Geopolitical Diary: Ukraine, The Main Battlefield of Cold War II

March 28, 2008

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko said on Thursday that no NATO bases would be deployed in his country in the event that Kiev became a member of that organization. Citing Ukraine’s Constitution, which forbids the establishment of foreign military bases in the country, Yushchenko said, “Some people are spreading the fable that there will be a NATO military base in Sevastopol. There will be no base.” This statement comes within three weeks of Kiev saying it had abandoned its bid for membership in the Western military alliance. 
 

This is not the first time Ukraine has done such a flip-flop. On the contrary, this oscillation between aligning with the West and placating Russian concerns has been the hallmark of the country’s behavior for some years now — if not historically. Structurally, Ukraine is divided between the people in the western part of the country, who want to align with the United States and Europe, and the people in the eastern part, who are looking eastward toward Moscow. 
 

The ill-fated Orange Revolution of late 2004/early 2005 — which failed to bring the country under Western influence –- complicated things. It exacerbated the divisions within the country, creating a stalemate between the two sides. Ukraine’s geopolitical position has failed to allow the country to break its dependence on and past with Russia. As a result, on a larger geopolitical scale, the United States and Russia are locked in a long-term tug-of-war over Ukraine. 
 

In fact, Ukraine represents the major arena in which Cold War II is being played out between Washington and Moscow. Ukraine is of critical importance to both sides. For the United States, a successful extraction of the country from the influence of Moscow — not to mention NATO’s arrival on Moscow’s doorstep — means relegating Russia to the status of a declining regional power. Conversely, and more importantly, for Russia, it is not just about its efforts to revive the bipolar world, but it is an issue of survival. 
 

The loss of Ukraine could critically weaken the Kremlin. It is not merely a buffer separating Russia from the West; it is integrated into the Russian industrial and agricultural base. This is why Moscow has been using the tool of natural gas cutoffs and coercion by the FSB to keep Ukraine’s leadership in check. Moreover, Moscow has laid out the consequences of Kiev teaming up with NATO, saying it will point missiles at its neighbor if it were part of the alliance. 
 

Moscow, however, can take comfort from the fact that there is no consensus within the West regarding Ukraine’s entry into NATO. The Europeans, particularly Germany, do not share Washington’s level of enthusiasm for Kiev’s assimilation into NATO. Uninterrupted supply of Russian gas via Ukraine is of far greater value to the Central and Eastern Europeans than any grandiose plans to secure the downfall of Russia. It isn’t that Germany is against Ukraine joining the West, but that it would rather pick that fight another day — preferably when Europe wasn’t so dependent on Russia for energy.
 

But it is Ukraine that is being tugged and pushed from all sides, leaving it to balance precariously between surviving with a very aggressive Russia to its east, ambivalence to its west and a Washington eager to use Kiev as its pawn to stick it to Moscow. For the next week, Ukraine will toe the line — not accepting or rejecting the other and waiting for the United States and Russia to decide how far this battle will go. 



In short, Ukraine is not just the premier battlefield of Cold War II, but a more-or-less permanent standoff arena –- unless, of course, one side decides to back off, which isn’t about to happen anytime soon

How to End the War
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, March 30, 2008; B03

Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until "victory." The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic disagreement over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing it.

The case for U.S. disengagement from combat is compelling in its own right. But it must be matched by a comprehensive political and diplomatic effort to mitigate the destabilizing regional consequences of a war that the outgoing Bush administration started deliberately, justified demagogically and waged badly. (I write, of course, as a Democrat; while I prefer Sen. Barack Obama, I speak here for myself.)

The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and the Republican argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for "staying the course" draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios. President Bush's and Sen. John McCain's forecasts of regional catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of "falling dominoes" that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Neither has provided any real evidence that ending the war would mean disaster, but their fear-mongering makes prolonging it easier.

Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush's obsessions with the removal of Saddam Hussein were worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars -- not to mention the less precisely measurable damage to the United States' world-wide credibility, legitimacy and moral standing -- the answer would have been an unequivocal "no."

