Episode 216 - Learning from Our Readers and Our Characters with Frank Zafiro
December 12, 2023
Are you getting value from the podcast? Consider supporting me on Patreon or through Buy Me a Coffee!
Frank Zafiro discusses LEARNING FROM OUR READERS AND OUR CHARACTERS, including what writers can learn from a negative review (not to be confused with a bad review); tips for crafting realistic dialogue (it’s not a transcript); allowing a long-running series to evolve; the dynamics of an ensemble cast; and how to position a first book in a series as your craft skills grow with subsequent books.
If one of those topics piques your interest, you can easily jump to that section on YouTube by clicking on the flagged timestamps in the description.
If one of those topics piques your interest, you can easily jump to that section on YouTube by clicking on the flagged timestamps in the description.
"I think you've got to be careful going down that rabbit hole of, I'm going to go fix things because, what do they say, a piece of art is never finished. It's just released. A book is never done. It's just published. You could go back and preen and polish till the cows come home and you might feel better about it from an obsessive compulsive standpoint, but isn't the point to tell new stories?" —Frank Zafiro
Frank Zafiro writes gritty crime fiction from both sides of the badge. He was a police officer from 1993 to 2013, serving as a patrol officer, a training officer, and a detective, and leading K-9 and SWAT units. He retired as a captain. Frank is the award-winning author of over forty novels, including the River City series of police procedurals, and co-author of the Charlie-316 series. Frank also hosted the crime fiction podcast Wrong Place, Write Crime. He has written a textbook on police report writing and taught police leadership all over the US and Canada. An avid hockey fan and a tortured guitarist, he lives in the high desert of Redmond, Oregon.
Links
Frank's Links:
Author website: http://frankzafiro.com
Facebook profile: https://www.facebook.com/FrankZafiroAuthor/
Instagram profile: https://www.instagram.com/frankzafiro370/
LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/frank-scalise-3b252252/
BookBub profile: https://www.bookbub.com/authors/frank-zafiro
Matty's Links:
Affiliate links
Events
Author website: http://frankzafiro.com
Facebook profile: https://www.facebook.com/FrankZafiroAuthor/
Instagram profile: https://www.instagram.com/frankzafiro370/
LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/frank-scalise-3b252252/
BookBub profile: https://www.bookbub.com/authors/frank-zafiro
Matty's Links:
Affiliate links
Events
I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Frank! We covered a lot of ground--which part of our discussion most resonated with you, and why?
Please post your comments on YouTube--and I'd love it if you would subscribe while you're there!
Are you getting value from the podcast? Consider supporting me on Patreon or through Buy Me a Coffee!
AI-generated Summary
Every writer embarks on a creative journey destined to teach them something new. In conversation with the noted crime fiction writer, Frank Zafiro, we explored those enlightening lessons that he picked up during the process of creating his latest book, ‘All the Forgotten Yesterdays’.
Frank Zafiro's Writing Voyage
For Frank, the act of writing isn't merely a creative endeavor - it's an opportunity to teach and learn simultaneously. With his highly successful 'River City' series, Zafiro stepped into the role of a seasoned crime fiction writer who mirrors his character's morality, struggles, and growth on real-life happenings and experiences.
Learning from the Critics
While 'All the Forgotten Yesterdays' is the 14th book in Zafiro's series, the seeds of inspiration can be traced back to his very first book in the series, ‘Under a Raging Moon'. Interestingly, it was a negative review on his debut book that fuelled his motive to write the latest installment. This review was not inaccurate or spiteful; it was thoughtful, measured, and full of insightful criticism.
Utilizing Criticism as Creative Fuel
The review in question was critical of the controversial actions of the police officer characters in the novel and even labeled the climactic event as 'murder'. This critique made Zafiro reevaluate his own work, and he realized the potentially alternative ways his book's events could be viewed.
This profound insight was later incorporated in 'All the Forgotten Yesterdays', where the protagonist Katie ends up facing a similar criticism as she investigates an important case. This intriguing shift in perspective and narrative was a direct result of the insight gained from the previously mentioned review - a clear testament to the power of constructive criticism not as a setback, but as an inspiration for growth and evolution.
Charting Character Evolution in Long-Running Series
Zafiro also shared valuable insights into the evolution of characters and their roles within a long-running series. By embracing changes in roles, power dynamics, and relationships between ensemble characters, he believes writers can create more engaging and resonant narratives.
The character arc of Katie McLeod, who transitioned from a patrol officer to a significant lead character, perfectly encapsulates this approach. The evolution doesn't stop there - as life changes, so do characters. Zafiro reveals plans for future books where Katie’s role will become secondary as she moves into positions less involved with active crime-solving.
Staying True to One's Work
Zafiro’s openness about the varying quality of work throughout a writer’s career was refreshing. He acknowledged the craft improvement between his earliest and most recent work. He also discussed the common writer’s dilemma - whether to “fix” or revise previously published works to match their current writing quality.
Despite the temptation to revise his first book, Zafiro opted to allow it to stand as a testament to his growth as a writer and respect the printed copy as a product of its time and his evolution.
In Conclusion
Frank Zafiro’s approach to accepting criticism and embracing character evolution within his long-standing series speaks to his flexibility and growth-oriented mindset as a writer. It provides important lessons for any writer, particularly those juggling long-running series. Recognizing that characters should evolve and undergo transitions, just like real people, can make for compelling storytelling and allow a series to breathe, grow, and remain engaging to its readers.
Moreover, his acceptance of thoughtful negative reviews as a source of inspiration rather than unwanted criticism sheds light on the importance of seeing the value in every feedback and turning potential setbacks into creative opportunities.
Frank Zafiro’s journey underscores the importance of learning from every external comment and impression, internal impulse, and unexpected character development in the writing process. As he rightly puts it, a book - just like an author’s growth - is never finished, but merely published and open for evolution.
Frank Zafiro's Writing Voyage
For Frank, the act of writing isn't merely a creative endeavor - it's an opportunity to teach and learn simultaneously. With his highly successful 'River City' series, Zafiro stepped into the role of a seasoned crime fiction writer who mirrors his character's morality, struggles, and growth on real-life happenings and experiences.
Learning from the Critics
While 'All the Forgotten Yesterdays' is the 14th book in Zafiro's series, the seeds of inspiration can be traced back to his very first book in the series, ‘Under a Raging Moon'. Interestingly, it was a negative review on his debut book that fuelled his motive to write the latest installment. This review was not inaccurate or spiteful; it was thoughtful, measured, and full of insightful criticism.
Utilizing Criticism as Creative Fuel
The review in question was critical of the controversial actions of the police officer characters in the novel and even labeled the climactic event as 'murder'. This critique made Zafiro reevaluate his own work, and he realized the potentially alternative ways his book's events could be viewed.
This profound insight was later incorporated in 'All the Forgotten Yesterdays', where the protagonist Katie ends up facing a similar criticism as she investigates an important case. This intriguing shift in perspective and narrative was a direct result of the insight gained from the previously mentioned review - a clear testament to the power of constructive criticism not as a setback, but as an inspiration for growth and evolution.
Charting Character Evolution in Long-Running Series
Zafiro also shared valuable insights into the evolution of characters and their roles within a long-running series. By embracing changes in roles, power dynamics, and relationships between ensemble characters, he believes writers can create more engaging and resonant narratives.
The character arc of Katie McLeod, who transitioned from a patrol officer to a significant lead character, perfectly encapsulates this approach. The evolution doesn't stop there - as life changes, so do characters. Zafiro reveals plans for future books where Katie’s role will become secondary as she moves into positions less involved with active crime-solving.
