In the Headlines: Kids Shooting Kids at School

There have been a couple of headline stories recently about K-12 school shootings involving minor shooters (a 15-year-old Kentucky boy and 12-year-old L.A. girl). School violence is always disturbing, but the idea of school children shooting each other is especially upsetting. I began to wonder just how common it really was and what steps at prevention we could take short of armed guards. I found some interesting research by Everytown for Gun Safety on K-12 shootings between 2013 and 2015. In that period, an average of two school shootings took place at K-12 schools each month, and, among the shootings in which the age of the shooter was known, 56% (39 of 70) were perpetrated by minors under age 18. Before parents of elementary-school children begin looking askance at their child's classmates, note that it is still rare for a child under the age of 14 to kill anyone, and especially rare for that homicide to take place at school. Approximately 74 children under age 14 commit murder in the United States each year, per other 2017 research. This is less than 1% of all homicide perpetrators. The majority (90%) are boys between the ages of 11 and 14. However, 75% of the time, the child kills someone older, not a school classmate. The older victim/victims are most often relatives (usually a parent or grandparent), adults shot during the commission of crime (usually a robbery or break-in), or victims killed in gang violence. But even one incident of a kid shooting up a school is one tragedy too many. How do we protect children from armed children? The research shows that children's access to guns is a big part of the problem. Guns are the weapon of choice for all child school shooters, about 60% of the time, per Everytown. When the source of the gun was known, more than half of young shooters obtained the gun at home—often because an adult did not store it locked and unloaded. Also, nearly one in six of Everytown's studied school shootings occurred after a confrontation or verbal argument intensified because of the presence of a gun, rather than in spite of it. In fact, the surprise is that more violence does not occur at schools given the common presence of guns on school grounds. A survey by the U.S. Department of Education found that, during the 2009-2010 school year, one in every 30 K-12 schools took serious disciplinary action against at least one student for use or possession of a firearm on school property. For more school shooting research, see https://everytownresearch.org/reports/analysis-of-school-shootings/

One Nation--With Regional Personality Divisions

One thing my daughter's wedding in California is accomplishing is a gathering of cultural and regional diversity; besides the 27% foreign-born here, there are many U.S. natives who have migrated to the West Coast from other states. I wondered if it was my imagination that I was observing regional personality differences. The answer per recent research is that, yes, America's regions tend to differ by common personality traits. In 2013, researchers from the University of Cambridge published a study of regional character in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, based on a 12-year analysis of personality traits of nearly 1.6 million people living in the United States and Washington, D.C. (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) via Facebook, surveys and other methods. They looked particularly at five personality dimensions--agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, and neuroticism. The study found that the most friendly and conventional people tended to live in the South and north-central Great Plains region, while relaxed and creative traits were more common in the Western and Eastern coastal areas. New Englanders, in contrast, were most likely to be uninhibited and temperamental. If my long years in California have rubbed off on my personality, I should be above the national average in openness and extroversion, but sub par on conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism. Then again, my family roots are in Texas, and I went to elementary school there, so maybe the fact that its citizens score above average on every trait except neuroticism will leaven the impact of the less friendly and less conscientious California bent. Curious about state and regional personality? Read http://time.com/7612/americas-mood-map-an-interactive-guide-to-the-united-states-of-attitude/. But if you want regional differences that you can more confidently observe, consider American language schisms. How do you pronounce crayon, pecan, caramel, pajamas, or lawyer? For maps of state-by-state linguistic conflicts, see http://www.businessinsider.com/22-maps-that-show-the-deepest-linguistic-conflicts-in-america-2013-6?op=1

My Short Bout With 'Internet Withdrawal'

