AIEP NEWS

Zaragoza 2006

Hotel

I send you herewith the list of participants in our 18th AIEP conference in Zaragoza. Like I told you earlier our conference hotel was not big enough to hold you all, and Fernando Martinez Lainez and his Saragossan friend, Juan Bolea, found a second hotel, a short walk from the first. For those who want to participate: please check carefully if your name is on the list of participants and be sure to have confirmation of your hotel reservation.

E-mail

Everybody who receives this, is obviously on my AIEP mailing list. If you know of AIEP-members who are not on it, or if you spot erroneous addresses, please let me know.

Incidentally, Paul Pajos from Estonia, is the only member from Eastern Europe I have been able to contact since Amsterdam. Emanuel Ikomonov, or Dr Slavchef do not answer and the address I have for Nikita Filatov (filatov@rol.ru) bounces. Anybody heard from these people?

Anthology

The idea of publishing an anthology of short stories, written by participants in Zaragoza, is still on the table and Fernando tells me that it is definitely on, but that he needs more time. So we shall talk about this during the conference and set a deadline then.

Program

While I estimate the time we'll need to conclude our business meetings, Fernando confers with Juan Bolea in order to set up a timing for the visits etc. We try to send you a full program before the end of this month.

Message from Thomas Przybilka

'At present, I am working on a new compilation of a revised and expanded version of my 1989 publication of a "Bibliogr aphy of Secondary Sources Covering Crime Novels Written by Women'". Will participants of Zaragoza, who have correspondent/relevant material (articles, interviews etc published in books or magazines) either bring it to the conference or please send it to Thomas Przybilka, Buschstr. 14, D-53113 Bonn/Germany.'

AIEP-history

Richard Donnenberg wrote me that he has quite a collection of photographs, taken during our meetings. Please dig into your archives and find facts and pix. Especially about the early days of our association.

Please bring whatever you find to the conference. And may I still hope to find a volunteer-amateur-historian who is willing to bring some coherence into the material?

AIEP as a brand name

Many AIEP-branches are affiliated organisations of writers, who do not use the name AIEP (or IACW). May I please insist that all affiliated organisations use the AIEP-logo and state their membership of AIEP on their Internet Home Pages and on their letter heads? And by the way: you don't have to be president of your local organisation to attend AIEP-meetings. I am sure you realize that, but do your members realize it too? Do they even know that by joining your local organization they become automatically AIEP-members?

And so on

I am sure that I forgot half of what I was going to tell you. But I certainly shall remember it while I am under the shower, or trying to overtake a terrified Brit (where's left?) on the autopista. So I'll have to let you know later.

Keep smiling

Piet

*******************************************************************************************************************************

Hi guys,

1) Our meeting in Zaragoza is so succesful that the Hotel Via Romana is already full. Fernando Martínez Laínez has arranged a second hotel, within walking distance.

It is the Hotel Tibur : reservas@hoteltibur.com or tel. +34 976 20 2000, or fax +34 976 202002. Prices and service are very comparable if not identical. And drop me a line to confirm that you are attending.

Be sure to mention the 'conferencia of AIEP'.

2) For the first time many members bring their partners to the meeting. Carmina (Fernando's wife) and Jaki (my wife) are conferring to come up with a seperate agenda for them.

3) For some reason I can still receive e-mail on aiep@teigeler.net but I cannot use this address to send mail. The people at the server tell me that 'it is a problem in the whole of Spain. ' Go figure. Anyhow you can reach me on teigeler@telefonica.net too. And if that does not work, there is always pteigeler@yahoo.com

4) We shall come up with a full agenda as soon as possible.

In the meantime

Keep smiling

Piet

**********************************************************************************************************************************

This dates are cast in concrete and Fernando and I have decided to call it our 18th Conference.

*Our conference will coincide with the local Feria del Libro (Book Fair)

* The municipality of Zaragoza invites all the participants to a farewell dinner on the evening of the 4th, and to a buffet dinner on the 2nd.

* The major of Zaragoza will provide an English translator for the duration of our conference, and we will have the free use of an autobus whith which to visit the city of Tarazona, a monument of mudéjar art. Tarazona is also the seat of an important university for translators. Fernando thinks that the mayor of that city might invite us for lunch.

*During the conference (probably in the morning of the 2nd) a visit is planned to the Forensic Institute of Zaragoza and to the department of the scientific police (CSI)

*Fernando is negotiating about the publication of an anthology of short stories written by the participants to the conference. The stories will be paid for and the anthology shall be presented during the Book Fair (on the evening of the 3rd)

*The participants will be invited to take part in two different round tables about crime writing, that will be organized by the Book Fair. Participants whose work is translated into Spanish, will be invited to sign their books at the Book Fair.

Nominees for the Das Syndikat (German Language) Crime Writing Awards

+++ PRESSE-INFO +++

15.03.2006

FRIEDRICH-GLAUSER-PREISE 2006

Die Entscheidung für die Nominierungen der diesjährigen Friedrich-Glauser-Preise, der Preise der Autorengruppe deutschsprachige Kriminalliteratur DAS SYNDIKAT in den verschiedenen Kategorien, ist gefallen.