Nor do the costs of this fiasco end there. The war has inflamed anti-American passions in the Middle East and South Asia while fragmenting Iraqi society and increasing the influence of Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Baghdad offers ample testimony that even the U.S.-installed government in Iraq is becoming susceptible to Iranian blandishments.

In brief, the war has become a national tragedy, an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster and a global boomerang for the United States. Ending the war is thus in the highest national interest.

Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision. It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat (e.g., from Iran); it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The decision to militarily disengage will also have to be accompanied by political and regional initiatives designed to guard against potential risks. We should fully discuss our decisions with Iraqi leaders, including those not residing in Baghdad's Green Zone, and we should hold talks on regional stability with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran.

Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a sensibly conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the long term. The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue with the Iraqi leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out of their stupor.

Terminating the U.S. war effort entails some risks, of course, but they are inescapable at this late date. Parts of Iraq are already self-governing, including Kurdistan, part of the Shiite south and some tribal areas in the Sunni center. U.S. military disengagement will accelerate Iraqi competition to more effectively control their territory, which may produce a phase of intensified inter-Iraqi conflicts. But that hazard is the unavoidable consequence of the prolonged U.S. occupation. The longer it lasts, the more difficult will it be for a viable Iraqi state ever to reemerge.

It is also important to recognize that most of the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq has not been inspired by al-Qaeda. Locally based jihadist groups have gained strength only insofar as they have been able to identify themselves with the fight against a hated foreign occupier. As the occupation winds down and Iraqis take responsibility for internal security, al-Qaeda in Iraq will be left more isolated and less able to sustain itself. The end of the occupation will thus be a boon for the war on al-Qaeda, bringing to an end a misguided adventure that not only precipitated the appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq but also diverted the United States from Afghanistan, where the original al-Qaeda threat grew and still persists.

Ending the U.S. military effort would also smooth the way for a broad U.S. initiative addressed to all of Iraq's neighbors. Some will remain reluctant to engage in any discussion as long as Washington appears determined to maintain indefinitely its occupation of Iraq. Therefore, at some stage in 2009, after the decision to disengage has been announced, a regional conference should be convened to promote regional stability, border control and other security arrangements, as well as regional economic development -- all of which would help mitigate the unavoidable risks connected with U.S. disengagement.

Since Iraq's neighbors are vulnerable to intensified ethnic and religious conflicts spilling over from Iraq, all of them -- albeit for different reasons -- are likely to be interested. More distant Arab states such as Egypt, Morocco or Algeria might also take part, and some of them might be willing to provide peacekeeping forces to Iraq once it is free of foreign occupation. In addition, we should consider a regional rehabilitation program designed to help Iraq recover and to relieve the burdens that Jordan and Syria, in particular, have shouldered by hosting more than 2 million Iraqi refugees.

The overall goal of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to undo the errors of recent years should be cooling down the Middle East, instead of heating it up. The "unipolar moment" that the Bush administration's zealots touted after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered to generate a policy based on the unilateral use of force, military threats and occupation masquerading as democratization -- all of which pointlessly heated up tensions, fueled anti-colonial resentments and bred religious fanaticism. The long-range stability of the Middle East has been placed in increasing jeopardy.

Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East, but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations -- on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses. But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington's price of participation is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran. Threats to use force on Iran are also counterproductive since they tend to fuse Iranian nationalism with religious fanaticism.

Real progress in the badly stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process would also help soothe the region's religious and nationalist passions. But for such progress to take place, the United States must vigorously help the two sides start making the mutual concessions without which an historic compromise cannot be achieved. Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater regional stability, and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from the Middle East's growing wealth.

We started this war rashly, but we must end our involvement responsibly. And end it we must. The alternative is a fear-driven policy paralysis that perpetuates the war -- to America's historic detriment.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. His most recent book is "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower.

