Interview with Gary L. Stuart, author of Hide and Be and My Brother, Myself
Today it gives the Indie Crime Scene great pleasure to interview Gary L. Stuart, author of Hide and Be and My Brother, Myself.
What originally inspired you move from practising law to writing about it?
Lawyers write, so to speak. We write our clients stories for them because the legal story is based on statutes or common law. Clients rarely know the legal consequences of what they do, or what exact harm they suffered. We write those stories to aid and assist them in securing justice, retribution, or compensation. Most lawyers write in stilted, dull, passive voice because that is how judges and law professors write. But creative nonfiction is a perfect way to tell client’s stories if you do it profluently and vividly. I did not move “from” law. I blended it into my creative writing.
You started out as a member of the criminal bar. How has that experience influenced you, and how much have you used your experience in your writing?
I was never a member of the criminal bar. I was a civil trial lawyer with a specialty in legal ethics. It makes little difference in court whether the case is civil or criminal—both are based on procedural and substantive elements of law practice. My early nonfiction books were all about big, overarching issues in criminal cases because the stakes in criminal cases are much greater than in civil trial work. And because criminal law always raises constitutional law issues. “Justice for all” is real to me, both intellectually and professionally. So, many of my books are vested in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
As well as being a prolific writer, you are also Adjunct Professor of Law at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. How do you balance your creative writing with academic and legal writing?
In 1994, the dean of the ASU College of Law invited me to teach a course in pre-trial procedure. By then I had spent about fifteen years teaching advanced trial skills at the National Institute of Trial Advocacy, and Arizona Trial College. So, moving from trying cases to teaching law was seemed easy. I practiced full time and taught as a side gig. I published my first book in 1994; The Ethical Trial Lawyer. That book kick started my career in lawyering, teaching, and writing.
We’re here to discuss your new duology, two novels due to be published on February 6th, 2024, Hide and Be and My Brother, Myself. What can you tell us about the unusual format and how does it reflect the subject of the books?
I started writing this “book” in 2005. I wrote it in 3POV omniscient, chronologically, blandly, with little tension, mystery or profluently. And it was a stinker to boot. I didn’t even try to query it—I just boxed it on a shelf in my file room. In 2008, I gave it a rewrite but didn’t fix it’s many flaws. Back in the box. In 2012, I rewrote it again, with the same setting, same characters and with a new twist—one twin died in his early twenties. That event surprised me and advanced the story. But still, no fire in the hole—back into the box. 2015 caught up with me and I did another revision—not a complete rewrite, just a revision. It felt better, but something was still missing. I rewrote the whole book in 2021-2o22 by changing the POV, giving up the chronological pacing, using multiple voices, and with a new opening setting and new characters. This version peeled backward the chronological flow and inserted new voices and settings. This version moved back and forth from First POV to Third POV knowing my reader might get a little lost or confused—that can be a good thing. I put in guardrails and guideposts as subheadings and chapter descriptions. The problem now was book length—an 800-page bemonster. So, I cut it into two books, deleted one hundred pages out of each, and called it a duology.
Your protagonists are identical twins, young men who have survived an abusive childhood with serious mental disorders. What piqued your interest in the problem of disturbed twins?
What a great question! Identical twins are a fascinating subject in novels because there is a huge body of medical and scientific research. They are formed when a single fertilized egg splits into two embryos, resulting in two individuals with the same genetic makeup. Their shared DNA is not 100% but it’s close, when the twins are reared together. Over time they have minimal genetic differences, which makes them ideal for studying the effects of environmental and individual influences on human health and behavior. If raised together, they are remarkably close in both thinking and doing. If raised apart they are fascinating. But what happens if they are separated? How do they feel? Lost? Threatened? Ripped apart? I looked for new ways to say old things. But I was careful to insert credible research to make it appear “real.” I tried many medical malpractice lawsuits as a lawyer, so I was familiar with anatomy, psychology, psychiatry, and motive. My identical twin characters invent a game—hide and be—which lets them change not only good things, but avoid terrible things, by pretending to be the “other” brother. Once that became part of the book, the natural thing, at least in my mind, was to complicate it by adding characters that were not flawed but damaged by the game the twins initially played. When one died, their game became the survivor’s life—no longer a game—now a way of outliving death, living in the past and the present, with outsiders never the wiser.
Who is Dr Elizabeth Socorro, and what part does she play in the story of the twins?
Dr. Elizabeth is a main character in the book because she is the only person who can untangle the conundrum the Cheshire twins are. The Cheshire twins are victims of psychological trauma as little children. From about two years old, their life is an ongoing trauma laced with abuse. They barely understand at first that their keepers are not their parents. As they get through early childhood living with people who care little about them, they invent their game of hide and be. Some of their trauma may come from sexual abuse, although there is no narrative in the book about that possibility. But the consequence of that possibility is built into these boys. There are times when they feel unloved, always at risk, tainted, defective, little ticking time bombs. At times they are negative, lack confidence, self-esteem, and emotionally numb. But they have each other. They are inventive. They invent a game that shelters one or the other because they shift blame and trust back and forth. They are at times courageous, protective, impulsive, insecure, and petrified. All of this must be explained in the text, but not necessarily from one narrator. And rarely truthfully. Life for them becomes false because the truth is unbearable. They share one vital thing—identity. They are each other.