Die Preisträger
werden bei der Abschlussgala der CRIMINALE 2006, dem „Tango Criminale“ in Koblenz (Rhein-Mosel-Halle) am Sonntag, den
30. April 2006 bekannt gegeben.
* * *
Die Auswahl der Nominees wurde von der Autorenjury des SYNDIKATs getroffen, der auch immer der/die Preisträger/in des Vorjahres angehört.
* * *
Ab dem 01.05.2006 sind die jeweiligen Preisträger und die Begründungen der Jury-Entscheidungen, sowie die offiziellen Presseerklärungen auf den entsprechenden Internetseiten des SYNDIKATS
www.das-syndikat.com und der CRIMINALE
www.die-criminale.de nachzulesen.
Dort gibt es auch weitere Infos zum Friedrich-Glauser-Preis und dem Hansjörg-Martin-Preis.

* * *

Die Criminale,
das jährliche Treffen der Mitglieder des SYNDIKATs ist das größte deutschsprachige Krimifestival, mit Lesungen, öffentlichen Diskussionsrunden, Workshops und Vorträgen zur Kriminalliteratur.

Kontakt zum Jury-Sekretär
Thomas Przybilka
crimepy@t-online.de
Tel. 0228 - 21 34 10

Kontakt zum SYNDIKAT
Jürgen Kehrer
sprecher@das-syndikat.com

Angela Eßer
presse@das-syndikat.com

Ilka Stitz
mitglieder@das-syndikat.com

Jürgen Ehlers –                Weltspartag in Hamminkeln
                                           (in: Mords-Feste, Leporello)
Almuth Heuner –              Der lange Schatten der Schwanenburg
                                           (in: Tödliche Torten, Leporello)
Beatrix M. Kramlovsky – Ein jegliches hat seine Zeit
                                           (in: Tödliche Torten, Leporello)
Sandra Niermeyer –         Die Wohnung
                                           (in: Das Magazin, Zeitschrift)
Michael Rossié –             In Süchteln läßt der Tod sich Zeit
                                           (in: Mords-Feste, Leporello)

KURZGESCHICHTE (dotiert mit 1000 Euro)
Nominees aus 144 Neuerscheinungen

Jürgen Ehlers - Mitgegangen (KBV)
Gisa Klönne – Der Wald ist Schweigen (Ullstein)
Linda Stift – Kingpeng (Deuticke)
Leonie Swann – Glennkill. Ein Schafskrimi (Goldmann)
Holger Wuchold – Sein Anteil (Piper)

DEBUT (dotiert mit 1500 Euro)
Nominees aus 54 Neuerscheinungen

Professor Dr. Edgar Marsch
Professor an der Universität Freiburg / Schweiz wird der
Friedrich-Glauser-Preis – Ehrenpreis der Autoren
für seine Forschungen und Publikationen zur Krimialliteratur
zuerkannt.

EHRENGLAUSER (undotiert)

www.das-syndikat.com

HANSJÖRG-MARTIN-PREIS – (dotiert mit 2500 Euro)
Kinder- und Jugendpreis der Autoren
Nominees aus 55 Neuererscheinungen

Jürgen Banscherus – Die Reihe „Ein Fall für Kwiatkowski“ (Arena)
Rudolf Herfurtner – Pauline und der gelbe Ritter (Hanser)
Christian Linker – Das Heldenprojekt (DTV Junior)
Rainer M. Schröder – Das Kloster der Ketzer (cbj)
Christoph Wortberg – Keine Wahl (Thienemann)

+++ PRESSE-INFO +++

15.03.2006

FRIEDRICH-GLAUSER-PREISE 2006
EHRENGLAUSER

Die Jury der Autorengruppe deutschsprachige Kriminalliteratur DAS SYNDIKAT (AIEP/IACW) hat den FRIEDRICH-GLAUSER-PREIS - KRIMIPREIS DER AUTOREN 2006 in der Sparte EHRENGLAUSER

Professor Dr.
EDGAR MARSCH

(Universität Freiburg / Schweiz) für seine jahrzehntelangen kontinuierlichen Forschungen und seine Publikationen im deutschen Sprachraum zum Kriminalroman, zur Kriminalerzählung und zur Prozessliteratur zuerkannt.

Begründung:
1972 legte Edgar Marsch seine Publikation „Die Kriminalerzählung. Theorie, Geschichte, Analyse“ vor. Dieses Werk wurde 1983 in zweiter durchgesehener und erweiterter Auflage noch einmal publiziert und gehört seit Erscheinen der ersten Auflage zu den grundlegenden Standardwerken zur Kriminalliteratur. Mit Vorlage dieser Publikation machte sich Edgar Marsch zudem einen Namen als einer der Pioniere zur Theoriebildung in der Forschung zur Kriminalliteratur. Gleichzeit hat Edgar Marsch in seinem Werk „Die Kriminalerzählung“ den Namensgeber des Krimipreises der Autoren, Friedrich Glauser, wieder zum Thema gemacht.

