What Waits for You

by Joseph Schneider

  L.A. remains an important character in this book, especially in response to Varma’s anti-affordances. What parts of the city did you want to come across most vividly?

  The star location in this book is Watts Towers. I’m embarrassed to admit that even though I grew up in Los Angeles, I didn’t visit the site until I conducted my research. I know lots of folks who’ve similarly spent decades in the city without experiencing Rodia’s masterpiece, and I hope some of my readers will take interest in what’s certainly one of the great artistic jewels in the US.

  Alisha Varma acts as a divisive character. What kind of people inspired you to write a character like her? Where did her belief that “people behave better when they’re being observed” come from?

  A month or so before I began work on What Waits for You, I came across an archived piece on 99% Invisible, which is this terrific podcast that details the stories behind all the stuff around us that we don’t usually bother to notice or think about. The feature story was on something called the Camden Bench, this hulking slab of concrete that Camden Town commissioned to replace its normal bus stop benches. It’s designed to discourage undesirable behavior—littering, leafletting, skateboarding, sleeping, graffiti—the list goes on.

  I remember being impressed at how many highly intelligent people were behind the design and implementation of this bench, and how just as many highly intelligent people called it out as anathema. Tech writer Frank Swain pointed out that it’s “defined far more by what it is not than what it is,” and Selena Savić dubbed it “a masterpiece of unpleasant design”—which remains one of the funniest insults I’ve ever heard.

  The Camden Bench was my introduction to a term I hadn’t heard before: “hostile architecture.” I’d had no idea that was a thing. I mean, we’ve all been annoyed when we can’t get comfortable in public spaces because of some physical deterrent, but I’d never thought of it conceptually before. When you can’t lean against a ledge because of some funny steel protrusions, or you can’t lie on a bench because of an armrest installed in the middle, your behavior is being modified. By denying you the opportunity to engage in an “undesirable” act, the designer or civic planner is shaping the social dynamics of the environment.

  How interesting, right? I love it as a subject because it’s complex, and there aren’t easy answers as to where the ethical lines should be drawn. For Alisha Varma, those ethical lines don’t exist; an environment should be as engineered as possible. Every aspect of design should be taken into consideration to maximize harmony and flow and to minimize disruption. Don’t give people the opportunity to do bad things, she reasons, and bad things won’t happen. She’s not altogether wrong, which is why I think she makes a good villain, but she wants to remove all human interaction in dealing with a human problem. I don’t think this is a compassionate or ultimately effective approach, because you’ll have lots of people who feel unwanted and discarded.

  Varma’s not based on anyone in particular; rather, she’s my little dig at bad science. It’s remarkable how many brilliant, well-intentioned scientists—the Fritz Habers and Thomas Midgleys—blundered so confidently and disastrously onward, and at the expense of us all.

  As far as Varma’s hypothesis goes that we behave better when we’re being observed, there’s actually a lot of solid data indicating that’s the case. I think foremost in my mind when I wrote that was the 2006 study by Newcastle University, which demonstrated people were much more likely to contribute to their office’s coffee fund when a picture of a pair of human eyes were taped to the wall nearby.

  At what point in your writing process do you decide what clues to include? Do you decide the conclusion and add details that support it? How difficult is it to add hints without giving yourself away?

  I’m always looking for opportunities to drop in clues; the tricky part is keeping track of them all and making sure they’re placed at appropriate intervals. Too often, and the mystery’s obvious; too infrequent, and the reader rightly feels cheated. So when I write, I have two documents open side by side: the main manuscript, of course, and a beat sheet listing all the plot points I want to make sure to thread in along the way.

  Jarsdel and his colleagues rely on police procedure rather than instinct. What are the challenges of writing characters who work this way? Do you prefer reading procedurals?

