John Dandola Author Interview •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• INDEX (click on the subject) Influences • About Copyrights • West Orange Situations • Unwanted Associations • Courtesy • Discourtesy • About Bad Reporters • Hammond Castle Situations • About Professional Organizations • Creativity Pitfalls • Reviews & Reviewers • Views on Education • Lawyers & Ad Men • Views on Incorrect Grammar •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • Where are you from? How— if at all—has your sense of place colored your writing? J.D.: I was born and reared in West Orange, New Jersey, where my family has lived for generations—one branch of the family has lived in this immediate area since before The Revolution and before there was a West Orange. Thomas Alva Edison lived and worked in West Orange for nearly fifty years; the world's first motion picture studio was built in West Orange; my grandfather was a personal messenger boy to Edison; the youngest Edison son, Theodore—a successful inventor in his own right—taught me how to play chess (although I haven't played chess since then). Because of that tie between people and places, I had a practical view of history from a very early age and my writing—especially in my mystery novels—tends to explore that view. History is, after all, a series of inconsequential little happenings which eventually lead to something monumental. I've always liked the thought of that. • When and why did you begin writing? When did you first consider yourself a writer? J.D.: No one in my family was a reader but they were great storytellers. During my childhood, people were always around -- my grandmother's house seemed to be the center of everyone's world and my grandfather's barber shop was the unofficial town hall. I heard tales about my parents' youth and my grandparents' youth and the town and the neighbors and local politics -- all in a very human light. I loved to listen because for me those stories were akin to reading. I was always a reader. As a kid I was even known to thumb through the encyclopedia for hours on end. To this day, when I help my wife unpack the groceries, she accuses me of wasting more time reading the packaging than storing the items on the shelves. But I learned to express myself in writing by reading and old habits die hard. As a junior in high school, I had a wonderful English teacher named Mr. Robert Whelan. Although he had a tendency to force us to write essays explaining poems which we all hated, he also took that to the next level and taught us creative writing—but creative and still adhering to the proper rules of English. It opened whole new doors for me but I already loved movies and that's what I leaned towards. While studying filmmaking in college, we were required to write a screenplay. My work got praise and even worse, was shown on an overhead projector to the class as a proper example of how to tell an interesting story. The professor then took me aside and urged me to pursue screenwriting. I did, eventually selling several scripts into "development hell" and working as an uncredited script doctor. Writing novels evolved when it was deemed that my screenplays have the odd combination of being both literary and visual. • Who or what has influenced your writing, and in what way? What books have most influenced your life? J.D.: As for the so-called classics, The Scarlet Letter (without the extraneous Custom-House introductory) was absolutely mesmerizing to me in a way I never expected from "a dry old book" required as high school reading. The same can be said of Jane Eyre. Unlike what most authors claim, I always found Hemingway foreign to my thinking; Dickens and Scott far too wordy; and although his prose is beautiful, Fitzgerald never seems to get to the point. As absurd as it may seem, I probably learned the most about writing from reading Ian Fleming as a young teenager. Yes, I'd be the first to argue that what Fleming understood about women could be fit into a thimble with plenty of room left over but his spare style made me realize that a very accurate picture can be painted by employing the correct word choices—that appealed to me as did the fact that he was only a popular and commercial novelist, which wasn't intimidating • What are you now working on? J.D.: I've just completed my third stage adaptation of the venerable Father Brown mysteries and an adaptation of The Man Who Was Thursday. Both Father Brown and Thursday are creations of G. K. Chesterton. The adaptations were undertaken at the request of the Celtic Theatre Company and the G. K. Chesterton Institute—both based at Seton Hall University were the plays were premiered. I've also written several orignial plays which were staged there. The fourth in each of my mystery series is in the works. I have set the premise for both plots, which enables me to write scenes for either as they come to mind until I have to time to sit down and work solely on each novel. I have always worked like that. I'm updating the second edition of my Ghosts of Hammond Castle with a story about a very recent paranomal occurrence which happened there. I'm also at work on the second volume of my biography of the castle's builder, inventor John Hays Hammond, Jr. • Reviewers and readers of your novels always mention your ability to create a complete visual sense with relatively few words. You yourself often make reference to visuals such as art, design, and photography. Does your novel-writing derive from a link between all of those things and your