Is "Internet withdrawal" a real thing? I know that I experienced a sense of helpless isolation and frustration last week when my Internet connection became sporadic (until a cable tech fixed a faulty connection). As someone who actually remembers the days before computers, it is astounding to realize how dependent on technology we are in our daily routines, our communications and our work life. With unreliable Internet service, I had to scurry to support my marketing consulting clients, and some projects were necessarily delayed. Various transactions and communications for my daughter's wedding were disrupted. I didn't get my blog post done because it was prioritized below work. But most projects still proceeded, and social communications and e-mail responses were handled via smartphone. Yes, there was an underlying, anxious sense of disconnection, but it hardly seemed a symptom of a deeper disorder. In fact, per Wikipedia, Internet Addiction Disorder is a term coined in a satirical essay by Dr. Ivan Goldberg in 1995 and then taken seriously by researchers and, of course, the media, who have since produced new terms like problematic Internet use, compulsive Internet use, Internet overuse, pathological computer use and even iDisorder. All refer to Internet use that interferes with normal life--such as excessive computer game play, online gambling, porn viewing, shopping, constant social networking or workaholic behavior--to the extent that folks experience anxiety, depression and withdrawal symptoms similar to drug users if they go offline. It is not an official mental disorder in the Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders yet, but that doesn't stop the media from headlining various studies documenting "Facebook addiction," "Internet withdrawal" and its cousin "mobile phone withdrawal." In 2014, a Business Insider story noted that workaholics especially suffer withdrawal symptoms when cut off from the Internet (because they can no longer work 24/7). To be honest, maybe because, unlike my kids, I have lived in a world without digital technology, I soon banished anxiety over my temporary Internet loss with old-fashioned versions of Internet-enabled activities, like reading and face-to-face socializing. Frankly, I don't think it's the Internet that is the problem, except as a tool making it easier to indulge the real addictions: gambling, porn, workaholism, shopaholism, etc. But if you think you are afflicted by Internet dependency, maybe you should check out http://www.psychguides.com/guides/computerinternet-addiction-symptoms-causes-and-effects/

Time for a Mental Spring Cleaning

In California, where the demarcations between seasons are slight and blurred, it's easy to forget the exhilarating sensation of "spring," of the transition from gray, cold and dead vistas to color, warmth and new growth. I was reminded recently by a quick April trip to Omaha. It snowed on the day we arrived (wet feathery clumps that melted on contact with the thawing earth), but, in just the next few days, a benign sun drew a bright green haze of budding leaves from leafless branches and coaxed so many blossoms from the fruit trees that they became white and pink earth-bound clouds. A clump of red, pink and yellow tulips appeared magically beside the front door. I was reminded why literature and poetry associate spring with rebirth, renewal, love, and hope, and symbolize it with lilacs, lambs and lovers. Spring is a universal spur to optimism. When winter's claustrophobic sheltering can be left behind by opening windows and stepping out into fresh air, our minds and hearts are encouraged to follow suit. So I decided to take the tradition of "spring cleaning" a step further this year by tossing out the rubbish of pessimistic thoughts and feelings along with accumulated dirt and clutter. I figure I'm pretty much guaranteed to feel better. A recent Shape magazine article cited a new health study that looked at 5,000 adults and found optimists were more likely to eat a healthy diet, have a healthy body mass index, not smoke, and exercise regularly than their pessimistic counterparts. They also had healthier blood pressure, blood sugar, and total cholesterol levels. Previous studies have shown that cancer patients with positive attitudes tend to have better outcomes, and optimists have more satisfying personal relationships. The article even listed three steps to kick-start an upbeat spring mood: write thank-you notes; do things you love; share good news. Need more help to shake the blues? For 20 more ways to a happier mindset, try this Shape article: http://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/20-ways-get-happy-almost-instantly/slide/all

In Fiction or Real Life, What Looks CanThrill?

Whether to describe, how to describe and when to describe a character's physical traits are among the conundrums of fiction writers. Many great writers have provided only minimal clues to a protagonist's appearance and thus freed the imaginations of readers--who are more interested in a character's, well, character than eye and hair color--to conjure up images that satisfy personal tastes and experiences. On the other hand, sometimes it is important to plot or character development to describe physical attributes. Especially for romantic protagonists, any description needs to be one that most opposite-sex readers find appealing and most same-sex readers respect/emulate. Luckily, research provides some guidance on physical looks generally rated as most attractive. Consider just facial appearance: Scientific studies show that women across cultures prefer male faces in the middle of a range from a "masculine" look, with wide smiles, strong jaws, large noses and smaller eyes, to "feminine" features, such as a small nose, narrow chin and large eyes. Men, on the other hand, find women with high cheek bones, big eyes and thin jaws more attractive--consistently preferring facial features characteristic of women aged about 25 (a hard-wired age bias). Some men even prefer the more childlike face typical of preteen girls (hello, Lolita). However, men also have different standards for sexy vs. competent women's looks. For example, an Elmhurst College study found that, in job interviews of women, men awarded mature women, with smaller eyes and larger noses, more respect. Take a look at 2014's top five actors (Leonardo DiCaprio, Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Robert Pattinson) and top five actresses (Angelina Jolie, Marion Cotillard, Charlize Theron, Julia Roberts, Mila Kunis) to see how well study results fit popular beauty tastes. For more on appearance and its implications, read http://www.viewzone.com/attractiveness2.html. By the way, if you shrug off the importance of looks in fiction or real life, you may get a shock; in the life-ain't-fair category, studies show that attractive people earn more salary and get more promotions than average-looking people, for example.