Staying True to One's Work
Zafiro’s openness about the varying quality of work throughout a writer’s career was refreshing. He acknowledged the craft improvement between his earliest and most recent work. He also discussed the common writer’s dilemma - whether to “fix” or revise previously published works to match their current writing quality.
Despite the temptation to revise his first book, Zafiro opted to allow it to stand as a testament to his growth as a writer and respect the printed copy as a product of its time and his evolution.
In Conclusion
Frank Zafiro’s approach to accepting criticism and embracing character evolution within his long-standing series speaks to his flexibility and growth-oriented mindset as a writer. It provides important lessons for any writer, particularly those juggling long-running series. Recognizing that characters should evolve and undergo transitions, just like real people, can make for compelling storytelling and allow a series to breathe, grow, and remain engaging to its readers.
Moreover, his acceptance of thoughtful negative reviews as a source of inspiration rather than unwanted criticism sheds light on the importance of seeing the value in every feedback and turning potential setbacks into creative opportunities.
Frank Zafiro’s journey underscores the importance of learning from every external comment and impression, internal impulse, and unexpected character development in the writing process. As he rightly puts it, a book - just like an author’s growth - is never finished, but merely published and open for evolution.
Transcript
216 Frank Zafiro Transcript v2
[00:00:00] Matty: Hello, fellow book lovers, both readers and writers. I'm Matty Dalrymple. I write the Ann Kinnear suspense novels and suspense shorts, and the Lizzy Ballard thrillers. I also write, speak, podcast, and consult on the writing craft and the publishing voyage as The Indy Author. This is my video series, What I Learned, where I ask authors two questions related to their latest book.
What did they learn from that book that they'd like to share with their fellow writers? And what did they learn from their latest book that they'd like to share with their fellow readers? I am here today with Frank Zafiro. Hey, Frank, how are you doing?
[00:00:30] Frank: Are you, Matty?
[00:00:31] Matty: I'm doing great. Thank you. To give our viewers a little bit of background on you, Frank Zafiro writes gritty crime fiction for both sides of the badge. He's a retired police officer. In fact, he was my guest on The Indy Author Podcast to discuss mistakes writers make about police roles and how to avoid them. His latest book is All the Forgotten Yesterdays. Today, I am asking Frank the two What I Learned questions about All the Forgotten Yesterdays, starting with what did you learn that you would like to share with your fellow writers?
A negative review can be an inspiration
[00:00:59] Frank: Well, I think the lesson I learned was, a lesson I learned actually before I even started writing the book, and that is that a negative review can be an inspiration. To give you the short version of what happened, I came across a, I think it was a three-star review on my first River City book. This current one is the 14th, Under a Raging Moon, and the review was not a bad review, which I would say is a review that just isn't accurate at all.
I mean, It might not even be about your book or it just doesn't, you know, worst book ever, you know, these are bad reviews. They don't do anybody any good, but a negative review can, you know, say negative things, critical things about your book, but it's thoughtful. It's considered, it informs the person reading the review as to whether they might want to try this book or stay away from it. And this negative review was written by someone who actually was complimentary of the writing itself but took issue with plot points, and not from a, like, plot hole standpoint, but it was a police procedural, of course, and the issue they took was with the things the police did, many of which were, I think, incorrectly labeled.
They talked about profiling and what was going on was not profiling, but I could understand why they would fall into thinking it was. But I, you know, so I read through that and it was one of those things where, well, this person's not very pro-police, but at least they're honest about what they're thinking and their opinions are sound and logical internally. They're not just, you know, cuckoo or anything.
Then I got to the final piece of critical statements that this reviewer made, and they took issue with the climactic event of the book. Now, I don't necessarily want to give it away, but it involves a clash between the main antagonist and one of the policed protagonists. The River City series is kind of an ensemble cast, so it's not always the same main character. Sometimes it's the main main, and then some secondary ones that get a fair amount of screen time as well. And this reviewer said, essentially, that, that wasn't justice, that wasn't legal, that was basically murder.
It stopped me in my tracks when I read that because I wrote this book in 1995 as a two-year officer, and it kind of sat on a shelf for a few years till I came back around to writing fiction again in the 2003, 2004 timeframe. And by that time, you know, the bones of that first draft are still what are in the book.
That was eventually published. At that time, I looked at all the events of the book more as almost historical, opposed to through a critical creation. Like you do with a work in progress. I never really framed the events any other way than the way the characters framed them. When this review came out, I looked at it and sat back, taking a look at the situation through what I hoped were close to the reviewer's eyes.
I realized, you know, taken from a certain point of view, that's not an unsound argument. There's some meat on that bone. No one else has ever pointed it out. So I think most readers believe what happened was justice in a fictional world. But the reviewer had a point, and again, this was a three-star review. It was like basically one star for what the cops did in this book, four or five stars for the writing of it, that it was well executed. I had to admire this person for taking the time to write a review that was thought out and logical and made their point, rather than just the two or three words you're lucky to get with a one-star review. It got me thinking and reframing that event a bit.
I wrote it in 1995. It was published in 2006. This was 20, a year ago. So quite a lot of time had passed. Ultimately, I took that realization and thought process and worked it into All the Forgotten Yesterdays. In the book, one of Katie's investigations takes her to a very interesting place. She confronts someone not very well-liked in the series at all. This person fires back at her about her hero, the protagonist involved in that first book event that the reviewer took issue with, reframing it in essentially the same way that the reviewer did, making a lot of the same points. Katie is resistant to it and doesn't accept it, but it's left a little unresolved. It'll play out over the next two or three books while she can't get that bug out of her ear, particularly as her perspective changes because her job changes.
The lesson I learned was that someone can be critical of your work, make a good point, and there's no reason why you can't embrace it. That was the climactic event of the first book. It was the big moment, and there's some sanctity to that in most cases. Somebody reframed it, and they made a good point. They made a good point with their reframing. Instead of getting frustrated, mad, or ignoring it, I decided to embrace it and use it. It's going to have a fair amount of impact on the series arc over the next two or three books.
[00:06:56] Matty: That's so fascinating. Do you know if the person who wrote that review has continued to follow you or read your books and would maybe happen upon this video? It would be super fun for that person, I think, to see this video.
[00:07:14] Frank: Yeah, that would be awesome. It would be awesome. You know, the weird thing, the Amazon algorithm is strange with reviews, as you well know." I went back and tried to find the review. I ruminated on this. First, I simmered on it briefly.
And then I was like, wait a minute. This is just like any other feedback. If I gave you my book and said, "Tell me what you think of this draft," why am I getting mad? Or I wasn't mad, but why am I being negative about it? It was quite a lot of time that had passed before I was like, you know, I'm going to go back and make sure I'm getting all the points the person made. If I'm going to use this, let's use it. I could not find the review again when I went through looking for it. I went way back, you know, because I thought maybe I just didn't notice it. It was a much older review or something like that, and I could not find it.
I'm going to make another attempt in case it's popped back up because I would be curious if, you know, did they pick up that first book? They read it through to the end, obviously. They liked the writing; they just didn't like the events. That's a candidate for somebody who might continue with the series, and I, you know, I mean, I'm biased, of course, but I would like to think that maybe there would, they would come around a little bit on some of the characters because of the things that happen to them and the choices that they make. They're essentially noble, admirable people. They just make mistakes. Or to see a video like this and go, huh, yeah, I'm going to shoot him an email because that was me. Where's my royalty check?