screenwriting? J.D: Well, yes. The first talent I fully realized was art. Ever since I was able to hold a crayon it came very naturally and very easily. For whatever reason, I was always able to visualize scenes and put them into pictures and words. In college I studied fine art at the same time as I studied film, television, and theatre. That's where everything began to come together. I earned a living during and after college by combining my set design skills with my love of history in restoring some of the area's Victorian mansions. My illustrations and photographs have appeared in travel, history, and museum publications. The arts and history and storytelling all co-exist very comfortably in my head and they give me a good foundation in being creative. • What advice would you give anyone looking to pursue writing as a career or even an avocation? J.D.: Writing is as much about craftsmanship as it is about talent. Without craftsmanship, talent is too easily misdirected. • Copyrights seem to be a very sensitive issue among members of the creative community nowadays. How would you explain copyright in simple terms? J.D.: If you climb over a fence that says KEEP OUT, PRIVATE PROPERTY and you then drill for oil inside that fence and you strike oil inside that fence, would you think the oil was yours? No! Consider a copyright label to be the sign and the fence. Consider whatever the copyright label is attached to as the oil. It'll steer you clear of most infringement problems. • That seems to be a simple enough concept. Why are there so many problems as of late? J.D.: Most people misperceive that because they can look at something created by someone else, they then have the right to just grab it up and use it for their own devices without asking. Their inevitable reaction when caught is always, "Who do you think you are that I have to ask or pay to use your work?" They don't want to comprehend that they are taking away someone else's livelihood derived from talent and training. The ease in reproducing almost anything on computer further blurs the line in what we assume we are allowed to do. A West Orange politician who has stolen from me on multiple occasions and who has had to pay monetary damages on each one of those occasions actually said within earshot, "I'm getting real tired of having to pay that [expletive] every time I use something of his without asking permission!" Yes, that would be one of the definitions of copyright: you have to ask for permission otherwise there are legal reprocussions. The further punchline of that joke is that this guy is a lawyer. The first time this politician was caught (he had the arrogance to use my copyrighted material in one of his campaign mailings), he actually claimed he had used my work as a "compliment" to me. When I confronted him publically as to why then he hadn't bothered to ask my permission or credit the work with my name, he realized for possibly the first time in his life that he wasn't going to be let out of a lie. A few years later, his political cronies threw together a book which contained more of my clearly marked copyrighted work. After they fell all over each other in the book's preface thanking themselves for "their work" on the project, when confronted, none of them could suddenly recall exactly which one had been responsible for lifting my copyrighted material. The political mind seems to think that not remembering is some sort of defense. They were very surprised to find out that my lawyer had the legal right to order all of the books to be pulled from sale until the infringing pages were removed and a substantial monetary settlement was paid. There was a great gnashing of teeth on their side but I didn't doubt for a minute that they'd do it again because in order to recognize and respect someone else's intellectual property it takes a certain ability to make moral judgements. Time after time, these people have proven not to possess that ability. To them, I'm the villain for not allowing them to get away with it. How's that for lop-sided logic? On October 20, 2001, yet another possible case of infringement raised its head. Someone who may be a go-between—the same few people are always involved—phoned me concerning a whim to reproduce part of my West Orange Fire Department Centennial Album. I counseled against such an action and then notified my attorneys. Then sure enough, in September of 2003, the local history book I had originally sued for copyright infringement was re-released in a second edition still including my exact same materials. I sued again and was awarded monetary damages again. Have they learned their lesson? Of course not. During the summer of 2004, a new member in this local political clique had the audacity to contact me about allowing passages of my West Orange novels to be read during a politically-motivated tour of the historic part of town! Because a new member asked, was I somehow expected to forget what they had all done to me over the years and suddenly allow use of my work for their self-aggrandizement? The politician and every committee to be involved were warned via Certified Mail. It is utterly amazing how some people never learn. In June of 2006, they tried to strike one more time. That's when a newspaper article revealed that I had written a town history (entitled Greeetings from West Orange, New Jersey) specifically for use by only one grammar school. The reason for it being available to only one school is because a friend of mine teaches the course there and she was beside