. Maybe it is the mere, true fact that I know about the certain kind of solitude that must reside within a good writer. Crap, even a lousy one. Maybe it is just curiosity; how others are doing what you are doing.
Sometimes, it is just about watching the discipline of others over time, and that is what I was up to with Robert. I was so happy to watch someone hang in there, and it isn't too much effort to cheerlead. Steve Vai, arguably one of the greatest guitar players in the world said "I've never worked a day in my life in the music business." And it is from that kind of humble, seemingly-effortless approach from which this work comes. It is, in a certain way, a backlash (a successful backlash); and simultaneously just someone that knows how to walk through walls. It is razor-clear, disturbing. One time, a person said about this book that it was very readable, engaging, so forth, but that they had some kind of moral issue with it. I find that so untrue that I will not address it, other than to invoke something near and dear to me in the name of armchair quarterbacks. But, this is not a bitter occasion, it is a joyous, successful one.
The proof, though, is in the pudding, and here is the talk that Robert and I had today. He had some very interesting answers, I think. Also, just for the record, this was not "massaged," other than two minor corrections Bob had, somewhere around correcting syntax. The rest is pure live:So how are you feeling after this successful e-book launch?
Ecstatic. Rich, in all honesty, I thought it would take quite a few months to achieve this level of visibility and sales for HUNTER. But the book has been online at Amazon for just a couple of months, and it's doing very well.
Yes, I was kind of shocked how fast it took off. And the feedback has been really great. If I may ask—what are you reading these days?
Great question! In fact...I've had little time for any reading at all. I read and enjoyed The Philosophical Practitioner by long-time Objectivist Larry Abrams a couple of weeks ago, and even though the book isn't long, it took me forever. I'm now reading another "indie" work—Rambling, a collection of short stories by a friend, Edd Voss. I've enjoyed both books. But promoting HUNTER has left me very little time to read for pleasure.
I kind of figured that. Now, what about the past stuff—say, spy novels and such. Can you talk about your early influences?
I started reading spy stories and other thrillers when I was in my teens. I cut my teeth on the works of Alistair MacLean, Mickey Spillane, Desmond Bagley, and other late masters and pioneers of the genre. These days, my greatest influences come from sensational thriller authors like Lee Child, Stephen Hunter, Brad Thor, and Vince Flynn. I also love works by Daniel Silva, Mark Greaney, Gayle Lynds, Nelson DeMille, and many more.
I was so waiting for you to say Mickey Spillane. I noticed that you have a very fast, rat-a-tat style to your writing; the pace is very strong. How did you develop that, I guess I would ask, and additionally, what your approach is to establishing the visceral experience, which you clearly do very quickly. I mean, you got me on the ramps off the first paragraph.
That is a complicated question, because it bears on all of the elements of writing. Thriller writing requires you to engage your reader immediately. The audience demands it. So, you have to grab them at the first line, trying to infuse it with something that will arouse their curiosity by posing questions. The first line of HUNTER is:
"Today she would finally nail the bastard."
Now, if you think about that, notice how many questions this one line poses, and how much information it already imparts. You know that the point of view character is a woman. You know that she is after someone, out to punish or hurt that person. You know that she thinks he's a bastard, a bad guy—and you know she's been after him for a while. You know she is angry, driven, and sounds tough. But you really don't know who either person is. You don't know who is good and who is bad. You are immediately curious about all those things.
Visceral writing—well, that's another matter. I think I'd say: First, you have to be ruthlessly purposeful in each scene. You have to know exactly what you want to accomplish. You may not know any of the details of the events or conversations ahead of time, but you do need to have a goal. Second, you have to be right inside the skins of the characters inside the scene. You have to see through their eyes, experience things through their senses. And you have to focus on the kind of details that those characters would tend to notice, the things that will stand out. This is called "viewpoint" in fiction writing: Each scene should be experienced strictly through the eyes and senses of a single viewpoint, or "POV" character.