[00:08:47] Matty: Well, I think that we sort of touched on this idea of accepting input on one's work in some of our earlier conversations. And Frank, I think you're sort of like the poster child for the healthy way of handling it. As you said, you had to simmer on it for a little bit, but I do think it's sort of generalizing. It's a good lesson for writers to learn that if someone says, you know, hate the book, I didn't even read it, then you can just ignore them. Because that says more about the I'm not a bigger writer of the review than it does the writer of the book. But if you can bring yourself to look for those negative reviews that are thoughtful, as you're describing, it can be a learning experience.
[00:09:29] Frank: You're so right. You're so right. And there are trolls out there that, you know, I have a friend who's got somebody out there who just almost like a vulture just waits to swoop in and leave a one-star review with a pithy, useless comment and it, and especially when the book first comes out, you know, if there aren't many reviews, it really tanks the overall star rating.
But Kevin Tipple is an independent reviewer. He's the one who got me thinking in terms of a difference between a negative review and a bad review. And he described it the way, you know, I described how he described it, you know. A bad review is just... They say bad things and doesn't, there's no substance to it, or they say nothing, but a negative review can still be a positive experience for definitely the reader because, you know, just because I leave a negative review for something, "Oh, there's too much fishing in this book." Well, maybe you love fishing.
[00:10:25] Matty: Well, I do think the reviewer you're describing is a perfect example of that because I can imagine a lot of people reading that review and saying, oh, that's really interesting. I want, now I want to read that scene and I want to think for myself about, you know, my own interpretation of it. Or, you know, if someone says, if you have too much sex in the book, then you're going to sell a whole bunch of books to people who are looking for books with a lot of sex.
Factoring reviews into your craft
[00:10:48] Frank: Yeah, yeah, exactly, and, you know, anybody who says they don't read the reviews, I've said it before, they're lying. Everybody does. But, I think the point that I take from what you said and that I try to employ is you're looking for trends, you know, if you're getting a lot of low reviews and people are mentioning a certain element, well, you may have blown that element, and you know, you, I guess you could pull the book and fix it, but, you know, more to the point in your next book, you're going to make sure not to make that same mistake.
And the same is true with positive stuff! If people are loving your characters then you can, you know, kind of rest assured that you've written some vibrant characters and you want to keep doing what you're doing.
[00:11:31] Matty: Yeah, I had, the example of that for me is my first book, The Sense of Death. It had a sweary character in it, and when I wrote it, I had no idea who I was writing it for, but I saw that the trend in my reviews was a lot of people said, I really like the book, but yeah, I thought that there was excessive profanity, and I went back and I looked, and I was like, you know, they're kind of right, like, he doesn't have to swear quite that much, and I think I reduced the dropping of the F bomb from like 17 to 9 or something like that, with no loss of Like, creative, control over the situation, but the other thing I'm thinking of that is, I think, a good tip for writers is, I wouldn't just happen upon...
Bad reviews. Like, I often go, and look for good reviews if I'm doing, like, ads, and I'm looking for pull quotes from good reviews. And that's always fun. You know, you go look for the five-star ones, and you pat yourself on the back.
But I think that it's better if you're going to be looking at reviews across the board.To look for those kind of trends that you're talking about, then it's kind of nice to go into it intentionally and knowing that you're kind of in a place where you can read those things with a sort of frame of mind that you're describing. Not just, like, accidentally see them and maybe you're not in a mental place where you should be reading that kind of thing at the moment.
[00:12:49] Frank: I actually have a funny story about... swearing and you can cut this out. It might probably make us go too long. But when I wrote Under a Raging Moon, I tried to be very clear or very, true to, to dialogue. And dialogue is what was, has always been one of my strengths. And so I wrote the way cops talk, you know, and spoiler alert, but they talk like sailors. And so, A lot of the early readers, both professional and just lay people commented on that. Wow, there's a lot of swearing here. There's too much swearing in here. And I resisted it at first, but ultimately, I thought, you know, they've got a point here.
And so I went through, and I called out probably 70% of the profanity, and actually probably close to 90%, if you include softening some of the terms. Either cutting them out entirely, making them not a profanity, or softening them, or just saying, you know, Matty cursed into her hand quietly or something. So the book is published and it's out there. Some years later, I got another, I guess negative review, maybe a bad review, I don't know, you decide. The person wrote, "Too much swearing in this book, every other word, and yes, I don't care if you think that's how cops really talk." So I just, I had to laugh because on two points, you know, I mean, I think I know how cops actually talk was the biggest one, but then I remembered how much I cut out. So, you know, swearing is a thing.
[00:14:20] Matty: Yeah.
[00:14:21] Frank: Yeah, their head would have exploded.
Crafting realistic dialogue (not a transcript)
[00:14:24] Matty: Well, I think that's another good, the more we talk, the more I'm thinking this is turning into a podcast episode because I think the information you're sharing about what writers can learn is so great. And the other thing I'm realizing, apropos of dialogue, is that realistic dialogue isn't necessarily, and I'm not suggesting that you're suggesting it is, but it's not necessarily you turn on the recorder, you record The Room Full of Cops or whatever, and then you transcribe it that. You know, you might have a conversation where in reality it would be perfectly reasonable for those characters to drop 17 F-bombs, but you only need a couple to sort of convey the message. Gestalt of the situation.
[00:15:06] Frank: Yeah, it's like spice, really. I mean, if you put too much pepper, all you taste is the pepper, right? And so, and you're right, I mean, dialogue is meant to be an approximation of how people really talk, but it's much more concise, and, you know, characters don't interrupt each other nearly as much as we do in real life, and there's more direction to dialogue in fiction, whereas people wander in real life, you know, they go off on tangents and leave the path of the intended discussion and so forth. So, you make a great point, you make an excellent point there.
[00:15:41] Matty: Yeah. What I find in subsequent sweeps through my books on edits is that I'll shorten up the back and forth. So in an early draft, I might have, "I'm going to the store. Why are you doing that? Because I need to talk to Joe." And then it will become, "I'm going to the store because I need to talk to Joe," because the back and forth is just might it be realistic? Sure. But is it worth the extra line? Probably not. It's, you know, it's choppier than it needs to be, or it's more obtuse than it needs to be, or something like that.
[00:16:18] Frank: I wish I did that better. That's one that I've noticed when other people edit my work, whether it's an editor for a short story that they're publishing an anthology or something, those are the corrections that sometimes get made, and I'm like, oh yeah, that's tighter, you know, nine out of ten times I like it better.
You know, there are times where you want that response because you're slipping something in with it, either a characterization or a little. A little bit of a plot point there that, or a red herring or something, but nine out of ten times I think it's tighter, so that's, I'm glad you're on it because I'm certainly not.
Allowing a long-running series to evolve
[00:16:59] Matty: Well, let's address the other question, the other, "What I Learned" question, which is, what did you learn from All the Forgotten Yesterdays that you would like to share with your fellow readers?
[00:17:08] Frank: For the reader lesson that I learned, I think it's about allowing a long-running series to evolve, to breathe, that characters can come and go, especially if it's an ensemble cast, but even if it's a main character thing, then a lot of the secondary characters could be the ones to come and go.
And, you know, the main character of this book is no surprise, Katie McLeod; she's been a central character to the series since, well, for the entire series, but certainly by the third book, she became the core character. But, as time has gone on, I've tried to give some oxygen to other characters and some page time, explore a few other stories and go down a few side streets while still having her as the main character, most of the time.
And what I've come to realize is, you know, life is never static. It always changes, and so Katie is experiencing changes. She's gone from being a patrol officer on graveyard to a day shift officer to becoming a detective to becoming a major crimes detective. And when this book opens, she's taking the exam for promotion to sergeant. So her, you know, and she's gone from being involved with a fellow police officer to being kind of serially single, to being involved in a steady relationship for several years with an emergency room doctor, and, you know, these are all changes.
