From Joseph Cotto on The Washington Times Communities:
Eisler tells us about his recent entry into the self-publishing industry, how he defines his political philosophy, whether or not there is a moral message conveyed through his novels, and much more.
. . . .
Cotto: Recently, you ventured into the field of self-publishing. How has this worked out so far?
Eisler: It’s been better even than I’d hoped. I’ve self-published four short works, all of which have done well, along with a new novel (The Detachment) and a new short story (The Khmer Kill) with Amazon.
What a lot of people are still catching on to is that publishing is not an either/or proposition. The choices writers have are not mutually exclusive. I’m a pretty good example of the hybrid approach: I have eight legacy-published novels, four self-published works, an Amazon-published novel, and an Amazon-published short story (we did it as a Kindle Single). The main thing is that, for the first time, we writers have choices about how to publish our books!
. . . .
Cotto: Generally speaking, is there a moral message that you try to convey through your novels?
Eisler: I’d put it this way.
Since the end of the Cold War, there’s been much discussion in the thriller world about whether the thriller, at least the contemporary version, is still a viable form. Despite then Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey’s admonition that “We have slain a mighty dragon, but now find ourselves in a jungle filled with snakes,” villains seemed scarce during the “peace dividend” years of the Clinton administration. Nine-eleven and the explosion of al Qaeda in the popular consciousness, of course, changed all that, and Islamic fundamentalism provided a new treasure trove of contemporary villains and plotlines.
For thriller writers interested in realism, though, the familiar “Islamic Terrorist Villain” plotline has a serious shortcoming: terrorism, of whatever stripe, poses far less danger to America than does America’s own overreaction to the fear of terrorism. To put it another way, America has a significantly greater capacity for national suicide than any non-state actor has for national murder. If thrillers are built on large-scale danger, therefore, and if a thriller novelist wants to convincingly portray the largest dangers possible, the novelist has to grapple not so much with the possibility of a terror attack, as with the reality of the massive, unaccountable national security state that has metastasized in response to that possibility.
Link to the rest at The Washington Times Communities