Now, if you think about that, notice how many questions this one line poses, and how much information it already imparts. You know that the point of view character is a woman. You know that she is after someone, out to punish or hurt that person. You know that she thinks he's a bastard, a bad guy—and you know she's been after him for a while. You know she is angry, driven, and sounds tough. But you really don't know who either person is. You don't know who is good and who is bad. You are immediately curious about all those things.
Visceral writing—well, that's another matter. I think I'd say: First, you have to be ruthlessly purposeful in each scene. You have to know exactly what you want to accomplish. You may not know any of the details of the events or conversations ahead of time, but you do need to have a goal. Second, you have to be right inside the skins of the characters inside the scene. You have to see through their eyes, experience things through their senses. And you have to focus on the kind of details that those characters would tend to notice, the things that will stand out. This is called "viewpoint" in fiction writing: Each scene should be experienced strictly through the eyes and senses of a single viewpoint, or "POV" character.
If you do those things, then you can draw the reader right down into the scene. For instance, in the climactic confrontation scene, I had to make that a visceral experience for the reader on many sensory levels. I didn't calculate it all: I simply got right into the hero's brain and stayed there. The rest pretty much took care of itself.
That was what got me, how fast the lift-off was. I was like "there" on contact. Could you give some advice for emerging young writers? How to do that? I mean, the regular answer is "write." But I am talking more about establishing something I call "flow." Also, it would be good to hear about how you approach language, in general. Do you look up words just to be sure they say what you mean? Are you willing to end a sentence with a preposition?
Here's how I established the "flow" in writing HUNTER.
The first thing was to really get to know the main characters, in intimate detail. You have to know their backgrounds and what makes them tick. When you do that, then in every scene, you stay strictly in their POV. That way, you get caught up in this trance-like state, in which you are role-playing that character in your head. If you can stay there, you do get into a kind of "flow." "They" say and do things that you didn't plan in advance, but which simply arises from who "they" are. And it becomes realistic and logical that they would.
One of the great compliments I'm getting from readers is how "realistic" the characters, background, settings, and description are in HUNTER. That comes from doing all that advance prep. I researched this to death, and filled notebooks with notes on the characters, their relationships, their conflicts, and the plot. So, when I got into a scene, I could just relax and let them take over. That was the "flow."
The first thing was to really get to know the main characters, in intimate detail. You have to know their backgrounds and what makes them tick. When you do that, then in every scene, you stay strictly in their POV. That way, you get caught up in this trance-like state, in which you are role-playing that character in your head. If you can stay there, you do get into a kind of "flow." "They" say and do things that you didn't plan in advance, but which simply arises from who "they" are. And it becomes realistic and logical that they would.
One of the great compliments I'm getting from readers is how "realistic" the characters, background, settings, and description are in HUNTER. That comes from doing all that advance prep. I researched this to death, and filled notebooks with notes on the characters, their relationships, their conflicts, and the plot. So, when I got into a scene, I could just relax and let them take over. That was the "flow."
I don’t observe strict rules of grammar in the storytelling. I tried to establish a mood, a “voice”—terse, clipped, staccato. Lots of sentence fragments. Like these, for example. The way people tend to talk—especially tough, reserved people.
A lot of people are telling me how "cinematic" this book is—including a Hollywood screenwriter who has done work that you would know. He wants to do the screenplay for HUNTER had me send the book to his agent and his entertainment attorney. I'm flattered. If I'm also lucky, maybe this will have a shot at being a movie. Personally, I think that Dylan Hunter could be the next Jason Bourne franchise.
A lot of people are telling me how "cinematic" this book is—including a Hollywood screenwriter who has done work that you would know. He wants to do the screenplay for HUNTER had me send the book to his agent and his entertainment attorney. I'm flattered. If I'm also lucky, maybe this will have a shot at being a movie. Personally, I think that Dylan Hunter could be the next Jason Bourne franchise.
I might also add that I really love how you flesh out your strong male and female characters.