herself about the lack of accurate materials supplied about the subject. In dedicating and donating the book to the one school, I was both giving something back and controlling my work so that it couldn't be stolen by the usual scoundrels. But as soon as the newspaper article appeared, those usual scoundrels came out of the woodwork phoning both the office and the library at that grammar school trying to obtain copies. It was a maneuver to circumvent dealing with me. Since I had informed both the school office and the school library that such contact might be made, they turned the scoundrels away. Funny, it's always the same people trying to grab onto my work and they still don't have a clue that I know they were all in on my previous copyright infringements. As late as August of 2006, they even tried to get copies through a library distributor but my publisher put the brakes on that very quickly. And so it continues… • You seem to have a real love-hate relationship with your hometown. Can you explain that? J.D.: We all know that it is possible to love a particular someone or something that is not good for us. West Orange is like that for me. I had a very idyllic childhood there—which should count for something—but it is not a happy place. Everything is always predicated on some nasty political undercurrent or hidden agenda which usually only serves to shatter friendships. West Orange has a long-standing history of that—of taking and not reciprocating. Besides countless personal experiences, I also have documentation corroborating the same kinds of goings-on for generations as far back as the 19th century. West Orange may now be a twelve-square-mile municipality but its mentality has never evolved beyond that of a small isolated hamlet with a speed-trap scam. It has never been a town which is literate or cerebral or imaginative or artistic or appreciative or courteous. • It seems that courtesy is a prime motivator for you. J.D.: It's probably the easiest and classiest way to conduct oneself yet it's astounding how it seems to elude so many people on a personal or professional level. They are even shocked when it comes back to bite them. I tend to treat people the way I like to be treated. I expect the same in return. Sometimes, my expectations are much too high... • Have you found a way to deal with a lack of courtesy? We're not talking about flubs or gaffes or misunderstandings, we're talking about flat-out intentional rudeness. When I'm confronted with it, my first reaction is anger. My second reaction is to never again deal with the person or persons responsible. Why? Because such a lack of manners not only speaks volumes about the people with whom you are dealing, it is something which will persist therefore making a working relationship—or even a social relationship—extremely difficult and uncomfortable. I need a comfort level. But the much more serious scenario is that intentional discourtesy is often a very calculated bullying tactic. I have witnessed it used as such in so many arenas. I have a great distaste for bullies and I've never allowed myself to be bullied. That's why my first reaction is anger. • You have run across so much of that on the municipal level but have you run across a lack of courtesy on a professional level in your own field? J.D.: Everyone in every field has. It's really why I'm not a joiner. I belong to only a few organizations because my credentials allow me eligibility and such things are therefore expected. But by and large, I don't like organizations because there's always people involved who are trying to prove self-importance; I don't like the snobbery which is often rampant; I also don't like dealing with blowhards or cliques and organizations are all-too-often riddled with them. I've dropped out of a few for such reasons. I've been insulted too many times by "the powers that be" while trying to offer practical assistance to inexperienced members, so now I simply don't. It's kind of like the PTA. I would join to do something for the benefit of the kids but how many parents join just to show themselves off as doing something in the spotlight? • That is a sad circumstance with which we can all relate. Any examples of how this occurs in professional organizations? There used to be a guy running a writers organization's national newsletter, who would simply "lose" press releases of those he didn't deem as "worthy" of mention. It was constant. I couldn't figure it out. I never knew him personally but I was convinced he just hated my name. Then during a few group booksignings, I spoke with some other authors and he was doing it to them, too. Whenever complaints were made and he was confronted by the administration, he always had "no recollection" of ever receiving the press releases. "No recollection" as though he was testifying before Congress! It took years for the organization to replace him and I think it was more that he stepped down rather than them firing him. Once everything seemed back to normal for a few years, more elitism seeped in. The newest decree from this particular writers organization is that they now decide: if your web site meets with their qualifications and expectations in order to be listed on the organization's site (the ones which get listed are often embarrassing); if your publisher meets their requirements including how much you are paid and how many authors the publisher publishes per year (which conveniently discriminates against very legitimate small publishing houses); if a publisher meets their