Mukasey vows corruption crackdown
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago
Attorney General Michael Mukasey vowed anew Thursday to crack down on crooked politicians and public officials, dismissing critics who accuse the Justice Department of letting partisan loyalties interfere with corruption cases.

Mukasey's comments came hours after prosecutors charged Puerto Rico's Democratic-leaning governor in a campaign finance probe that began more than two years ago.

Additionally, Mukasey said that a multibillion-dollar overseas contracting loophole that was quietly slipped into Justice Department plans to protect taxpayers' money "shouldn't happen."

All were part of the attorney general's rhetorical assault on public corruption, which he called one of his top priorities.

"It's often in the interest of someone to charge politicization whenever a prominent public figure is investigated or prosecuted," Mukasey said during a noontime speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. "I find it notable that they make these accusations in the media, rather than before a court."

Earlier, during an interview with The Associated Press, Mukasey said corruption has "a cost beyond dollars and cents — it undermines the whole idea of government."

Because of corruption, Mukasey said, "people can't have confidence that government's being done honestly."

The Justice Department has brought numerous corruption cases over the last several years targeting Democrats and Republicans alike. In 2006, the latest data available, Justice prosecutors charged nearly 1,200 federal, state and local government employees in public integrity cases — a 20 percent increase from a decade ago.

During his speech, Mukasey pointedly spoke of charges brought against two former Republican congressmen: Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California and Bob Ney of Ohio. He did not mention charges brought hours earlier against Puerto Rico Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila, who faces 19 counts in a campaign finance probe. Twelve others associated with Acevedo's Popular Democratic Party also were indicted Thursday.

Other high-profile lawmakers facing Justice Department charges include Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., in a land scam case, and Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., for allegedly taking bribes. Also under scrutiny by the FBI or congressional investigators are at least eight current House and Senate lawmakers. Democrat Eliot Spitzer resigned as New York's governor earlier this month after a federal wiretap caught him arranging trysts with a prostitute.

Part of the Justice crackdown on corruption focuses on waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars spent on pricey government contracts. To that end, Mukasey told AP that the Justice Department is actively working to have a loophole exempting overseas contracts stripped from tough new rules to force private companies to report internal evidence of fraud.

The Bush administration added the loophole after the rule was first proposed by the Justice Department.

"Our position is it shouldn't happen," Mukasey said. "My understanding is we are doing whatever we can do at this point to show that we are opposed to it."

Mukasey took over the Justice Department in November following nearly a year of turmoil there over whether nine U.S. attorneys and career prosecutors were hired or fired because of their politics. The scandal ultimately led to the resignation of the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, and Mukasey has been intent since then on rebuilding the Justice Department's image as fair and independent.

He also sought to quell suspicions over whether the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles meant to disband that office's cadre of public integrity prosecutors when he reassigned them to other units. Mukasey described the move as little more than an office restructuring.

"To take that as a signal that the Central District of California is out of the public corruption business I think is absurd," Mukasey said. "I didn't read it that way and ... that's not the life truth of it."

In Jihad, a mixed Sunni and Shia area of west Baghdad that had been one of the worst battlefields of Iraq’s dirty sectarian war in 2006, Mahdi units moved in and residents started moving out to avoid the lethal crossfire that erupted.

One witness saw Iraqi Shia policemen rip off their uniform shirts and run for shelter with local Sunni neighbourhood patrols, most of them made up of ex-insurgents wooed by the US military into fighting al-Qaeda.

In Baghdad, thousands of people marched in demonstrations in Shia area demanding an end to the Basra operation, burning effigies of Mr al-Maliki, whom they branded a new dictator, and carrying coffins with his image on it.

But the Prime Minister swore from his field headquarters inside Basra city to press on with his attack, which he said is not targeting the Mahdi Army in particular but all lawless gangs. "We have come to Basra at the invitation of the civilians to do our national duty and protect them from the gangs who have terrified them and stolen the national wealth," he said. "We promise to face the criminals and gunmen and we will never back off from our promise".