Thank you! I really worked at that. You know, in most thrillers written by male authors, the women are treated superficially, as afterthoughts. They are "eye candy," or put there simply as the hero's object of occasional lust.
HUNTER is different. The romantic relationship, and the conflicts that arise from it, are central to the story; they are every bit as important as the external perils, and they are integrated into that thriller plot. I tried to get under the skins of two people falling head-over-heels in love with each other -- something like "The Thomas Crown Affair," only with a huge set of moral conflicts and a terrifying, looming external threat, too. This allows the story to have a psychological and emotional richness that is unusual for a male-authored thriller, I think. At least, the book seems to have attracted as many women readers as men.
HUNTER is different. The romantic relationship, and the conflicts that arise from it, are central to the story; they are every bit as important as the external perils, and they are integrated into that thriller plot. I tried to get under the skins of two people falling head-over-heels in love with each other -- something like "The Thomas Crown Affair," only with a huge set of moral conflicts and a terrifying, looming external threat, too. This allows the story to have a psychological and emotional richness that is unusual for a male-authored thriller, I think. At least, the book seems to have attracted as many women readers as men.
The only reason we know one another is through that strange Ayn Rand connection. We were on the forums for years together and you were one of the only "voices of reason," so to say. I have a great difficulty addressing that crowd, but I do remain on Mike Kelly's site. I almost don't want to go there, and they are talking about you; anxious and quietly enjoying your success, I guess I would say. If you were to say anything about this, I would enjoy hearing it.
Let me talk about the relationship of HUNTER to Objectivism in two ways: first, in terms of its basic themes, and second, in terms of the response to it by Objectivists, at least to date.
HUNTER has been described as "a thinking man's thriller." I'll buy that. Anyone who knows me also knows that I would be incapable of writing a novel without having my own worldview at its heart. By which I mean my values, my conviction that the universe is objectively knowable, that individuals should be governed by reason, and that justice is the moral principle that should express these premises in social relationships.
HUNTER is a "vigilante thriller" that dramatizes the meaning of the principle of justice. It draws upon my years of writing about the criminal justice system, and about the "Excuse-Making Industry" of intellectuals who have completely undermined and corrupted its focus on justice. It deals, in an entertaining way, with fundamental moral issues and personal conflicts about honesty, trust, justice, free will, romantic love, and much else. Individual Objectivists who have read the book have been among its biggest, most enthusiastic champions.
That said, the response from the "organized Objectivist movement" and its organs -- such as it is, and such as they are -- has been the sound of crickets chirping. You say they are "quietly enjoying my success," but I wouldn't know, because you'd have to put all the emphasis on the word "quietly." I have no knowledge of any reviews of the book in the publications, websites, or blogs of Objectivist groups.
HUNTER has been described as "a thinking man's thriller." I'll buy that. Anyone who knows me also knows that I would be incapable of writing a novel without having my own worldview at its heart. By which I mean my values, my conviction that the universe is objectively knowable, that individuals should be governed by reason, and that justice is the moral principle that should express these premises in social relationships.
HUNTER is a "vigilante thriller" that dramatizes the meaning of the principle of justice. It draws upon my years of writing about the criminal justice system, and about the "Excuse-Making Industry" of intellectuals who have completely undermined and corrupted its focus on justice. It deals, in an entertaining way, with fundamental moral issues and personal conflicts about honesty, trust, justice, free will, romantic love, and much else. Individual Objectivists who have read the book have been among its biggest, most enthusiastic champions.
That said, the response from the "organized Objectivist movement" and its organs -- such as it is, and such as they are -- has been the sound of crickets chirping. You say they are "quietly enjoying my success," but I wouldn't know, because you'd have to put all the emphasis on the word "quietly." I have no knowledge of any reviews of the book in the publications, websites, or blogs of Objectivist groups.