When Digital Text Rules, Does Writing Quality Bow?

My children insist on communicating almost entirely via text messages. It allows them to connect at work, at the gym, in restaurants or at parties, when they can't or won't talk on cell phones. If I need to communicate detailed information, I must send an e-mail. The next time you go out to eat, check the neighboring tables and count those where every single person--parents, children, friends and lovers--is silently staring at a mobile device to check e-mail, text, tweet, read Facebook updates, search the Internet, etc. So many of us are in company yet alone--focused on a stream of digital words and pictures. Written communication has become a social necessity, and digital tools have conferred on Everyman the power to instantly influence a wide audience with the written word. Yet I wonder what impact the Digital Age is having on the actual quality of writing and the standards of readers. Are we producing generations fluent only in informal, abbreviated "textspeak" and addicted to shallow word bites? It's interesting to see the results of a 2013 Pew Research Center survey of Advanced Placement and National Writing Project teachers about the impact of digital tools on student writing. On the plus side, some 78% of teachers said digital tools, such as the Internet, social media, and cell phones, "encourage student creativity and personal expression." Definitely, e-mails and social posts require concise, active, colorful language to engage attention spans measured in seconds! But 68% of teachers also said digital tools made students more likely to take shortcuts and not put effort into their writing. And what about written content? Teachers rated students lowest on constructing a strong argument, reading and digesting long or complicated texts, and navigating fair use and copyright. It would seem that despite our expanding digital word power, good writing and clear thinking are still in need of champions. For more on the study, see http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/07/16/the-impact-of-digital-tools-on-student-writing-and-how-writing-is-taught-in-schools-2/

What Do Celebrity Icons Show About Our Times?

My children follow the ups and downs of numerous "celebrity" lives: The whole Kardashian clan, of course; pop music divas and abrasive rappers; movie stars in love and sports figures in trouble; and reality "stars" from blushing bachelorettes to rich housewives. Who are these people and why should we care about them? What does it say about our society that Beyoncé has more ardent fans than any political leader or innovative thinker? An interesting book about the fame phenomenon came out in the late 1990s: The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History, by Leo Braudy. Reviewing the lifestyles of the rich and famous over 2,000 years of Western culture, Braudy concludes that fame is actually a symptom of something deeper: our "ideas of what an individual is." Famous people as diverse as Alexander the Great, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman and P.T. Barnum embody definitions, in sometimes quite revolutionary ways, of how an individual exists and expresses himself or herself in the world of the time. For example, contemporaries Augustus Caesar, notable during his life, and Jesus, more notable after his death, provided very different models for self-definition in their public vs. transcendental paths. But what about contemporary celebrity? Braudy sees modern American self-definition torn between our wish to embrace transcendence, uniqueness and private truths and our desire for public expression and performance that win general acclaim and acceptance. Now that's a troubling notion. Champions of "inner truth" are notably absent from the popular pantheon, I think. And consider the exemplars of public performances awarded fame today--namely "celebrities" who put glam and self-interest ahead of emotional depth and communal well-being. Are we missing more inspiring role models to crown with renown, or are we ignoring them in favor of shallow symbols of wealth, looks and pleasure? Let's hope new varieties of celebrity arise. I shudder to think of Kim Kardashian as the defining icon of the times! For Braudy's book, go to http://www.amazon.com/The-Frenzy-Renown-Fame-History/dp/0679776303

Is the Heat Index Linked to Crime Rates?

It was a sweltering day in Southern California, and I found myself banging the phone down on yet another solar energy solicitation, secretly imagining I was bludgeoning to death this almost daily annoyance. How many times do I tell the same companies I already have solar? Blame it on the heat, shocked telemarketer. But if I can blame my temper on the heat, what about real violence? Do rising temperatures increase the violent crime rate? Back in August of 2013, a group of academics published a piece in The New York Times contending that, yes, higher temperatures make people more violent. Their conclusion was based on what they saw as 60 of the best studies on the relationship between extreme climate and human conflict -- whether interpersonal aggression such as murder or large-scale mayhem such as wars. Studies consistently found higher temperatures associated with more violence, claimed the academics, warning of dire implications given global warming. Certainly, problems with water, food and arable land due to global warming can be catalysts for large-scale conflict, but the link between temperature and interpersonal crime is less supported, even refuted by some data. Frankly, to blame violent crimes on the sun makes as much sense as blaming the moon to me. Yet it's an old and still popular belief that the full moon leads to an increase in violent, irrational acts. It's also an idea not backed by data, except that a 2005 study found over 80% of mental health professionals link lunar cycles to behavior anyway. I guess it's comforting to blame an external force, like the blazing sun or the glowing moon, rather than deal with the fault in our characters or our society. When it comes to crime and climate, I would paraphrase Shakespeare: The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves. For the article on weather and violence, see http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/opinion/sunday/weather-and-violence.html?_r=0