  Police procedure is the process and science of investigation, whereas instinct is the art. A good detective can make reasonable jumps and connections, and the reading audience won’t usually call bullshit if it’s established that he or she has good instincts. But I tend to emphasize procedure because detectives are part of our highly codified law enforcement system, and procedure is the vehicle by which they successfully apprehend criminals. The challenge is twofold: to maintain verisimilitude while keeping the story moving. Real life murder investigations are slow and painstaking and would rarely sustain a reader’s interest if rendered in real time, so I do my best to indicate the passage of time while maintaining a good pace. And in the end I think an emphasis on procedure helps me write better stories, because I have to really think everything through carefully. No one can suddenly have a revelation as to who did what. It all has to be earned logically.

  And yes, I love reading procedurals. One of my all-time favorites is Frederick Forsythe’s The Day of the Jackal. It’s incredibly dense in detail yet absolutely riveting, and every action in the plot turns on a piece of evidence. One of the most beautifully structured thrillers ever written.

  What’s on your to-read list these days?

  Earlier this year I read the late Thomas Thompson’s Serpentine, which is without a doubt one of the greatest true crime books I’ve ever read. I was amazed I hadn’t read this author before, so now I’m halfway through his masterful Blood & Money, for which he won an Edgar.

  How has your writing process changed since your first book?

  The first book was written over about three years and was full of false starts, dead ends, and lots of cuts. I didn’t have that kind of time for the second one, so I worked much more efficiently. I treated it like a movie, writing up a beat sheet and a character manifest. Mostly I did more thinking before I wrote, which saved me time later on (and spared me the grief of major cuts). Using my improved method, I was able to generate a solid first draft in nine months.

  Acknowledgments

  As was the case with my last book, I owe an enormous thanks to Det. Rick Jackson, who I’m happy to report—despite his alleged retirement—is busy cracking cold cases in Northern California. Still, he carved out the time to help me construct scenes from an investigator’s POV. What are the inconsistencies in a person’s routine, and how do they match up with the timeline in question? Sponholz’s ultimately damning logbook alibi came straight from one of Rick’s stories. If you want to learn more about his work, I recommend Michael Connelly’s Murder Book podcast, each season of which explores in detail a complex murder investigation in the great detective’s career.

  I was very lucky to be able to correspond with Special Agent (ret.) Mark Safarik—formerly of the FBI’s elite Behavioral Analysis Unit—who shared with me his experience analyzing staged homicides. His extensive work in this area provided me with everything I needed to construct both Sponholz’s and Varma’s staged scenes. In addition, I received expert guidance from the following professionals: Nina Mannone (real estate), Det. Dan Lynch (police procedure), and Dr. Jonathan Gray (trauma medicine).

  At Sourcebooks and Poisoned Pen, I’d like to thank my always extraordinary editor, Anna Michels, whose mastery of story craft helped transform the novel into the thing I’m most proud of having written. My gratitude also goes to the phenomenal production team led by Jessica Thelander, which includes assistant editor Jenna Jankowski and art director Heather VenHuizen. Diane Dannenfeldt was my ace copyeditor, bringing the manuscript up to CMS standards and catching errors I never would’ve spotted. The very talented
Shauneice Robinson was responsible for packaging and marketing.

  Eve Attermann of WME New York continues to amaze me with the work and care she puts into my representation. Also at WME are the wonderful Sam Birmingham and Haley Heidemann, who dedicated their time and enthusiasm in helping to bring this book to market.

  My deepest thanks to my first readers, Diane Frolov, Andrew Schneider, and Alethea Gard’ner. Further and essential support was provided by Dr. Paul Puri, Dr. Carol Conner, Ellen Evans, and Dr. Bob Royeton. Finally, I’d like to express my appreciation to Laurie Lew and Larry Dilg, two of the finest rhetoric and literature teachers in California.

  About the Author

  Joseph Schneider lives with his wife and two children in California. His professional affiliations include The Magic Castle and the Imperial Society of Teachers of Dancing. What Waits for You is his second novel.

  Thank you for reading this Sourcebooks eBook!

  Join our mailing list to stay in the know and receive special offers and bonus content on your favorite books and authors!

  CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP

  Books. Change. Lives.