requirements, then and only then can an author qualify for awards which is then taken to the ultimate extreme in that a publisher has to be "approved" for an author to even be mentioned in the newsletter as having had a work published! What the hell is that about? Members can't let other members know about their work? This newsletter is hardly making the rounds to the world via AP or Reuters. Make no mistake about it, this organization is not setting salary minimums on publishers to safeguard authors and guarantee a proper wage as the screenwriting guild was set up to do (because there is really big money involved there). Ostensibly, they are attempting to combat the boom in computerized vanity publishing companies. But the very manner in which this is being undertaken is over-zealous, odious, and absurd. It will undoubtedly cost the organization some of its members. Anyone with any sense should know that one cannot dictate how many books a small legitimate publisher has to produce in a year. That is determined by how many acceptable quality manuscripts a small publisher receives. It is not as many as the public would believe. This maneuver is being done to authors and small publishers for reasons of pure snobbery. Just ask yourself how many lousy books have you read from major publishers and how many good books have you read from small publishers? The percentage is much more in the small publishers' favor. When I joined this organization twenty years ago, it was a happy membership of writers. Outwardly, it had a worldwide reputation because of the names of its members. But internally, it was pretty easy-going and pleasant. Now it is completely hamstrung by elitists. I assume the next step is that all authors will have to meet a height and weight requirement because that is just where this over-governing seems to be headed. These new directives do not affect me and, in fact, after an incident of not being tapped to take part in a panel-discussion on a subject which is my specialty [see the next two questions and answers], I made a conscious decision never to notify this organization of any of my new projects solely as a matter of principle. I also decided not to allow them to further benefit monetarily from any copyright infringements of my works overseas because they have been doing such a disservice to many of my fellow members. Now when I see them openly descriminating against authors who are published through legitimate small publishers, I know I made the right decision. The real joke is that they are so obsessed with their stature and their dictums but they can't manage to produce a national newsletter which isn't a thoroughly unprofessional-looking, chintzy, cheap color print job. It's such an "Emperor's Not Wearing Any Clothes" situation that it is laughable. • That's mind-numbing. Are there any other examples? Here's some more I've encountered with this group. Draw your own conclusions... Two years ago, before this current nonsense, I was run ragged over whether or not an article I had written which was "published" online should be announced in a monthly newsletter along with all of the other members' published works for that month. In the end, it wasn't announced with no explanation but the silence betrayed that they didn't deem it "important enough." ("Deem" is such a great word for use in these cases because it conjures up images of royalty run amuck.) Yet from the number of visits that article has gotten every day for the last two years, many people worldwide consider it to be terribly informative and it would have been for my fellow writers if the organization had clued them in on its existance. That article is included in virtually every search string on the subject matter and it registers that it is visited and read, not just included as a hit in some blind internet search. Two months after denying me, the same newsletter announced a not-so-informative, not terribly well-written article had been "published" online—the difference: the author of that article was one of the clique. The clique followed this up with a two-part newsletter article to professionals about how to set up a web presence on the notoriously unregulated MySpace! If you're a pro, act like a pro and do it like a pro and register a ".com" name. I shouldn't be the only member embarrassed by this. Suddenly the internet is like the invention of the Magic Marker: everybody can't wait to use it but usually on all the wrong surfaces. But hey, it was put out there by the clique. I used to think it was just the snob factor—so-and-so is published by a bigger publisher or produced by a more mainstream production company. That is part of it but there's always those same few names involved who do it just to keep themselves in the spotlight. And it's never the really big, highly successful  names. At least with really big, highly successful names, one could actually find a rationale. But they don't play into such nonsense because they have nothing to prove. • You certainly don't come across as having anything to prove. That's very kind. But I have a weak spot. I like to help. Here's how that can be soured: My specialty is adapting novels for the screen. This same writers organization put together a "panel" about adaptations. The "panel" was comprised of people whose credentials don't even approach mine. In fact, the majority of the "panel" had not written for the screen yet it didn't stop them from grabbing the spotlight and offering bons mots so painfully obvious that it served no good purpose to even