It mildly amuses me, because for all their laments about the lack of "Objectivist art," here you have a novel come along, written by a guy who used to be prominent within Objectivist circles, and it is getting a great deal of attention...but not from them. HUNTER is customer-ranked #1 on Kindle's lists of "Thrillers," "Romantic Suspense," and "Spy Stories & Tales of Intrigue." Today it has been in the Top 50 bestsellers in the "Spy Stories" category, among all titles on the Kindle; it's ahead of titles by Clancy, Cussler, Silva, Hunter, DeMille -- the masters of the genre. But the Objectivist response? Silence.
The best response it's getting has come from conservatives.
The best response it's getting has come from conservatives.
How is your lovely wife? Any comments on your future work? Oh, and also, what kind of music do you listen to these days?
This was by far the most difficult project I've ever undertaken. The complexity of the writing—especially the integration of all the elements of the characters, backgrounds, settings, plus all the stuff I had to research about spycraft, weapons, vehicles, locales— was almost overwhelming.
During the past year, when I made up my mind to finish this long-simmering project, it was quite an ordeal for my dear wife to endure. She let me pursue my lifelong dream of writing fiction, at a time that is challenging for us, and I'm grateful.
Given the response from readers, I'm encouraged to continue the adventures of Dylan Hunter in a number of sequels. If you read the customer reviews on Amazon, you'll see that fans will kill me if I don't!
I listen to a wide range of music: everything from classical and mainstream jazz (I love "the standards" and their iconic performers) to ZZ Top. Depends on the mood.
During the past year, when I made up my mind to finish this long-simmering project, it was quite an ordeal for my dear wife to endure. She let me pursue my lifelong dream of writing fiction, at a time that is challenging for us, and I'm grateful.
Given the response from readers, I'm encouraged to continue the adventures of Dylan Hunter in a number of sequels. If you read the customer reviews on Amazon, you'll see that fans will kill me if I don't!
I listen to a wide range of music: everything from classical and mainstream jazz (I love "the standards" and their iconic performers) to ZZ Top. Depends on the mood.
Any parting thoughts? Something to throw into the vast ocean of those who will read this?
Given that many of your readers will be Objectivists, I think I would like to mention an interesting fact.
One of the great surprises I've experienced in the aftermath of HUNTER's publication is the enthusiastic response from devout Christian conservatives. I'm talking about fundamentalist Christians. Now, beforehand, I would have thought that the hero's anti-mercy, take-no-prisoners, "Old Testament"-style focus on retribution—and the fact that some core "New Testament" values are criticized explicitly in the book—would have upset them and made them hostile. Same goes for the sexually charged romantic scenes.
But no. I've gotten a better response from fundamentalist, conservative Christians than I have from almost any other demographic group. This certainly undermines the caricature of such people commonly held by atheists, liberals, and, yes, Objectivists. My hypothesis is that conservative Christians are less enamored of religious theology than they are filled with hostility toward a world sinking into moral relativism.
HUNTER is the antithesis of moral relativism...and they love it! I think anyone who holds a similar view will love it, too.
One of the great surprises I've experienced in the aftermath of HUNTER's publication is the enthusiastic response from devout Christian conservatives. I'm talking about fundamentalist Christians. Now, beforehand, I would have thought that the hero's anti-mercy, take-no-prisoners, "Old Testament"-style focus on retribution—and the fact that some core "New Testament" values are criticized explicitly in the book—would have upset them and made them hostile. Same goes for the sexually charged romantic scenes.
But no. I've gotten a better response from fundamentalist, conservative Christians than I have from almost any other demographic group. This certainly undermines the caricature of such people commonly held by atheists, liberals, and, yes, Objectivists. My hypothesis is that conservative Christians are less enamored of religious theology than they are filled with hostility toward a world sinking into moral relativism.
HUNTER is the antithesis of moral relativism...and they love it! I think anyone who holds a similar view will love it, too.
Thanks, Rich, for this opportunity to talk about my debut thriller.
Hey, Rich,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for great questions that made for a good interview. I appreciate it very much.
Dylan sends his regards, too.
;^ )
--Robert