And if you think about it, those don't sound like radical changes in a real person's life. I mean, those sound like what happened to somebody over a decade or a decade and a half. But I realized as time has gone on that, you know, Katie's role will diminish somewhat in the coming books. Not go away, and not for a couple of books. But as her career progresses, she's going to be in some positions where I would be making one of those mistakes that we talked about on a previous podcast together, by having her do things in that role that people in that role don't do. You know, she won't be a detective anymore, so having her go out and solve crimes doesn't make sense.
And so it's time for the next generation, if you will, to step into that role and to have some face time and to, to get some time as the main or core characters, as we move on. And, you know, as this series has progressed, people have retired, people have, people died, you know, people have left the job for other reasons than retirement. Things have changed, and the one thing I've never really let change up, up till recently is, you know, I've clung to Katie because she's my favorite character. She's the core character, and it's hard to think about letting her become a secondary or tertiary character. And we're talking seven, eight books from now when we get to the tertiary stage, but still, I mean, it's difficult emotionally. But I think it's true to the series. I mean, it's an ensemble series, and people's roles change and who's doing what changes. And I think I need to stay true to that.
So for instance, in the previous book, Katie was in, the worst kind of truth. It was 100% from her point of view, third person. But from her point of view, that was Book 11. And Book 12 was a different book entirely. It was all about Tom Chisholm. It was away from the main River City storyline. And then 13 was a short story collection in which I don't think Katie was even in any of the stories. So this Book 14 is really the first novel that's back to the mainline events.
And in this book, she's probably 70 percent of the main perspective, the main POV, and there are two or three characters that share the other 30%. This is a trend that will continue as the next several books play out. She'll probably be roughly 60–70 percent for the next two or so, maybe three, and then her role will diminish. She'll always have a role no matter where she is because she's Katie in that, and she, you know, she is the iconic character of the series, but that's the path that I'm presently on, and it's a difficult one, so, if it's difficult for me, it might be difficult for readers who are attached to these characters as well. That's the lesson that I'm learning.
[00:22:10] Matty: Yeah, this is going to be a really interesting conversation paired with podcast episode 210 with Sara Rosett on creating compelling series. And one of the conversations we had was about how do you make those kinds of evolutions either strictly for story reasons or because you're getting bored or because readers are getting bored or whatever. And it is interesting to hear about somebody who has such a sort of long-term view of where you're taking the series and the considerations, like a very sort of scientific step down of that character's involvement. Did you ever think about actually ending that, the Katie series, and then officially spinning up a separate one that might be one of the other characters, or have you always thought of it as it's a world and you're just continuing that world with a shifting cast of characters?
The dynamics of an ensemble cast
[00:23:03] Frank: Yeah, the latter. It's always been, you know, an ensemble cast was always the vision for this. Initially, it was a four-book series is all I had in mind. I had the titles, and I had an arc for the four books, and it changed a bit as time went on, and ultimately the fourth book radically changed. Nothing except the title remained from the original concept, and the character that I drew up early on as kind of one of the main characters, Stefan Kopriva, we talked about him on a different podcast. He ended up leaving the job after the second book, spoiler alert, and I thought he was going to be the main character of the series, and it ultimately became Katie.
And that, you know, that's the interesting dichotomy in that I'm sitting here today, and I have a long-term plan for the universe of River City and these characters, but at the same time, they surprised me. I mean, they surprised me in what happened with Kopriva, and Katie's emergence as the core, this stuff that we talked about here with how she's viewing Chisholm differently, or at least an event that occurred with Chisholm differently, because somebody reframed it, characters that I didn't realize were going to retire or be together or, you know, die, get killed. I mean, these things, they're still surprises no matter how much you plan. And so that's kind of the fun of it is, yeah, okay, maybe this is going to happen with Katie. She's going to go into this role or that role, but there may be some surprising things that happen during that time and other characters that. You know, are playing smaller roles now will have larger roles. I mean, it's not like I'm just going to suddenly have Dudley Do-Right show up and be the main character. I mean, it's just going to be characters who already have roles will just take on slightly larger roles. And that's, you know, to me, that's what a true ensemble show does.
Ensemble Cast Dynamics
I mean, if you think of NYPD Blue as an example, you know, David Caruso was the star of that. After two seasons, he left. And then they brought in Jimmy Smits and he was arguably the star of that. Then he left and they brought in Rick Schroeder, you know, and then he and Dennis France kind of shared the spotlight, and then Schroeder left. By the time they brought in his last partner, Sipowicz, a Dennis Frantz character, had become the main character of that series, and really was for the remainder of the series.
Now when you go back and watch those episodes, it's hard not to watch them without an eye towards that eventual, you know, development of him being the main character. And so, that's kind of what I've always liked about the idea of an ensemble cast, is it can ebb and flow, and people can come and go, and things can happen and surprise you, and yet you can still at least have a compass direction that you're taking the series.
Evolution of Characters: A Benefit of Ensemble Casts
[00:25:47] Matty: The Sipowetz example is a great one because that is a character that I think viewers would have had to have grown into accepting as a main character because, as I recall, he was pretty unpleasant, and it was only over time, I think he became somewhat less unpleasant probably as the writers sort of understood the potential they had there. Also, the more you knew him, the more empathetic and sympathetic a character he became.
And so that's another benefit of an ensemble cast is you have that time to, both for yourself and for other people, to understand the characters at a much deeper level and have the readers accept them in a way they might not have accepted them if you sort of, you know, shoved that character into the leading role right to begin with. Like, I don't know that show would have survived if they had just teed up Sipowitz as the primary guy.
[00:26:40] Frank: A fat bald guy in the lead in 1993 or whatever it was, I mean, I don't think so.
[00:26:48] Matty: And an unpleasant bald guy, too.
[00:26:51] Frank: An anti-hero.
[00:26:53] Matty: yes, very much an antihero.
[00:26:56] Frank: Yeah. NYPD. Blue. Now that I think about it is really very much the story of the redemption of Andy Sipowitz. I mean, if you look at it, it's just that he's not the main character in that story for a while. At least in terms of screen time, but that's really what it's about. And if you recall, at the end of that series, he becomes a sergeant. He moves into a leadership role. So his, you know, everything changes right now. He's the one doing the leading and someone else is going to be doing the investigating. And so you, you have some of that evolution of life roles that takes place, and I've always admired that kind of storytelling in ensemble stories and have really wanted to represent it in my own series.
Positioning a First Book as Your Craft Skills Grow
[00:27:42] Matty: Well, obviously, we've gone so far off the rails with the, theoretical, what I learned thing. so, I'm going to ask one more question, unrelated to the questions I teed up for you, which is, I think a lot of people who've been writing a long time, look back at their first book. And hopefully they're proud of it, but maybe sometimes they think, oh, is that really the book I want to be sending readers to? Because, you know, if you've been writing for 5, 10, 15, 20, however many years, then, you know, your craft improves. And so, one assumes that your most recent, that one's most recent book is better than one's first book. But when you're writing the kind of series that you're writing, where there's this overarching story arc and the evolution of the characters, you probably don't expect your readers to be dipping in and out at different points. Do you still like to send readers to, the first book so they can read through in and experience the evolution of these characters in order?
[00:28:36] Frank: It's usually my recommendation. Any of the books can stand alone, and I'll tell people that. It's true, but I think you get more impactful enjoyment out of certain scenes if the weight of the cumulative events that preceded it is present for you. A good example might be in The Worst Kind of Truth; there's a wedding near the very beginning of the book and a retirement near the end of the book. They're kind of the bookend events of the worst kind of truth. The wedding is a culmination of a longstanding relationship that began in the shadow of a very untimely and sad death. So there's guilt associated with it, and it's just been a long time coming. If you read those scenes, you might pick up on what's going on, and it might be like, wow, this is kind of tense or this is kind of a beautiful thing.