hold the panel. Such misinformation is rife in panels, seminars, and symposiums about show business and screenwriting. I'm a researcher at heart. I've had the experience of trying to track down precise information and getting none. It is immensely frustrating. I therefore find it offensive when incorrect or inaccurate or incomplete information is purposely disseminated. It is not helpful and it's harmful. I didn't hear of the panel until after it was held so I politely contacted the moderator and asked why I wasn't invited to partake in it. She has yet to have the courtesy of replying. She never will. Courtesy, again. Courtesy is everything. • Have you been plagued by such discourtesy anywhere else? J.D.: As an historian. I've had my brain picked by journalists but not been credited as the source even when I instructed upfront that it was part of the deal to do so and everyone else used in the article was credited. One specific, rather poor reporter who flailed around on this local beat for The Star-Ledger, had done it continually to me because (as third parties have explained) he seemed to think any mention of my name would overshadow him—especially in any article about the Edison, the Man World Premiere. He took a buyout when the paper downsized but while he was on staff he never figured out why I stopped helping him as he churned out his incorrect and inaccurate articles. I surmise that at some point, he thinks he's going to be able to compile a book of his local history articles and get it published. It seems doubtful. But the snubs don't always just come from unprofessional wannabes. I have even experienced snubs on a scholastic level. In the fall of 2005, I was put in touch with the West Orange High School teacher who runs an after-school club about screenwriting. The intent was that I could bring something of professional merit to the kids. I made contact via e-mail and introduced myself. The guy never even had the courtesy to reply. Not even a "thanks but no thanks." He probably perceived it as putting his after-school-activities stipend in jeopardy. For me, it was a great disappointment because you get to a point in your career when you want to share what you've learned and where better to start than at your own high school? • It's almost unimaginable. Is it too much to expect professionals to act professionally? J.D.: Apparently so, as demonstrated by their actions. I'll give you another very worrisome example. In late spring of 2006, I was contacted via e-mail by a woman who claimed to be an "associate professor of journalism." She was writing an article on John Hays Hammond, Jr., and she asked if she could use my Hammond Castle web site for research. I granted permission with the proviso that the site be credited in the article. I have kept everything on file because I got the distinct feeling from her tone that this article was going to be problematic. That feeling of dread only increased with her ensuing e-mails. Sure enough, when the article appeared, it was not terribly well-written and, contrary to my advice, she had included all of the inaccurate fabrications which the staff of Hammond Castle Museum continues to heap upon visitors. She also went out of her way not to mention any of my Hammond books and, to top it all off, after lifting a passage verbatim from my web site, no credit was given to my source material. The magazine's publisher has apologized and printed a correction. But what is most shocking is that this woman is teaching her methods to college students. A month or so later, a second magazine writer contacted my publisher in order to buy a copy of my Hammond biography and she went so far to explain that she, too, planned to use my work as the basis for a magazine article. At least when the error of her ways was pointed out, this second writer backed away without making the purchase and tackled her project from an entirely different angle. But the most astounding of these intended intellectual thefts are detailed on my Hammond Castle Connection page. They're real lulus. [That link is at the bottom of this page.] Literally, on the heels of those experiences, I was asked to be interviewed about Hammond on one of those internet radio programs. The host of the show claimed to have read my Hammond bio and my other Hammond books. I had never heard of the host or the show. Whether the request was legitimate or not, I was on vacation at the time and I responded with a great deal of trepidation. Before I returned home, he cancelled the request stating that he had "decided to do [his] own biography" of Hammond—"in two parts" no less. That seemed curious and it may very well have saved me from yet another headache. But it forces me to still have to look into copyright infringements. The Hammond attraction just keeps going and going and going... During the first week of June, 2007, yet another freelance writer from New England placed an order for my Hammond biography. In the course of correspondence with my publisher, this writer claimed that he recently wrote an article about Hammond Castle and that he also had just visited the castle once again. That's when the red flag went up because Hammond Castle had been closed since November 1st and had not yet opened for the season. How could this writer have "just visited" it? Upon polite request as to where to obtain a copy of his article, all communication ceased from his end. The only possible translation: he wanted to synopsize my Hammond bio into an as-yet-unwritten article for print or the internet. My