Supporters of Hojestoleslam al-Sadr, the rebellious cleric who formed the sprawling, 60,000-strong militia five years ago, have accused the premier of trying to wipe out the powerful Sadrists as a political force ahead of provincial elections in October.

Residents of Basra complained that water and electricity had been turned off in the three main areas besieged by the Iraqi Army, which has an entire division deployed for the battle. They also said they were running low on food an unable to evacuate their wounded. Estimates of the death toll in Basra reach as high as 200, with hundreds more wounded.

“The battle is not easy without coalition support,” lamented one Basra resident who had worked as translator for the British forces. “The police in Basra are useless and helping the Mahdi Army. The militia are hiding among the civilians. This country will never be safe, I want to leave for ever. I don’t know how to get out of this hell.”

One man was shot in the leg while trying to fix the rooftop water tank on his house, and feared he would be taken for a militiaman if he tried to reach a hospital. Officials said more than 200 militiamen had surrendered after the government issued a three-day deadline to give themselves up.

While residents in Basra said the army appeared to be making little headway against the militia bastions, a British Army spokesman based at nearby Basra airport said progress was being made.

“The Iraqi Army are rebalancing across the city, consolidating their positions, resupplying and preparing for future operations,” said Major Tom Holloway, and army spokesman. “They made considerable progress, although not total progress by any stretch of the imagination.”

With fighting flaring across the Shia south, the police chief of Kut, where Mahdi fighters had seized large parts of the town 110 miles southeast of Baghdad, said his men had killed 40 militiamen while losing four officers.

"The security forces launched an operation at around midnight to take back areas under the control of Shiite gunmen," Abdul Hanin al-Amara said.

While US and British military officials have been at pains to distance themselves from the push against the deadly militias, President George Bush praised the high-risk strategies to tackle militias that a politically weak Mr al-Maliki had been forced to court in the past.

"Prime Minister Maliki's bold decision, and it was a bold decision, to go after the illegal groups in Basra shows his leadership and his commitment to enforce the law in an even-handed manner," Mr Bush said. "It also shows the progress the Iraqi security forces have made during the surge."

But if the Iraqi forces fail to stamp out the powerful militias and Iraq sinks into a new bout of in-fighting, Mr Bush’s troops and British forces may be forced to weigh in, sparking a new round of bloodletting ahead of US elections and scuttling British plans for an early withdrawal from Iraq.

March 21, 2008

Neil Nyren Comes Back to Murderati!
Interviewed by J.T. Ellison

Last year, Murderati welcomed a legend in the publishing community. Neil Nyren is the Senior VP, Publisher and Editor in Chief of Putnam, edits just about every important bestselling author out there, and is an incredibly talented and generous editor who has been very kind to this particular newbie.

He's kind of like E.F. Hutton - when Neil talks, people listen. His panel at last year's Thrillerfest on the Snare of the Hunter was a resounding favorite. Neil Nyren, No Longer a Man of Mystery still ranks among our highest rated posts. (I encourage you to take a look and refresh your memories.) If that's not enough, last November, when Putnam had eight books on the hardcover fiction and non-fiction lists in one week, four of them were edited by Mr. Nyren. Let me repeat that. He had four books on the NYT bestseller lists at once. A hearty Murderati round of applause, if you will. That's an unbelievable record.

There have been a number of changes, rumors and concerns about the industry of late, and I thought it would be a good idea to see what Mr. Nyren thought about these issues. I hope that this can become a yearly gig -- our own version of the State of the Industry.

So sit back, have a good cup of coffee to hand, and learn from the master.

--------------------------------------------

Which memoir would you rather buy this week – Eliot Spitzer or Ashley Alexandra Dupré?

Neither. I’m very cautious when dealing with certain kinds of current events books, because with today’s 24/7 news cycles, we tend to get inundated with so much detail that our curiosity is satisfied just by what we get in the media. We think: I’ve heard as much about this story as I need to. And by the time a book comes out many months later, our interest has already moved on to the next scandal or topic du jour. To be potentially successful, a book has to provide something deeper, broader, more significant than we can get in the daily media. That said, of all the players in this particular drama -- Silda is the one most people would like to hear from, I think.