But if you read the previous nine installments of the series to that point, you might be in tears. You might be crying at that wedding. I certainly very nearly was. I would send people back to the beginning. The danger of that is exactly what you said, Matty; if somebody asks me what's your worst book craft-wise, it's an easy answer. It's the first one, not only because it was the first one that was ever published, but you can still see the bones of that 1995 draft in there. Even in 2006, I was a better writer than I was in 1995. Certainly in 2023, I hope I'm better at it.
It's a mixed bag. You want them to start at the beginning for that sort of stick with the family and get the entire history of the family, sort of experience, but you're sending them to what is arguably your weakest book in terms of writing craft. I don't know the answer to that. I've been tempted, like I think many writers have in this digital age; it wouldn't take much to completely rewrite the book and republish it. You know, this is the book, you know, just feels dishonest, though. It's a product of its time. That was who I was when I wrote that book. That's who those characters were. That's how I saw them. That was the energy associated with it, and it feels untrue to go back and completely redo it, at least, and then represent it as the first book.
Maybe a special edition, available only through my direct sell store or something like that, where, you know, here's an alternative universe if I had waited another 20 years, what this book might have looked like.
[00:31:31] Matty: The question would be, do you just go through and tidy up the craft parts like a copy edit? I guess that's the question. You might look at it and say, oh, if I were going to return to it, it would be like a developmental edit. And yet you could return to it and have it be more like a copyedit where you're applying the line-by-line craft improvements you've experienced but maybe not taking down the whole structure of it.
[00:31:45] Frank: Yeah, I think copyedit stuff, I think it's okay to return to stuff that you've written in the past and fix outright typos or errors. I have a proofreader who is hell on that, kills so many "that's." She literally kills so many "that's" that I have to fight to keep some of them. I have to be very careful because occasionally the "that" that is being killed actually creates a problem with the logic of the sentence. It's a good point that we all have these tics, and copyediting, that's a gray area. I think it's okay to clean something up.
We live in a digital age, and that's the advantage of it. But a developmental edit would be something different. I've actually been toying with the idea, though. The book was out in 2006, so it'll have its 20-year anniversary here coming up a bit, and I haven't really announced publicly yet that I'm setting up a direct sell store that'll be available in January, but I am.
[00:33:01] Matty: You heard it here first.
[00:33:03] Frank: You actually did. It might be something that would be one of those things that's only available from that.
[00:33:10] Matty: Exactly.
[00:33:12] Frank: I think you've got to be careful going down that rabbit hole of fixing things because, you know, what do they say, a piece of art is never finished. It's just released. A book is never done. It's just published. You could go back and preen and polish till the cows come home and you might feel better about it from a compulsive, obsessive-compulsive standpoint, but isn't the point to tell new stories, and you're taking time away from that.
[00:33:40] Matty: So much great information. Well, Frank, if you're willing, this is definitely going to be a podcast episode because I just think you've shared lots of great lessons, both for readers and for writers as well. So now that you've piqued everybody's interest in your work, please let them know where they can go to find out more about you and all your work online.
[00:34:00] Frank: You know, the easiest point right now is just to go to my website, frankzafiro.com. Everything's there that you need. All the books are laid out. There's a handy dandy little "which book is for you" sort of thing in the right-hand column there. So if you like procedurals, there's River City or Charlie 316. If you like private investigators, there's Copriva or another one. Thrillers, hard-boiled, whatever it is that you like, there's a series or two underneath each heading so you can know right where to start. But franksoffaro.com is the best place to get rolling.
[00:34:34] Matty: Great, thank you so much.
[00:34:36] Frank: Well, thank you, Matty, and I want to say thank you for all you do for writers. You put a lot of effort into promoting and supporting other writers with your Facebook page and this podcast and a myriad of other things that you do. I know firsthand how much work that is, and so I think writers should be very grateful to you for the work that you do. I think it's very selfless, and you should be commended.
[00:35:00] Matty: Well, thank you so much. What a nice thing to say. Thank you, Frank.
[00:35:04] Frank: Well, I mean it. It's very true. A lot, in today's world, a lot of people are understandably focused on promoting their own work all the time, that's what I'm doing here, but you know, it's a nice thing to see someone being so selfless, so good on you.
[00:35:18] Matty: Thank you.
[00:00:00] Matty: Hello, fellow book lovers, both readers and writers. I'm Matty Dalrymple. I write the Ann Kinnear suspense novels and suspense shorts, and the Lizzy Ballard thrillers. I also write, speak, podcast, and consult on the writing craft and the publishing voyage as The Indy Author. This is my video series, What I Learned, where I ask authors two questions related to their latest book.
What did they learn from that book that they'd like to share with their fellow writers? And what did they learn from their latest book that they'd like to share with their fellow readers? I am here today with Frank Zafiro. Hey, Frank, how are you doing?
[00:00:30] Frank: Are you, Matty?
[00:00:31] Matty: I'm doing great. Thank you. To give our viewers a little bit of background on you, Frank Zafiro writes gritty crime fiction for both sides of the badge. He's a retired police officer. In fact, he was my guest on The Indy Author Podcast to discuss mistakes writers make about police roles and how to avoid them. His latest book is All the Forgotten Yesterdays. Today, I am asking Frank the two What I Learned questions about All the Forgotten Yesterdays, starting with what did you learn that you would like to share with your fellow writers?
A negative review can be an inspiration
[00:00:59] Frank: Well, I think the lesson I learned was, a lesson I learned actually before I even started writing the book, and that is that a negative review can be an inspiration. To give you the short version of what happened, I came across a, I think it was a three-star review on my first River City book. This current one is the 14th, Under a Raging Moon, and the review was not a bad review, which I would say is a review that just isn't accurate at all.
I mean, It might not even be about your book or it just doesn't, you know, worst book ever, you know, these are bad reviews. They don't do anybody any good, but a negative review can, you know, say negative things, critical things about your book, but it's thoughtful. It's considered, it informs the person reading the review as to whether they might want to try this book or stay away from it. And this negative review was written by someone who actually was complimentary of the writing itself but took issue with plot points, and not from a, like, plot hole standpoint, but it was a police procedural, of course, and the issue they took was with the things the police did, many of which were, I think, incorrectly labeled.
They talked about profiling and what was going on was not profiling, but I could understand why they would fall into thinking it was. But I, you know, so I read through that and it was one of those things where, well, this person's not very pro-police, but at least they're honest about what they're thinking and their opinions are sound and logical internally. They're not just, you know, cuckoo or anything.
Then I got to the final piece of critical statements that this reviewer made, and they took issue with the climactic event of the book. Now, I don't necessarily want to give it away, but it involves a clash between the main antagonist and one of the policed protagonists. The River City series is kind of an ensemble cast, so it's not always the same main character. Sometimes it's the main main, and then some secondary ones that get a fair amount of screen time as well. And this reviewer said, essentially, that, that wasn't justice, that wasn't legal, that was basically murder.
It stopped me in my tracks when I read that because I wrote this book in 1995 as a two-year officer, and it kind of sat on a shelf for a few years till I came back around to writing fiction again in the 2003, 2004 timeframe. And by that time, you know, the bones of that first draft are still what are in the book.
That was eventually published. At that time, I looked at all the events of the book more as almost historical, opposed to through a critical creation. Like you do with a work in progress. I never really framed the events any other way than the way the characters framed them. When this review came out, I looked at it and sat back, taking a look at the situation through what I hoped were close to the reviewer's eyes.