Clothing As a Clue to Character

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society,” remarked Mark Twain. Clothes, even if sketchily observed, make the fictional character, too. OK, naked characters rule in erotica, but you still want to know about clothes taken off; a tux or a leather jacket (ball gown or sundress) inspires a different fantasy. Clothing is such a key psychological and social expression that I attire characters carefully; chic, businesslike, sloppy, outmoded, provocative or thuggish, the clothes must fit the personality. I also have to decide if the character's clothing choice is natural and unstudied, or a conscious effort to present a certain persona. And to make sure clothing is interpreted similarly by most readers, it pays to check research on clothing psychology. Consider one study that found it took only 3 seconds for people shown pictures of men in tailored suits versus off-the-rack suits to make a more favorable judgment of the strangers in tailored clothing. I guess a sophisticated hero needs a tailored suit! Fashion choices can be especially tricky for women characters, especially women in positions of authority. In another study, when people were shown pictures of faceless "senior management" women all dressed in conservative business attire, varying only slightly in terms of skirt length or blouse buttons fastened, they expressed negative opinions of the "provocative" managers (meaning only a slightly shorter skirt or an extra button undone). So, if a heroine is aiming for the executive suite, I don't risk reader disapproval by dressing her in a tiny skirt and low-cut top, at least not at work. Clothing not only speaks to observers, it speaks to the wearer. A new outfit really can lift its owner's spirits. And just donning the trappings of competence can improve performance: A recent study found people asked to dress in a doctor's lab coat to perform a task were more careful and attentive than people performing the same task dressed in a painter's smock. If you're interested in clothing psychology, especially for women, check out Dr. Jennifer Baumgartner's book You Are What You Wear: http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-What-Wear-Clothes/dp/0738215201

Beware the Pitfalls of Internet Research

My son once wrote an earnest elementary-school paper about alien visitors based completely on Internet research. (I hasten to add that I was out of town when this happened.) Before shrugging off his childish online trust, note that even adult readers and authors have been misled by online sources. Internet research is convenient -- with seemingly every publisher, research outfit and news organization offering digital access today -- but information-highway riders must be wary. Yes, you can type in a search phrase and scroll through a trove of information sources, but those search findings are a Pandora's Box. Consider Wikipedia, which often tops the list of online search results. Wikipedia is a great starting point, but it is not an online research bible; it is an "open source"encyclopedia where non-experts may edit articles and even insert inaccurate information. Also be aware that when popular community information sites (ask.com or WebMD, for example) collect articles from outside sources, they may unintentionally include unreliable data or data interpretations. And, hopefully, even a neophyte web surfer knows that a blog or social media post can be opinion without any basis in fact. So how do you find reliable online information? First of all, beware single-source, dated, excerpted and/or unattributed information. Remain skeptical of "scientific" findings based on unexplained methodology, culled from tiny or non-random samples, contradicted by many other reputable sources, or provided by clearly biased, self-serving entities. For suggestions on reliable online sources, including government, academic and publisher sites, start with the ehow article at http://www.ehow.com/how_6326469_do-good-internet-research-wikipedia.html. But I would add the following advice (despite the imagined groans of digital-agers): Try also visiting a brick-and-mortar building called a "library" that is full of original source material and reference works. Instead of just sniffing digital footprints, consider interviewing a recognized expert in person! 