Why is this a Dr Elizabeth Socorro story?
I chose to tell this story by inventing a smart psychiatrist who has a special interest in twins and works for the U.S. Department of Prisons as a jail psychiatrist. Because their foster parents told them their real parents died, they feel abandoned, vulnerable, lost in a world not of their making, and most of all defensive of their individual personalities. So, they often act as “the other” twin. Hide and be Marty. Or Hide and be Arty. Marty was bad so Arty became him, for a minute, an hour, or an experience. But the reader does not know what to make of the identity problem in court, as the story emerges there. That environment includes judges, lawyers, cops, prisoners, and seemingly an unanswerable question of who’s on trial. Dr. Socorro is an expert witness. She sees the defendant-twin who is in jail, but his true identity is buried in his past. Someone must tell the judges, lawyers, and parties who’s on trial—Arthur or Martin. The wounding event both twins suffered as two-year olds is buried in the past. The crimes with which one twin is charged might be his, or his brother’s. But the reader does not know that one twin is dead, and the survivor twin now lives both lives at once. He is his brother, and his brother is him. That is not as impossible as it sounds. Dr. Socorro is both protagonist and antagonist. Some readers will find her the only truth teller in the book. While some of this is paranormal and based on good science, much of it is fiction—credible fiction fed to readers by a likeable, smart psychiatrist—Dr. Lisbeth Socorro.
Why is it important to avoid stereotypes when writing about mental illness and serial killers?
Authors owe their readers credible fiction that does not exacerbate or create mental illness. I write a blog called, “The Ethics of Writing.” I hope my novel meets the ethical imperatives I teach on my blog. I assume that some of my readers will have mental health issues. About 20% of Americans do. I tried hard to ensure my story was not depressive, stereotypical, or harmful. I am acutely aware of harm caused by careless writers who intentionally or otherwise engage in societal shaming. I used a principal character, who is a psychiatrist to help balance the tension in my book with the mental state of potential readers. Both twins were traumatically wounded as children. One of them died as a young man. The survivor twin survives by taking his brother’s life as his own. He harms many people without realizing the harm he is causing. There are mental health issues in this text. My story is fiction and fantastical. I hope it is not stereotypical. I tried hard to avoid that.
What made you consider the possibility of twin telepathy and how does it appear in the books?
Mental telepathy is transferring thoughts from one mind to another. Historically it has existed in fiction, science fiction, and paranormal offerings outside mainstream science. But at least by 2014, science confirmed telepathy as real mind-to-mind communication. Arty and Marty talked to one another telepathically. They shared thoughts without talking and listened to one another in total silence. For them it was the best way because outsiders could not know their thoughts the way they knew each other’s thoughts. Hide and Be is not good science, but I hope it is good fiction. In today’s modern labs, signals picked up by EEG from one subject to another are transmitted over the internet as email messages via Trans Cranial Magnetic (TMS) stimulators. That’s not in my book, but it is real. Real fiction and good science.
I’ve seen many real conundrums in real courtrooms with able judges and talented lawyers. Identification is rarely an issue, but when it is, it is a conundrum. Scientifically, identification is a mental mechanism of the unconscious by which (1) the ego attaches to itself qualities or properties belonging to other people, or (2) the ego transfers to one person the representation it holds of another person or of itself. [See page 241 of the text of this book]. But in court, the test is different. Legally, courts demand proof of identity that proves that a person before the court is the very same person that is alleged, charged, or reputed to be. In most cases where identity is an issue, a courtroom witness recognizes that the person at the bar is the same person whom he saw committing the crime, et cetera, cetera. My characters, Arthur and Martin Cheshire, challenge everyone, all the time, to correctly identify them as one or the other Cheshire twin. When that fails, the game works. These entire narrative challenges the reader to figure it out—is the character in the witness box Arthur or Martin? How can we tell? Does it matter? Are they who they SAY they are? Is what they say the truth to them and a lie to others? Dam your eyes, dam your eyes, I am who I say I am! That’s the core of this book. My job was to help the reader get it at the right time, not too soon and not too late. My conundrum was to write a book that was inside my head and had to be written in a way that mystifies as well as it identifies. In Book One, the defendant in witness box is Arthur but insists he is Matin. In Book Two, the defendant in the witness box is Martin but insists he is Arthur. The lawyers disagree, the court demurs, and the crimes are not solved, and there is no justice for the victims. Or is there? It all depends on who is hiding and who is talking.
How important is the issue of identity (and dissociative identity disorder) to the books?