I realized, you know, taken from a certain point of view, that's not an unsound argument. There's some meat on that bone. No one else has ever pointed it out. So I think most readers believe what happened was justice in a fictional world. But the reviewer had a point, and again, this was a three-star review. It was like basically one star for what the cops did in this book, four or five stars for the writing of it, that it was well executed. I had to admire this person for taking the time to write a review that was thought out and logical and made their point, rather than just the two or three words you're lucky to get with a one-star review. It got me thinking and reframing that event a bit.
I wrote it in 1995. It was published in 2006. This was 20, a year ago. So quite a lot of time had passed. Ultimately, I took that realization and thought process and worked it into All the Forgotten Yesterdays. In the book, one of Katie's investigations takes her to a very interesting place. She confronts someone not very well-liked in the series at all. This person fires back at her about her hero, the protagonist involved in that first book event that the reviewer took issue with, reframing it in essentially the same way that the reviewer did, making a lot of the same points. Katie is resistant to it and doesn't accept it, but it's left a little unresolved. It'll play out over the next two or three books while she can't get that bug out of her ear, particularly as her perspective changes because her job changes.
The lesson I learned was that someone can be critical of your work, make a good point, and there's no reason why you can't embrace it. That was the climactic event of the first book. It was the big moment, and there's some sanctity to that in most cases. Somebody reframed it, and they made a good point. They made a good point with their reframing. Instead of getting frustrated, mad, or ignoring it, I decided to embrace it and use it. It's going to have a fair amount of impact on the series arc over the next two or three books.
[00:06:56] Matty: That's so fascinating. Do you know if the person who wrote that review has continued to follow you or read your books and would maybe happen upon this video? It would be super fun for that person, I think, to see this video.
[00:07:14] Frank: Yeah, that would be awesome. It would be awesome. You know, the weird thing, the Amazon algorithm is strange with reviews, as you well know." I went back and tried to find the review. I ruminated on this. First, I simmered on it briefly.
And then I was like, wait a minute. This is just like any other feedback. If I gave you my book and said, "Tell me what you think of this draft," why am I getting mad? Or I wasn't mad, but why am I being negative about it? It was quite a lot of time that had passed before I was like, you know, I'm going to go back and make sure I'm getting all the points the person made. If I'm going to use this, let's use it. I could not find the review again when I went through looking for it. I went way back, you know, because I thought maybe I just didn't notice it. It was a much older review or something like that, and I could not find it.
I'm going to make another attempt in case it's popped back up because I would be curious if, you know, did they pick up that first book? They read it through to the end, obviously. They liked the writing; they just didn't like the events. That's a candidate for somebody who might continue with the series, and I, you know, I mean, I'm biased, of course, but I would like to think that maybe there would, they would come around a little bit on some of the characters because of the things that happen to them and the choices that they make. They're essentially noble, admirable people. They just make mistakes. Or to see a video like this and go, huh, yeah, I'm going to shoot him an email because that was me. Where's my royalty check?
[00:08:47] Matty: Well, I think that we sort of touched on this idea of accepting input on one's work in some of our earlier conversations. And Frank, I think you're sort of like the poster child for the healthy way of handling it. As you said, you had to simmer on it for a little bit, but I do think it's sort of generalizing. It's a good lesson for writers to learn that if someone says, you know, hate the book, I didn't even read it, then you can just ignore them. Because that says more about the I'm not a bigger writer of the review than it does the writer of the book. But if you can bring yourself to look for those negative reviews that are thoughtful, as you're describing, it can be a learning experience.
[00:09:29] Frank: You're so right. You're so right. And there are trolls out there that, you know, I have a friend who's got somebody out there who just almost like a vulture just waits to swoop in and leave a one-star review with a pithy, useless comment and it, and especially when the book first comes out, you know, if there aren't many reviews, it really tanks the overall star rating.
But Kevin Tipple is an independent reviewer. He's the one who got me thinking in terms of a difference between a negative review and a bad review. And he described it the way, you know, I described how he described it, you know. A bad review is just... They say bad things and doesn't, there's no substance to it, or they say nothing, but a negative review can still be a positive experience for definitely the reader because, you know, just because I leave a negative review for something, "Oh, there's too much fishing in this book." Well, maybe you love fishing.
[00:10:25] Matty: Well, I do think the reviewer you're describing is a perfect example of that because I can imagine a lot of people reading that review and saying, oh, that's really interesting. I want, now I want to read that scene and I want to think for myself about, you know, my own interpretation of it. Or, you know, if someone says, if you have too much sex in the book, then you're going to sell a whole bunch of books to people who are looking for books with a lot of sex.
Factoring reviews into your craft
[00:10:48] Frank: Yeah, yeah, exactly, and, you know, anybody who says they don't read the reviews, I've said it before, they're lying. Everybody does. But, I think the point that I take from what you said and that I try to employ is you're looking for trends, you know, if you're getting a lot of low reviews and people are mentioning a certain element, well, you may have blown that element, and you know, you, I guess you could pull the book and fix it, but, you know, more to the point in your next book, you're going to make sure not to make that same mistake.
And the same is true with positive stuff! If people are loving your characters then you can, you know, kind of rest assured that you've written some vibrant characters and you want to keep doing what you're doing.
[00:11:31] Matty: Yeah, I had, the example of that for me is my first book, The Sense of Death. It had a sweary character in it, and when I wrote it, I had no idea who I was writing it for, but I saw that the trend in my reviews was a lot of people said, I really like the book, but yeah, I thought that there was excessive profanity, and I went back and I looked, and I was like, you know, they're kind of right, like, he doesn't have to swear quite that much, and I think I reduced the dropping of the F bomb from like 17 to 9 or something like that, with no loss of Like, creative, control over the situation, but the other thing I'm thinking of that is, I think, a good tip for writers is, I wouldn't just happen upon...
Bad reviews. Like, I often go, and look for good reviews if I'm doing, like, ads, and I'm looking for pull quotes from good reviews. And that's always fun. You know, you go look for the five-star ones, and you pat yourself on the back.
But I think that it's better if you're going to be looking at reviews across the board.To look for those kind of trends that you're talking about, then it's kind of nice to go into it intentionally and knowing that you're kind of in a place where you can read those things with a sort of frame of mind that you're describing. Not just, like, accidentally see them and maybe you're not in a mental place where you should be reading that kind of thing at the moment.
[00:12:49] Frank: I actually have a funny story about... swearing and you can cut this out. It might probably make us go too long. But when I wrote Under a Raging Moon, I tried to be very clear or very, true to, to dialogue. And dialogue is what was, has always been one of my strengths. And so I wrote the way cops talk, you know, and spoiler alert, but they talk like sailors. And so, A lot of the early readers, both professional and just lay people commented on that. Wow, there's a lot of swearing here. There's too much swearing in here. And I resisted it at first, but ultimately, I thought, you know, they've got a point here.
And so I went through, and I called out probably 70% of the profanity, and actually probably close to 90%, if you include softening some of the terms. Either cutting them out entirely, making them not a profanity, or softening them, or just saying, you know, Matty cursed into her hand quietly or something. So the book is published and it's out there. Some years later, I got another, I guess negative review, maybe a bad review, I don't know, you decide. The person wrote, "Too much swearing in this book, every other word, and yes, I don't care if you think that's how cops really talk." So I just, I had to laugh because on two points, you know, I mean, I think I know how cops actually talk was the biggest one, but then I remembered how much I cut out. So, you know, swearing is a thing.
[00:14:20] Matty: Yeah.
[00:14:21] Frank: Yeah, their head would have exploded.