Mythical Online Threats to Offline Relationships

I'm not among those who suspect digital networking undermines offline relationships, especially romantic ones. I believe the basic need for emotional intimacy is not going to be eroded or replaced by expanding social media connections and constant mobile chatter. But when 66% of American couples (adults who are married or in committed relationships) say the Internet, mobile devices and social media are key factors in their lives, I suppose it's a concern worth exploring. A recent report by the Pew Research Internet Project should reassure. Its 2013 survey found 72% of online adults in marriages or committed relationships said Internet use has had "no real impact at all" on their partnerships. And of couples who said the Internet had an impact, 74% said it was positive! In fact, 21% of cell owners or Internet users said they actually felt closer to a partner because of online or text/cell message exchanges. Not that digital communications don't have negatives: For example, 25% of all coupled adults complained a spouse or partner was distracted by mobile use when they were together, 8% had an argument about the amount of time a partner spent online, and 4% got upset at something they found out a partner was doing online. There also were age differences that reflect the higher digital affinity of younger adults. I'm sure you've noticed that mobile device deprivation causes anxiety in people under 30. So 45% of 18- to 29-year-olds in serious relationships reported a significant relationship impact (both good or bad) from digital communications (compared with 25% for all couples). Now I admit there is one digital trend that does make me a tad queasy: Sexting is on the upswing for both couples and singles, with 9% of cell owners saying they sent a sext of themselves (up from 6% in 2012) and 20% saying they received a sext (up from 15%). For more on the Pew findings, go to http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/11/couples-the-internet-and-social-media/

Why You Gotta Have Friends (Beyond Facebook)

As of this post, I am actually on a cruise ship sipping wine with three girlfriends -- far from husbands, children, bosses and any other potential stress inducers. A regular getaway with friends is one of those things, like my gym membership, that I consider essential to my health. My friends are more than a collection of Facebook photos; they are the people to call in an emergency, trust with my secrets and share my joys. They improve my mental and physical well-being. Psychologically, my friends buck me up when I'm down, hold my hand when I'm afraid and keep me tethered to earth when I'm full of hot air. They also help me live longer and more healthily. Scientific studies show that friendship's health benefits include a better immune system (people with more social connections get fewer colds), less stress, improved brain power (including reduced risk of aging dementia); lower blood pressure and better sleep. In my opinion, all those social network "likes" and "friends" and shared photos of cute cats are distracting from a dangerous problem in American life: the decline of friendship. Studies show that Americans have fewer close friends today than they did 25 years ago (an average of two friends now), and that the decline in social connections has resulted in a drop in general happiness despite climbing material success. Is that increasing isolation being offset by the rise of social networking? I doubt it. In fact, social networking can actually make you feel more lonely and less happy. Recent studies have shown that the "friendship paradox" is at play on social networks: On average you really do have fewer friends than your social media friends. To make matters worse, you really are less wealthy and less happy as well as less popular on average than your social media friends. No wonder that research finds active social network users have higher levels of unhappiness! For more, read  http://www.technologyreview.com/view/523566/how-the-friendship-paradox-makes-your-friends-better-than-you-are/

Sleuthing 101: Are You a Good Lie Detector?

Most of us hear a slew of lies each day, and before you dispute it, realize that most of us are also bad at spotting lies (about a 50-50 chance of being duped, per research). We solicit and embrace relatively harmless deceptions ("Do these pants make me look fat?"), but when it's the case of a murderer, a crooked politician or a cheating spouse, failure to detect a liar has serious consequences. Think you're good at lie detection? Try the simple Lie-Q quiz at http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/quiz/. Here's one hint: If you suspect the nervous guy who can't make eye contact, you're chasing the wrong clues; liars can be glib and engage in more eye contact to sell their stories.  Since lies are at the heart of mystery writing -- both deceits plotted for fictional characters and deceptions by authors to keep readers guessing -- understanding why people lie and how to catch liars are basics. A lot of research on deceptive behavior's cues comes from psychologist Paul Ekman, who pioneered research in facial expressions, gained a reputation as "the best human lie detector in the world," and inspired the brief Fox TV series "Lie to Me."  While liars can be skilled at controlling their words and facial expressions, studies show there are still verbal and nonverbal "tells" to alert trained observers. One of Ekman's finds is how micro-expressions (complete but very brief expressions of hidden emotion) and squelched expressions (an angry response quickly masked by a smile, for example) can reveal deceit. For more, including examples of famous lies, read Ekman's book Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics and Marriage, available at http://www.amazon.com/Telling-Lies-Marketplace-Politics-Marriage/dp/0393337456/