What is the next hot genre?
If I knew what the next hot genre was going to be, I wouldn’t be working for a publishing house, I’d own a publishing house! It’s pretty rare that we’re that smart. My colleagues at Berkley spotted early that paranormal suspense/romance was working for them, and so they jumped in with both feet and that’s why they’re the leader in that genre now. Usually, what happens is somebody publishes a novel that is hugely successful, and all the publishers, trailblazers that we are, look at it and say: Huh, I should do one of those! Turow is a hit, followed by Grisham, and suddenly we’re inundating the stores with legal thrillers. Clancy writes The Hunt for Red October, and technothrillers are everywhere. Eventually, the market gets saturated, sales die off, and only the very best in their respective genres still stand head and shoulders above the crowd. And we all sit around and ask each other: So, what’s next?

There is a perception that if an author doesn’t find instant success, they will/are bypassed for another contract. Is this true, and how do new and midlist authors combat that? And a question from the outside – “Do you feel the publishing industry as a whole has stopped looking at developing long-term careers for authors in favor of already established authors or the flavor du jour?”
First, I think we have to define what we mean by “success.” If I spend $30,000 for a book and it sells 20,000 copies in hardcover, I am very happy. Sure, it’s on nobody’s bestseller list, but it’s found a market, it’s made a bit of money, it’s established the author for his next book. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a success! If I spend $30,000 for a book and it sells 2,000 copies in hardcover, however – then we have to look at why it sold so few, whether a different strategy is needed, if there’s a way we can bump that up next time. If it turns out that there is no bump next time, then we have to figure out where we go from there.

And sometimes where we go is to do more books with the author anyway. Maybe the author’s gotten the kind of reviews or made the kind of friends or just written such damn good books that we say, “You know, there’s got to be more here, we’ve just got to find it.” Because, in fiction at least, we’re always buying the author, not a particular book. We’re trying to establish a career. Which is why it is absolutely not true that we’ve stopped planning for the long-term. The long-term is what we plan for most. All you have to do is look at the bestseller lists and see which authors made it on their fifth, sixth, tenth book or more. We all know the tales of the authors who made it on their first or second try, but it’s much, much more common that it’s an incremental process, one book selling more than the last, until the author has acquired the kind of critical mass that makes him or her ripe for that final push over the top. My favorite personal example is Randy Wayne White. He’d already had three novels that had sold modestly when we bought him, but we kept pushing him book by book until finally he broke through – on his seventh book for us and his tenth book overall. This is the norm, not the exception, and all publishers know it. No “already established” author was born established, and the “flavor du jour” expires with the next jour. It’s just plain, hard work.

Is it true that the market is tightening dramatically?
It’s certainly true that the market is tight. It’s not the first novelists that are in jeopardy or the stars, but the repeat midlist – but then, it’s been that way for quite a while, hasn’t it? Every account can call up sales figures instantly now. First novelists have no black marks against them, no large returns or tiny sales, so anything is theoretically possible. But if an author has published four books to static or declining results, there’s no way to hide it, and it’s very hard to convince an account not to order accordingly.

How has your marketing model changed in light of the new technologies and delivery methods available?
We spend a lot of time now with websites – ours, our authors’ and others’ – bloggers, podcasts – you name it. Some authors are more suitable for all this than others, of course. For instance, I have a book being published on March 27th called FALLING INTO MANHOLES: The Memoir of a Bad/Good Girl, by Wendy Merrill. It’s the experiences – sometimes very funny, sometimes very not – of a quirky, attractive, in-recovery-from-everything woman in search of love, sex, sanity, and herself, and she’s got just a great voice. Some of our approach is conventional – radio, TV, signings, reviews, etc. – but we’re also using the web a lot. An online magazine called Viv has already run an excerpt; we’ve reached out to a ton of women’s sites and bloggers, including one popular site on MySpace, where Wendy offered free galleys to the first 50 people who replied; she’s run a video on YouTube and her own (excellent) website, created “forward to a friend” e-cards about the book and her signing dates, written a “behind the book” essay that’s posted on the Left Coast Writers website and linked to a variety of other sites, including our own website, where the essay is available for download; and a whole bunch of other stuff like that.