publisher cancelled the order. The very next day, a local bookstore on Cape Ann called out of nowhere to order a copy. Coincidence? Hardly. Especially since this specific bookstore had deliberately chosen not to stock the biography with the very local slant in the first place. • Did you ever think that being a writer would give rise to such unpleasant situations? J.D.: Never. It is positively draining. Suddenly, writing is a contact sport. • Is that as daunting as it sounds? J.D.: I suppose it can be but there's little choice. I have always been someone who has taken problems head-on—right then and there. I have never been the guy who is handed a crisis—or seen someone else in crisis—then promptly turned around and taken a lunch break and left the building. It confounds most people because most people are not prone to do so.When someone chooses to target my work, I am forced to take action because that's beyond business—it's very, very personal. My work bears my name. It's my reputation. Mistakes or lackluster performance can't be absorbed anonymously into some large faceless organization. It's a very strong value system and it translates into all other areas of life. — • Can you give details of anything specific? J.D.: Very recently, a friend e-mailed me inquiring whether I had begun a graphics company. I am a graphic artist; I have taught graphic arts; and I am known locally for it. Anyway, the e-mail was surprising so I asked what my friend was talking about. I was then forwarded a link to a company in West Orange, New Jersey, using the title of my first novel, West of Orange, as the name of its web design company. Mind you, this was not a Florida company or a Texas company or a California company where there are similar municipal names, this was right in my own town which causes a real conflict. I contacted the company, which is run by a husband-and-wife team out of a home office, and was told that they had only moved to West Orange a few years ago and had no idea of my title. Pardon me, but I don't like coincidences—the title is an odd choice of words which were absolutely never used to name anything until I composed the title in 1990. Fortunately, there is a precedent in law which states that my title is accepted as known by anyone and everyone who come along after the title's debut—which was twenty years ago. Besides, the book title and its synopsis are all over the internet and a five minute search would have revealed as much—which is such an elemental investigative step in these circumstances that it is startling for a web designer to have ignored such a precept. Furthermore, any claim this company may make about their originality is substantially weakened by the fact that their letterhead is in the same odd-ball font in the exact same colors as the letterhead and banners of West Orange High School. But much more importantly, using my novel's title based in the town where I reside, where I am well-known, and where the title is extremely well-known creates a perceived association with me and my work. That is a line which should never be crossed without written permission. West of Orange™ is a trademark held by my corporation. My attorneys have been notified as have the attorneys of the film production company which owns the movie rights to the novel and its title. Hopefully, the web design company will be smart enough to take it upon themselves to change their name since none of this makes them appear terribly original or creative. They've been given very fair warning and if they choose not to heed it, they will never know when the legal ton of bricks is going to hit. • It's amazing that people take so little into consideration or see the impact of their actions. On a different but somehow similar subject, what do you make of reviews and reviewers? J.D.: Professionally-accredited reviewers are a reality in the artistic world. Unfortunately, the internet has unleashed a plague of wannabe reviewers. Although many of them are kind and try to be helpful, there is also an element of maliciousness out there which goes unpoliced. I used to do booksignings at an independent bookshop which has since gone out of business. At one of my signings, the owner introduced me to a friend of his who had hopes of becoming a writer. The shop owner had been extraordinarily kind to me so, against my wife's better judgement, I introduced this hopeful writer to an editor who agreed to read his work. The editor saw some raw potential. After a few months, the hopeful writer proved himself to be unreliable and uncooperative to the editor. I tried to intercede but the hopeful writer turned out to be (as my wife had suggested) an absolute impossibility with an ego to boot. As a result, the editor gave up and the publisher who would have published him wound up passing on his work. In frustration over what he had brought upon himself, the hopeful writer lashed out at the only person who had a face to him in this equation—me. He spitefully posted a review of the book I had been signing when we met. The review was so over-the-top in its scathing nature that it even quoted passages (incorrectly) in order to tear them apart. I contacted the online vendor where the review was posted and explained the circumstances. The online vendor acknowledged that the review was obviously posted by a crackpot and that it would hold no validity to any sane person but by the same token the online vendor refused to remove the review for the very reason that it would have no validity to any sane person. Follow