Crafting realistic dialogue (not a transcript)
[00:14:24] Matty: Well, I think that's another good, the more we talk, the more I'm thinking this is turning into a podcast episode because I think the information you're sharing about what writers can learn is so great. And the other thing I'm realizing, apropos of dialogue, is that realistic dialogue isn't necessarily, and I'm not suggesting that you're suggesting it is, but it's not necessarily you turn on the recorder, you record The Room Full of Cops or whatever, and then you transcribe it that. You know, you might have a conversation where in reality it would be perfectly reasonable for those characters to drop 17 F-bombs, but you only need a couple to sort of convey the message. Gestalt of the situation.
[00:15:06] Frank: Yeah, it's like spice, really. I mean, if you put too much pepper, all you taste is the pepper, right? And so, and you're right, I mean, dialogue is meant to be an approximation of how people really talk, but it's much more concise, and, you know, characters don't interrupt each other nearly as much as we do in real life, and there's more direction to dialogue in fiction, whereas people wander in real life, you know, they go off on tangents and leave the path of the intended discussion and so forth. So, you make a great point, you make an excellent point there.
[00:15:41] Matty: Yeah. What I find in subsequent sweeps through my books on edits is that I'll shorten up the back and forth. So in an early draft, I might have, "I'm going to the store. Why are you doing that? Because I need to talk to Joe." And then it will become, "I'm going to the store because I need to talk to Joe," because the back and forth is just might it be realistic? Sure. But is it worth the extra line? Probably not. It's, you know, it's choppier than it needs to be, or it's more obtuse than it needs to be, or something like that.
[00:16:18] Frank: I wish I did that better. That's one that I've noticed when other people edit my work, whether it's an editor for a short story that they're publishing an anthology or something, those are the corrections that sometimes get made, and I'm like, oh yeah, that's tighter, you know, nine out of ten times I like it better.
You know, there are times where you want that response because you're slipping something in with it, either a characterization or a little. A little bit of a plot point there that, or a red herring or something, but nine out of ten times I think it's tighter, so that's, I'm glad you're on it because I'm certainly not.
Allowing a long-running series to evolve
[00:16:59] Matty: Well, let's address the other question, the other, "What I Learned" question, which is, what did you learn from All the Forgotten Yesterdays that you would like to share with your fellow readers?
[00:17:08] Frank: For the reader lesson that I learned, I think it's about allowing a long-running series to evolve, to breathe, that characters can come and go, especially if it's an ensemble cast, but even if it's a main character thing, then a lot of the secondary characters could be the ones to come and go.
And, you know, the main character of this book is no surprise, Katie McLeod; she's been a central character to the series since, well, for the entire series, but certainly by the third book, she became the core character. But, as time has gone on, I've tried to give some oxygen to other characters and some page time, explore a few other stories and go down a few side streets while still having her as the main character, most of the time.
And what I've come to realize is, you know, life is never static. It always changes, and so Katie is experiencing changes. She's gone from being a patrol officer on graveyard to a day shift officer to becoming a detective to becoming a major crimes detective. And when this book opens, she's taking the exam for promotion to sergeant. So her, you know, and she's gone from being involved with a fellow police officer to being kind of serially single, to being involved in a steady relationship for several years with an emergency room doctor, and, you know, these are all changes.
And if you think about it, those don't sound like radical changes in a real person's life. I mean, those sound like what happened to somebody over a decade or a decade and a half. But I realized as time has gone on that, you know, Katie's role will diminish somewhat in the coming books. Not go away, and not for a couple of books. But as her career progresses, she's going to be in some positions where I would be making one of those mistakes that we talked about on a previous podcast together, by having her do things in that role that people in that role don't do. You know, she won't be a detective anymore, so having her go out and solve crimes doesn't make sense.
And so it's time for the next generation, if you will, to step into that role and to have some face time and to, to get some time as the main or core characters, as we move on. And, you know, as this series has progressed, people have retired, people have, people died, you know, people have left the job for other reasons than retirement. Things have changed, and the one thing I've never really let change up, up till recently is, you know, I've clung to Katie because she's my favorite character. She's the core character, and it's hard to think about letting her become a secondary or tertiary character. And we're talking seven, eight books from now when we get to the tertiary stage, but still, I mean, it's difficult emotionally. But I think it's true to the series. I mean, it's an ensemble series, and people's roles change and who's doing what changes. And I think I need to stay true to that.
So for instance, in the previous book, Katie was in, the worst kind of truth. It was 100% from her point of view, third person. But from her point of view, that was Book 11. And Book 12 was a different book entirely. It was all about Tom Chisholm. It was away from the main River City storyline. And then 13 was a short story collection in which I don't think Katie was even in any of the stories. So this Book 14 is really the first novel that's back to the mainline events.
And in this book, she's probably 70 percent of the main perspective, the main POV, and there are two or three characters that share the other 30%. This is a trend that will continue as the next several books play out. She'll probably be roughly 60–70 percent for the next two or so, maybe three, and then her role will diminish. She'll always have a role no matter where she is because she's Katie in that, and she, you know, she is the iconic character of the series, but that's the path that I'm presently on, and it's a difficult one, so, if it's difficult for me, it might be difficult for readers who are attached to these characters as well. That's the lesson that I'm learning.
[00:22:10] Matty: Yeah, this is going to be a really interesting conversation paired with podcast episode 210 with Sara Rosett on creating compelling series. And one of the conversations we had was about how do you make those kinds of evolutions either strictly for story reasons or because you're getting bored or because readers are getting bored or whatever. And it is interesting to hear about somebody who has such a sort of long-term view of where you're taking the series and the considerations, like a very sort of scientific step down of that character's involvement. Did you ever think about actually ending that, the Katie series, and then officially spinning up a separate one that might be one of the other characters, or have you always thought of it as it's a world and you're just continuing that world with a shifting cast of characters?
The dynamics of an ensemble cast
[00:23:03] Frank: Yeah, the latter. It's always been, you know, an ensemble cast was always the vision for this. Initially, it was a four-book series is all I had in mind. I had the titles, and I had an arc for the four books, and it changed a bit as time went on, and ultimately the fourth book radically changed. Nothing except the title remained from the original concept, and the character that I drew up early on as kind of one of the main characters, Stefan Kopriva, we talked about him on a different podcast. He ended up leaving the job after the second book, spoiler alert, and I thought he was going to be the main character of the series, and it ultimately became Katie.
And that, you know, that's the interesting dichotomy in that I'm sitting here today, and I have a long-term plan for the universe of River City and these characters, but at the same time, they surprised me. I mean, they surprised me in what happened with Kopriva, and Katie's emergence as the core, this stuff that we talked about here with how she's viewing Chisholm differently, or at least an event that occurred with Chisholm differently, because somebody reframed it, characters that I didn't realize were going to retire or be together or, you know, die, get killed. I mean, these things, they're still surprises no matter how much you plan. And so that's kind of the fun of it is, yeah, okay, maybe this is going to happen with Katie. She's going to go into this role or that role, but there may be some surprising things that happen during that time and other characters that. You know, are playing smaller roles now will have larger roles. I mean, it's not like I'm just going to suddenly have Dudley Do-Right show up and be the main character. I mean, it's just going to be characters who already have roles will just take on slightly larger roles. And that's, you know, to me, that's what a true ensemble show does.
Ensemble Cast Dynamics
I mean, if you think of NYPD Blue as an example, you know, David Caruso was the star of that. After two seasons, he left. And then they brought in Jimmy Smits and he was arguably the star of that. Then he left and they brought in Rick Schroeder, you know, and then he and Dennis France kind of shared the spotlight, and then Schroeder left. By the time they brought in his last partner, Sipowicz, a Dennis Frantz character, had become the main character of that series, and really was for the remainder of the series.