How do you get an author on the bestsellers lists? And is there anything an author can do to help?
It depends on the kind of book we’re talking about. Nonfiction tends to be heavily dependent on media. Fiction tends to be more reliant on reviews and word of mouth, with occasional big media bursts, such as we saw recently with Charles Bock’s Beautiful Children. For series books, as I mentioned above, it’s often a slog – book by book, edition by edition (hardcover followed by paperback followed by hardcover), until the author is ready to break through. For all these books, visibility is very important, and if we’re aiming for the bestseller list, we have to make sure all our coop and bookstore promotion vehicles are in place. That’s the greatest hidden cost of publishing, the one most people don’t appreciate – when a book is on the front table at Borders or on the stepladder at B&N or featured in an email blast from Amazon, it’s not because of some bookseller whim, it’s because the publisher’s paid for it. Depending on the level of the promotion, which is usually related to the level of the bookseller buy, and is always of limited duration, it can be very, very expensive, but there’s nothing like getting the book squarely in front of people. If you read something about a book in the paper or hear the author interviewed on the radio or a friend mentions it to you, and then you go into a bookstore and see it sitting right in front of you as you walk in, you’re simply more likely to pick it up. And if you pick it up, maybe you’ll look at the jacket copy, check out the author photograph, read a few pages….

There are tons of things an author can do to help, but we don’t really have room for that here. The essential thing is for the author always to be aware of what a publisher can use as leverage: media contacts of any kind whatsoever, friendly bookstore owners, organizations that might buy multiple copies, writers willing to give endorsements, lists of names you might have gathered on your website – anything at all that can get the word out in any way. Listen to your publisher, and make sure he listens to you. And this is true no matter where you’re aiming the book – bestseller, good seller, any kind of seller! It’s just basic good business.

What books from 2007 should have made the list, but didn’t?
You mean aside from some of mine? I was surprised Martin Cruz Smith’s STALIN’S GHOST didn’t make the list – it was a brilliant book, as all his Arkady Renko novels are. And I’m a great fan of Julia Spencer-Fleming – I do expect to see her on that list some day.

Do awards really matter in terms of sales?
For mystery awards, not a huge amount, really. They’re great to have, of course, especially if you aren’t particularly known, because it’s a good way to get your name out there to a core readership and build an audience. I know I’ve occasionally bought Edgar books while browsing for something to read and have found some nice things that way (last year’s THE JANISSARY TREE, for instance). By and large, though, I don’t tend to see a substantial bump in sales.

What do you want your authors to do in terms of promotion? Conferences, websites, blogs and book festivals – or stay at home and write the best book you can?
The book always comes first – always. If you don’t have a good book, published at the right time, then none of the rest of it matters. After that, websites are useful if they’re well done, give readers a reason to come back, and act as a vehicle for collecting names – there’s nothing like that email blast to fans shortly before publication to concentrate your sales early. Conferences and book festivals are fine as long as you’re having fun, building contacts, getting your name out there, and not spending so much time at them that you’re neglecting your first job (see above!). Blogs – I probably shouldn’t be saying this to you, JT, but sometimes I wonder if all the time and energy spent on writing a blog might not be better spent on…well, you know what I’m going to say.

Do you still read blogs? Which ones?
I do. I don’t read all of these every day, but I like Sarah Weinman (of course), The Rap Sheet, Buzz, Balls & Hype, Murderati, First Offenders, Tess Gerritsen, Joe Konrath, Crime Fiction Dossier, Naked Authors, Mysterious Matters, and Hey Dead Guy. Once a day, I’ll usually check in at Crimespot to see if there are any topics or posts that sound interesting. And I receive the DorothyL digests.