that logic. But seemingly as a result, other readers sprang to the defense of my book and posted positive reviews for it which proves that there is also good will floating around out there in cyberspace. • Any other examples of review mishaps? J.D.: I am always fascinated by people who feel some deep-seated need to review books on the basis that the subject was not approached in the way they sought but how the author sought to undertake his or her own work. You don't review a book or a movie or a play or a painting or a sculpture for what it isn't. You review it for what it is. My Ghosts of Hammond Castle is quite simply a collection of ghost stories which have been experienced in that very spooky place and have been passed down through the years by word-of-mouth. I know the subject matter well and I know just how to tell such stories in an "around-the-campfire" manner. The book has gone through two editions; the second edition had some new stories added to it and it will be revised again with an additional story for its third printing. The book has sold very well for years and I cannot tell you how many people have gone out of their way to e-mail me expressing their enjoyment in reading it. There's even a group of paranormalists who actually became fans of the book because they liked the way I simply told the stories and didn't try to scientifically interpret the occurrences. Then suddenly, eight years after the initial publication, someone felt the desperate need to post an online review that the book was "poorly written." Was it actually "poorly written" in terms of writing ability and style—things I pride myself on? No. This reviewer was using such a maligning phrase as "poorly written" to express that this book of ghost stories wasn't the sort of paranormal treatise she was seeking—probably for some sort of research (in the review she mentions how my biography of the builder of Hammond Castle was so in-depth and that she has a "paranormal library" which makes it a good assumption that she was involved in research of some nature). Then after the initial damage she inflicts by using the phrase "poorly written," she then contradicts herself and finally calls the book "fun." Well "fun" was the entire reason I wrote the book as I wrote it! It's an entertainment! Was this reviewer being malicious? Yes, but sadly she didn't even realize it because she was too busy trying to make herself out as smart and superior. She was also being needlessly and foolishly public about her disappointment in not getting some instant gratification from an author to supply her with information in the manner she needed it, when she needed it. Further, she didn't realize that she was also quite publicly stating that she had not only missed the point of the book entirely but she had not read the cover blurb or preface which both quite accurately and openly explain what the book is about. Buying a book is analogous to buying a hat. If you don't like blue hats, would you go to a store, try on a blue hat, buy that blue hat, go home and write a letter of complaint to the manufacturer that the hat was no good because it's blue, then take out an ad knocking the designer because the hat was designed in blue? Or why would you even expend any such energy? All this fuss and muss over a collection of ghost stories just so this person could get her name online as a reviewer. That's the bottom line. She wasn't helping anyone, she just wanted to get her name online. Go figure. • Would you say that there might be a disadvantage to being viewed only as creative? J.D.: Many times, yes. I don't pass myself off as artsy nor do I come across that way; my appearance is hardly avant-garde; I don't behave in an edgy manner. In fact, I'm usually the guy in the room people assume is the one in charge. But I have pursued a career in the arts: fending for myself; fighting for myself; proving myself to audiences, publishers, producers. And even though I have succeeded, I still get that same iodiotic question from people: "Are you still writing?" Which hints that either writing—or anything else creative—is not an adult pursuit or how dare I love my job. That people continually suggest either concept bothers me. Do you ask your doctor is he's still practicing medicine? • What are the positives gained from relying solely on your own talent? J.D.: From creative success, you gain a real sense of self-worth. You learn self-reliance, responsibility, and organization. You also learn the ethic of always doing one's absolute best work and that time is a very valuable commodity. I am happiest when I can bring something to the table and make a difference whether it's writing or teaching or whatever. I have little patience or tolerance for needless bureaucracy or condescension or mind-games or duplicity because they are usually the product of someone else's insecurities not to mention a drain on creativity and a huge waste of time. • Do you notice that you seem to have a time factor? J.D.: Creativity is a slave to time. Do I have enough time to finish this piece of this project today? Do I have enough time to complete this entire project? What's the deadline? Etc., etc., etc. Most people look ahead to retirement, creative-types worry about whether they'll finish their last project before they die. • Speaking of time, you always seem to be juggling several projects at once. Is there anything else brewing? J.D: Yes. Inspiration comes from life experience and I've recently run across some things which seem very worthwhile to