The difference between identity (whether legally or scientifically) and dissociative identity disorder is night and day. Our identities are who we are. Many people have more than one identity. We are us is a truism. A small percentage, maybe 3% of us, dissociate our identities sporadically and unwillingly. So, in my book, the reader does not know at first which twin is which—Arthur? Or Martin? That reality changes from one chapter to the next, and then reverts itself when the reader is caught unawares. Reality changes from time to time. It could both are alive, at least in the mind of one of the two. But what if one has died? Which one? The narrative leans toward Martin dying and Arthur surviving. But what if it was reversed—what if it is another Hide and Be? Maybe Arthur died so Martin could be Arthur. Or maybe Arthur died, and Martin could keep his life in Maine and ignore his dead brother’s life in San Diego. Does it matter? Well, maybe not to everyone, but it certainly did to Rosie. Who is in her bed making love to her—Martin? It mattered to Marcela, who thought she was sleeping with Arthur. What if he is Arthur in California and Martin in Maine? How could that be? Brothers can look identical, have identical needs, sins, and lies, right? Maybe not. Did both women have lovers who switched back and forth, one pretending while the other was “being,” as in pretending to be his brother, not himself? Another conundrum. And what about the claim that Martin embezzled thousands of dollars from their employer? Did he or was it Arthur who stole the money and for once, didn’t tell his brother. What if he did and tried but failed to reach his brother. What if their telepathy didn’t work when it wasn’t a game, but a crime?
How did you set about researching the idea of troubled twins, and did you look at any real life, past cases?
I spent 30+ years researching legal and medical issues. I researched medical issues because I was trying medical malpractice cases. That gave me the ability to research all my nonfiction books because they had to be not just true, but provably so by offering medical research in evidence in real trials. I researched “twins” the same way I research everything else; book by book, article by article, fact by fact, anatomically, etiologically, and as deeply as the project required. Several gigabytes of data make the fiction in this book credible. The science is close enough for fiction writing. It’s credible if not “actual.” There is only one American case where a court let a defendant offer evidence of DID as a defence to murder. That fact pattern is not used in my book.
You blog regularly about the ethics of writing. What can you tell us about that and how do you deal with current legal and political issues?
Gingerly and tentatively. I was a philosophy minor in college because I got out of taking a four-credit lab science. I’m a self-taught ethicist because I spent decades writing, teaching, and holding forth on legal ethics. I used much of that experience to tiptoe into the ethics of writing. Legal ethics is codified in dozens of ways. My first book—nonfiction—was “The Ethical Trial Lawyer.” I know a great deal about legal ethics. I know about the ethics of journalism. There are no ethical codes governing politicians. That’s probably because they have no ethical imperatives, only political ones. I ignore oxymorons.
You have recently given up work to write full time. What prompted that decision?
I joined the USAF at seventeen. I went to college at twenty-one. I went to law school at twenty-four. I was licensed to practice law at twenty-seven. Now I am eighty-four. It’s time to write full time, don’t you think? I am not retired; I’m changing focus—from legal writing to literary writing.
What are your plans for future novels and are you working on anything currently?
I write books on a commission basis for lawyers, judges, and Arizona notables with a life story to tell. I hope to continue that. I write nonfiction books and novels simultaneously, on a royalty basis. I use traditional publishers on nonfiction titles and self-publish my novels. Nonfiction keeps me researching and learning about real life. Fiction keeps me enthused and gives me a chance to do something non-writers miss. Anais Nin said it best—"We write to taste life twice.” I am drafting a new novel about a man named “Cent.” He is mute. He uses an iPad to explain himself—"I am not a mute. I am mute.” I am using that phrase to explore how important speech is and how little most people know about muteness. I do not know where Cent is going, why he’s mute, or what will happen on the next page. I write from the seat of my pants—no outline—no plan—my characters just show up on the page, on their own accord. I can’t wait for a good one to show up on the page.
What is the importance of writing about crime in a court setting and how does it differ from traditional police procedurals and detective novels?
Madame Wikipedia says a police
procedural is a subgenre of procedural drama and detective fiction that
emphasizes the investigative procedure of police officers, police detectives,
or law enforcement agencies as the protagonists, as contrasted with other
genres that focus on non-police investigators such as private investigators. My
nonfiction books are police procedural in some ways, but I focus on the
consequences of police actions. A detective novel is a subgenre of crime
fiction and mystery fiction in which an investigator or a detective investigates
a crime, often murder. In those two subgenres the judicial system is of little
consequence or importance. In my fiction, judges, lawyers, and legal challenges
define and set the stage for the story. I use my courtroom experiences and my
lifelong interest in civil and criminal case law to set stages, tell stories,
win, lose, or go begging. I write westerns and mysteries that include the legal
system and the rule of law. Every writing teacher tells wanna-be-writers to
write what they “know.” That’s good advice. I write what I know and make up
everything else in the book.
Amazon
About Gary L. Stuart:
Gary Stuart is a Phoenix lawyer, an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, where he also serves as the Senior Policy Advisor to the Office of the Dean. He is a former member of the Arizona Board of Regents and is a member of the Maricopa Bar Association’s Hall of Fame. He has published scores of law review articles, op-ed pieces, essays, magazine articles, short stories, CLE booklets, and eighteen books. He blogs about the ethics of writing at https://ethicsofwriting.com/. His book and writing site is https://garylstuart.com/.
Comments
Post a Comment