Time to Debunk Those Myths About Millennials

I started out with a beef about the "millennial" generation. I have three children who are "millennials," and only one has finished reading my mystery novel! It's because millennials just don't read anything longer than 140-character text messages, I grumbled. They Tweet, Instagram, and check Facebook multiple times a day, but they don't have time to consume books because they are so busy communicating and connecting and letting everyone know where they are and what salad they are eating. Since they can quickly get all their entertainment online, it's not surprising that they've lost the habit of sitting for long hours with a Kindle e-book or turning printed pages without lots of graphics, I reasoned. Besides, old-fashioned mysteries about human failings and betrayals can't compete with a generation raised on movie wizardry, sexy vampires and zombie apocalypse. Unfortunately, the statistical data says otherwise: The "2012 U.S. Book Consumer Demographics and Buying Behaviors Annual Review" actually found that those born between 1979 and 1989 spent more money on books in 2011 than older Americans, buying 30% of books, while the well-off boomer generation of their parents only bought 24% of books. In jumping to conclusions about millennials based on a sample of two, I'm guilty of joining a lot of other misguided social pundits. I've had numerous conversations with boomer friends who bemoan millennial selfishness, short attention spans, unreasonable workplace expectations, and so on. If you have slipped into the millennial-bashing rut, or if you are a maligned millennial, you should read the amusing Washington Post blog piece "Please stop having dumb opinions about Millennials" by Alexandra Petri. It's time to debunk that "Me Me Me Entitled Trophy-Wielder Constantly Instagramming My Hookups While Having No-Strings Attached Salads" caricature. See the article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/10/07/please-stop-having-dumb-opinions-about-millennials/

Have You Joined the E-Book Crowd?

Are you an e-reader? I've noticed the evidence of e-book popularity in my own book promotion for Lies Agreed Upon. I may prefer reading an old-fashioned paper book, but I also purchase e-books for my Kindle, especially because it is so convenient when traveling. So I was curious about e-reading trends. According to research in 2012, 21% of American adults reported reading an e-book in the previous 12 months, up from 17% in 2011. Doubtless the percentage of e-book readers has increased even more in 2013. And the e-readers are different from traditional readers -- in ways that make authors eager to seek them out. Compared with other readers, e-book readers read more books. E-book readers consume an average of 24 books a year compared to an average 15 for non-readers of e-b0oks. E-book readers also are more likely to purchase rather than borrow a book. E-book reading is happening across an array of devices now, including dedicated e-readers, tablets and smartphones. For more about e-reading trends, go to the report from Pew Research at http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of-e-reading/

Solving the Mystery of the Mystery Reader

As an avid mystery fan, and now the author of a mystery novel, I'm naturally curious about the profile of the average mystery reader. In 2011, Sisters in Crime, an organization for advancement of women crime writers, released its first survey of buyers of mystery books, based on data gathered by Bowker's PubTrack sales analysis division. It turns out that my fellow mystery readers look a lot like me in some ways: female (68%) and over age 55 (48%). They are also more likely to be Southerners (35%), to live in suburban areas (48%), and to have no children at home (77%). However, I depart from the norm when it comes to purchase behavior by embracing the digital age, making both print and e-book buys while shopping in book stores and online. In contrast, most mystery readers prefer retail stores (39%) over online (17%). And while 90% reported knowing about e-books, only 13% had read one (mostly those who were under age 30).  So how do I attract more mystery buyers to my online-only book distribution? Leading purchase drivers such as "well-known author" and "book series" aren't helpful, but one top-ranked purchase influencer is within reach: recommendations from friends and relatives, as well as other readers. So keep posting Amazon, Kindle and Goodreads reviews -- and talk it up, guys! For the full report, go to http://www.sistersincrime.org/associations/10614/files/ConsumerBuyingBookReport.pdf

The Work of Creating Believable Fictional Places

The action in Lies Agreed Upon plays out against both fictional and real settings, and I tried to make the fictional environments as descriptively believable as the actual backdrop of historic New Orleans. In fact, it requires more research to successfully describe imaginary places as it does to describe real locations. To create a fictional place, I first look for historical models in my research reading. I also browse the Internet for tourist descriptions, local memoirs and news stories of similar places. I study photographs of sites that fit with the age, style, scenery and location. I look to my own experiences where appropriate. For example, in Lies Agreed Upon, the Lost Lady Restaurant does not exist. So I drew on dining experiences in the converted buildings of other old farms, plantations and inns, and I found descriptions of real-life Louisiana restaurants housed in old plantation outbuildings to use as models. Right now, I am researching for my next mystery set in Northern Virginia, just outside of Washington, D.C. I must create a believable neighborhood, with look, history and demographics that fit with both local reality and the grimmer turns of my plot. I spent my teen years in this area and still visit my father there, so I can draw on memory and recent observations, but the final environment will be a composite of lots of research, imagination and a few experiences -- including some surprisingly dark ones for sunny suburbia!