In our last interview, you mentioned that there is a certain fallacy to the “sky is falling” attitude toward the publishing industry. You said, “… The vision is being promoted of a handful of publishers selling a handful of commercial books to a handful of accounts, and that’s the future of publishing. But I don’t buy it. There’s a bunch of reasons why – but that’s a whole other rant. Maybe some other time!”
Would you address that rant now?
There isn’t enough room here. However, I’m scheduled to speak at the Craftfest portion of this year’s Thrillerfest, and though my main subject is something else…I wouldn’t be surprised if a bit of rant sneaks in there!

(Note: Neil will be moderating an all publisher panel at Thrillerfest as well... Let's hope for rants!)

We also talked about what authors could do to get your attention. Any tips for the agents who want to pitch you?
Oh, geez, just give me a good book – that’s all I want. Don’t overhype the manuscript, tell me anything about the author that I might need to know, and then just let me read.

Everyone wants a movie option for their novel. Is there anything the writer can do to help that process along?
Here is the thing I always tell any of my writers who are approached by Hollywood:
Don’t get sucked in. They will drive you crazy if you let them. Just cash the check.
Don’t believe anything until you have a signed contract.
Then, don’t believe anything until they have an approved script.
Then, don’t believe anything until they announce a cast.
Then, don’t believe anything until they announce a start date.
Then, don’t believe anything until they announce a release date.
Then, if against all the odds, there is an actual movie showing in actual theaters, go to see it, buy some popcorn, and pretend it was based on somebody else’s book entirely. Because if even half of what you wrote gets up there on the screen, it will be a minor miracle.
Cash-the-check.
Should authors be spending their own money on promotion outside of the advances paid to them?
If it’s spent wisely. There are lots of ways to throw it away. It’s a subject you want to talk about in detail with your editor and the publicity/promotion staff at your publisher, to see what might be worth doing and what not, and what would dovetail best with your publisher’s efforts.

And just for fun:
What book do you wish you’d written?
The Yiddish Policemen’s Union. And that Charlie Huston can write like a bastard – The Shotgun Rule, phew!

Wine – Italy, France, California, Australia or Chile? Would you give us a wine tip?
All of them, depending on what I’m into at the time. Lately, I’ve been drinking a lot of Malbec, Nero D’Avola and Oregon Pinot Noir. And when I’m in the mood for a white, almost nothing beats a New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc for me – Kim Crawford’s my favorite. That’s my wine tip of the day!

Who was the best Batman: Adam West, Michael Keaton, Christian Bale or Val Kilmer?
What, no George Clooney?

What was your favorite movie last year?
Many favorites. For drama, No Country For Old Men, Eastern Promises (so happy to see Viggo get an Oscar nomination) and Michael Clayton (just good old-fashioned moviemaking). For lighter stuff, Juno (of course), Ratatouille (also of course), and Enchanted (Amy Adams, whom I’ve loved since Junebug).

----------------------------
Neil, I can’t begin to thank you for being so generous with your time and expertise here today. You’re the greatest! I highly suggest everyone say thank you to Neil by running out and buying books by all of his authors. You won't be disappointed!

Neil S. Nyren is senior vice president, publisher and editor in chief of G.P. Putnam’s Sons. He came to Putnam in 1984 from Atheneum, where he was Executive Editor. Before that he held editorial positions at Random House and Arbor House. Some of his authors include Tom Clancy, Clive Cussler, Jack Higgins, W.E.B. Griffin, John Sandford, Dave Barry, Daniel Silva, Ken Follett, Alex Berenson, Randy Wayne White, Carol O’Connell, James O. Born, Patricia Cornwell and Frederick Forsyth; nonfiction by Bob Schieffer, Maureen Dowd, John McEnroe, Linda Ellerbee, Jeff Greenfield, Charles Kuralt, Secretary of State James Baker III, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Sara Nelson, and Generals Fred Franks, Chuck Horner, Carl Stiner, Tony Zinni and Wendy Merrill