Now when you go back and watch those episodes, it's hard not to watch them without an eye towards that eventual, you know, development of him being the main character. And so, that's kind of what I've always liked about the idea of an ensemble cast, is it can ebb and flow, and people can come and go, and things can happen and surprise you, and yet you can still at least have a compass direction that you're taking the series.
Evolution of Characters: A Benefit of Ensemble Casts
[00:25:47] Matty: The Sipowetz example is a great one because that is a character that I think viewers would have had to have grown into accepting as a main character because, as I recall, he was pretty unpleasant, and it was only over time, I think he became somewhat less unpleasant probably as the writers sort of understood the potential they had there. Also, the more you knew him, the more empathetic and sympathetic a character he became.
And so that's another benefit of an ensemble cast is you have that time to, both for yourself and for other people, to understand the characters at a much deeper level and have the readers accept them in a way they might not have accepted them if you sort of, you know, shoved that character into the leading role right to begin with. Like, I don't know that show would have survived if they had just teed up Sipowitz as the primary guy.
[00:26:40] Frank: A fat bald guy in the lead in 1993 or whatever it was, I mean, I don't think so.
[00:26:48] Matty: And an unpleasant bald guy, too.
[00:26:51] Frank: An anti-hero.
[00:26:53] Matty: yes, very much an antihero.
[00:26:56] Frank: Yeah. NYPD. Blue. Now that I think about it is really very much the story of the redemption of Andy Sipowitz. I mean, if you look at it, it's just that he's not the main character in that story for a while. At least in terms of screen time, but that's really what it's about. And if you recall, at the end of that series, he becomes a sergeant. He moves into a leadership role. So his, you know, everything changes right now. He's the one doing the leading and someone else is going to be doing the investigating. And so you, you have some of that evolution of life roles that takes place, and I've always admired that kind of storytelling in ensemble stories and have really wanted to represent it in my own series.
Positioning a First Book as Your Craft Skills Grow
[00:27:42] Matty: Well, obviously, we've gone so far off the rails with the, theoretical, what I learned thing. so, I'm going to ask one more question, unrelated to the questions I teed up for you, which is, I think a lot of people who've been writing a long time, look back at their first book. And hopefully they're proud of it, but maybe sometimes they think, oh, is that really the book I want to be sending readers to? Because, you know, if you've been writing for 5, 10, 15, 20, however many years, then, you know, your craft improves. And so, one assumes that your most recent, that one's most recent book is better than one's first book. But when you're writing the kind of series that you're writing, where there's this overarching story arc and the evolution of the characters, you probably don't expect your readers to be dipping in and out at different points. Do you still like to send readers to, the first book so they can read through in and experience the evolution of these characters in order?
[00:28:36] Frank: It's usually my recommendation. Any of the books can stand alone, and I'll tell people that. It's true, but I think you get more impactful enjoyment out of certain scenes if the weight of the cumulative events that preceded it is present for you. A good example might be in The Worst Kind of Truth; there's a wedding near the very beginning of the book and a retirement near the end of the book. They're kind of the bookend events of the worst kind of truth. The wedding is a culmination of a longstanding relationship that began in the shadow of a very untimely and sad death. So there's guilt associated with it, and it's just been a long time coming. If you read those scenes, you might pick up on what's going on, and it might be like, wow, this is kind of tense or this is kind of a beautiful thing.
But if you read the previous nine installments of the series to that point, you might be in tears. You might be crying at that wedding. I certainly very nearly was. I would send people back to the beginning. The danger of that is exactly what you said, Matty; if somebody asks me what's your worst book craft-wise, it's an easy answer. It's the first one, not only because it was the first one that was ever published, but you can still see the bones of that 1995 draft in there. Even in 2006, I was a better writer than I was in 1995. Certainly in 2023, I hope I'm better at it.
It's a mixed bag. You want them to start at the beginning for that sort of stick with the family and get the entire history of the family, sort of experience, but you're sending them to what is arguably your weakest book in terms of writing craft. I don't know the answer to that. I've been tempted, like I think many writers have in this digital age; it wouldn't take much to completely rewrite the book and republish it. You know, this is the book, you know, just feels dishonest, though. It's a product of its time. That was who I was when I wrote that book. That's who those characters were. That's how I saw them. That was the energy associated with it, and it feels untrue to go back and completely redo it, at least, and then represent it as the first book.
Maybe a special edition, available only through my direct sell store or something like that, where, you know, here's an alternative universe if I had waited another 20 years, what this book might have looked like.
[00:31:31] Matty: The question would be, do you just go through and tidy up the craft parts like a copy edit? I guess that's the question. You might look at it and say, oh, if I were going to return to it, it would be like a developmental edit. And yet you could return to it and have it be more like a copyedit where you're applying the line-by-line craft improvements you've experienced but maybe not taking down the whole structure of it.
[00:31:45] Frank: Yeah, I think copyedit stuff, I think it's okay to return to stuff that you've written in the past and fix outright typos or errors. I have a proofreader who is hell on that, kills so many "that's." She literally kills so many "that's" that I have to fight to keep some of them. I have to be very careful because occasionally the "that" that is being killed actually creates a problem with the logic of the sentence. It's a good point that we all have these tics, and copyediting, that's a gray area. I think it's okay to clean something up.
We live in a digital age, and that's the advantage of it. But a developmental edit would be something different. I've actually been toying with the idea, though. The book was out in 2006, so it'll have its 20-year anniversary here coming up a bit, and I haven't really announced publicly yet that I'm setting up a direct sell store that'll be available in January, but I am.
[00:33:01] Matty: You heard it here first.
[00:33:03] Frank: You actually did. It might be something that would be one of those things that's only available from that.
[00:33:10] Matty: Exactly.
[00:33:12] Frank: I think you've got to be careful going down that rabbit hole of fixing things because, you know, what do they say, a piece of art is never finished. It's just released. A book is never done. It's just published. You could go back and preen and polish till the cows come home and you might feel better about it from a compulsive, obsessive-compulsive standpoint, but isn't the point to tell new stories, and you're taking time away from that.
[00:33:40] Matty: So much great information. Well, Frank, if you're willing, this is definitely going to be a podcast episode because I just think you've shared lots of great lessons, both for readers and for writers as well. So now that you've piqued everybody's interest in your work, please let them know where they can go to find out more about you and all your work online.
[00:34:00] Frank: You know, the easiest point right now is just to go to my website, frankzafiro.com. Everything's there that you need. All the books are laid out. There's a handy dandy little "which book is for you" sort of thing in the right-hand column there. So if you like procedurals, there's River City or Charlie 316. If you like private investigators, there's Copriva or another one. Thrillers, hard-boiled, whatever it is that you like, there's a series or two underneath each heading so you can know right where to start. But franksoffaro.com is the best place to get rolling.
[00:34:34] Matty: Great, thank you so much.
[00:34:36] Frank: Well, thank you, Matty, and I want to say thank you for all you do for writers. You put a lot of effort into promoting and supporting other writers with your Facebook page and this podcast and a myriad of other things that you do. I know firsthand how much work that is, and so I think writers should be very grateful to you for the work that you do. I think it's very selfless, and you should be commended.
[00:35:00] Matty: Well, thank you so much. What a nice thing to say. Thank you, Frank.
[00:35:04] Frank: Well, I mean it. It's very true. A lot, in today's world, a lot of people are understandably focused on promoting their own work all the time, that's what I'm doing here, but you know, it's a nice thing to see someone being so selfless, so good on you.
[00:35:18] Matty: Thank you.