explore. All I'll say is that some things are better exposed in a proper dramatic or comedic context. • "Exposed" seems an operative word. Can you give any hints? J.D.: Let me just speak in terms of non-specifics: Tenure, seniority, alma maters, or college degrees do not translate into ability, performance, knowledge, professionalism, instinct, or humanity. Those who equate the former with the latter are delusional. By the same token, right is right and wrong is wrong and neither is predicated by one's pay-scale or position in the pecking order. I also consider that the wellfare of children should be paramount and their educations should never be short-changed. • It sounds like you're tackling the present state of education. One of your mystery series has teachers as it main characters. Any connection? J.D.: Fiction has a long history of shedding light onto social, industrial, political, and educational ills. Readers can sense if something is true. But always remember that no matter how accurate the background or no matter how good the cause, I do not allow it to get in the way of the mystery plotline. • You don't seem to avoid much in subject matter but are there any situations you try to avoid in your personal life? J.D.: Confrontations during booksignings. Because my book settings are so regional, it is often the case that a person or two show up to hate me as an author because they had an idea for a similar book set in the same place but either didn't pursue it or found out how extraordinarily difficult it is to write a book let alone get it published. I, as the author, become the target of their frustrations. Because of my background, this even expands to other predicaments. For some reason—probably due to John Grisham—I keep meeting lawyers who want to become authors and they pursue me as though I have the answer as to how this can be accomplished without taking talent into account. Their careers are predicated on out-witting people and situations so they feel that that carries over into all areas of life—especially areas where talent is a requirement. It's perplexing. An extension of that which always amazes me is that advertising professionals desperately want to be in show business. Why? I don't pretend to know. Making a humorous thirty-second or sixty-second commercial is not the same as sustaining an audience for half an hour on TV or two hours at the movies. A great many documentary filmmakers I've known suffer from the same syndrome. I think of advertising, documentaries, and film/television as different creative sports. But just as in baseball and football and basketball, each requires different muscles and different disciplines. One person in several hundred thousand is good and/or successful in all sports but it's laudatory to be a master of just one—so be thankful for where your talents lie. Reality TV might possibly be crossed into by documentary and advertising types. But drama and comedy are each in as different a realm as writing novels. • Do you think there is a seeming commonality which brings this about? J.D.: Possibly. Since each requires language skills. They don't take into account that each requires the ability to think and write and create in different formats and structures. Unfortunately, what I do find among them all is a propensity for bad grammar and not much knowledge of punctuation. Then again, I know present-day grammar school writing teachers with Masters Degrees who quite literally have no idea of how to punctuate simple sentences or which words in a title get capitalized. Sadly, that gets passed on to students. When I was in grammar school, my writing teachers could have worked as editors for major publishing houses. • That last observation is quite startling. Do you have any grammatical pet peeves? J.D.: To me, two of the current worst offenses are the use—or I should say, misuse—of "snuck" and "disrespect." Hearing either used by professional broadcasters is like nails scraping across a blackboard. "Snuck" is so sub-standard a usage that it makes "ain't" appear proper. The conjugation of the word "sneak" is as follows: "Today, I sneak. Yesterday, I sneaked. Often, I have sneaked." There is no such word as "snuck." You might as well go the Dizzy Dean route and say, "Slide, slid, slud." The only verbs which come to mind with a "u" in their past-participles are "swum" and "drunk" and everybody—including me—goes out his or her way never to use those words in that tense because they sound so wrong yet "snuck" is suddenly being embraced. As far as "disrespect" is concerned, it is completely fine as a noun and "disrespectful" is a wonderful adjective. But "disrespect" is NOT a verb. Some last pleas: Could everyone please stop using the latest hackneyed expressions "a national treasure" and "diverse" along with misusing the newest buzz words "icon" and "iconic"? In order to qualify as an "icon" or as "iconic," a person, place, or thing has had to withstand the test of time. In terms of a person's career, it means that the person established himself or herself above and beyond all others in a truly immortal fashion and has since retired or died. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Author Biography | Charity Interview | Hammond Castle Connection  | West Orange Connection | A Taste of Murder: Cookbook for Charity | Home Copyright © 2000–2010 John Dandola, Ltd. All rights reserved.

Click on this photo to read John's most recent interview about what inspires him.

West of Orange™ is a trademark held by John Dandola, Ltd.