Die Forschungsinteressen des Preisträgers gelten der Gattungstheorie und Gattungsgeschichte, den Techniken und Strukturen analytischen Erzählens und der Kriminalliteratur. Darüber hinaus hat er es stets hervorragend verstanden, Studierende im Bereich Germanistik und auch Lehramtskandidaten mit der Kriminalliteratur intensiv vertraut zu machen und ihnen ins Besondere die für ihr Studium wichtigen Begegnungen mit Kriminalautorinnen und Kriminalautoren zu vermitteln. Auch das aktuelle Forschungsprojekt von Professor Edgar Marsch beschäftigt sich mit dem modernen Kriminalroman der Schweiz. Hier wird die Entwicklung des Genres anhand der Romane von Loosli, Glauser und Dürrenmatt bis hin zu den Schweizer Vertretern der Moderne, wie Roger Graf, Alexander Heimann, Sam Jaun, Hansjörg Schneider, Verena Wyss, Peter Zeindler und Paul Lascaux untersucht, um nur einige wenige der wichtigen zeitgenössischen Kriminalautoren der deutschsprachigen Schweiz zu nennen. Das Programm der Vortragsreihe „Im Fadenkreuz: Der Neuere Schweizer Kriminalroman“ (21.3. bis 26.6.2006), in die Edgar Marsch wichtige Schweizer Kriminalautoren wie auch Theoretiker zum Genre eingebunden hat, zeugt vom kontinuierlichen akademischen Interesse des 1938 geborenen Edgar Marsch an der Kriminalliteratur.

Der Preis wird am 30.4.2006 beim Tango-Criminale zum Abschluß der Criminale 2006, dem Jahrestreffen des SYNDIKATS in Koblenz, überreicht (www.die-criminale.de). Die Laudatio wird von Paul Lascaux (Paul Ott) gehalten.

Die Jury des SYNDIKATS:
Anke Gebert (D), Paul Lascaux (d.i. Paul Ott, CH), Richard Lifka (D), Thomas Przybilka (D), Stefan Slupetzky (A) und Christoph Spielberg (D).

Kontakt:
Jury des SYNDIKATs
c/o Thomas Przybilka
Buschstr. 14
D-53113 Bonn
Tel. 0228 – 21 34 10
Fax: 0228 – 24 21 385
e-mail: crimepy@t-online.de

A Press Release from Thomas Przybilka and Das Syndikat, February 25, 2005

The juries of the German language authors' group Das Syndikat released their nominees for the different categories of the FRIEDRICH-GLAUSER-PREIS - KRIMIPREIS DER AUTOREN 2005

The awards will be presented on April 30, 2005 at the "Tango Criminale" the final gala of the Criminale 2005, in Arnsberg, Hochsauerlandkreis. The Criminale is the annual meeting of the members of Das Syndikat and is the largest crime festival in Europe, with readings, panel discussions, workshops and lectures on crime writing.

Beginning on May 1, 2005, the judges' decisions and the official press releases will be published on Das Syndikat's home page www.das-syndikat.com and on the homepage of Criminale www.die-criminale.de.

The nominees in alphabetical order:

BEST NOVEL
(5.000 Euros)

Gert ANHALT, Für eine Hand voll Yen (Knaur Taschenbuchverlag)

Sabine DEITMER, Scharfe Stiche (Krüger Verlag)

Christine GRÄN, Marx, my love (C. Bertelsmann Verlag)

Robert HÜLTNER, Inspektor Kajetan und die Betrüger (btb-Verlag)

Hansjörg SCHNEIDER, Hunkeler macht Sachen (Ammann Verlag)

- The prize presentation will be done by Gabriele Wolff, Prize winner 2004 -

BEST FIRST NOVEL
(1.500 Euros)

Susanne AYOUB, Engelsgift (Verlag Hoffmann und Campe)

Mischa BACH, Der Tod ist ein langer, trüber Fluss (Brandes & Apsel Verlag)

Birgit LAUTENBACH & Johann EBEND, Das Kind der Jungfrau (Prolibris Verlag)

Christian SCHÜNEMANN, Der Frisör (Diogenes Verlag)

Stefan SLUPETZKY, Der Fall des Lemming (Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag)

- The prize presentation will be done by Norbert Horst, Prize winner 2004 -

HONORARY ACHIEVEMENT

Ingrid NOLL,
The crime writer from Weinheim,

Is to be awarded the Friedrich-Glauser-Prize for contributions to German language crime writing

- The prize presentation will be done by Jürgen Alberts -

Members of jury: Klaus Dewes, Dorle Gelbhaar, Norbert Horst, Thomas Przybilka, Marcus Starck und Gabriele Wolff.

SHORT STORY
(1.000 Euros)

Anne CHAPLET, "Wem die Stunde schlägt in Königsborn"
(in: Mehr Morde am Hellweg, Grafit Verlag)

Horst ECKERT, "On the Road: Juwelen am Hellweg"
(in: Mehr Morde am Hellweg, Grafit Verlag)

Doris GERCKE, "Der Richter von Unna oder: Das achte Gebot"
(in: Mehr Morde am Hellweg, Grafit Verlag)

Gunter GERLACH, "Hochzeit vin Voerde"
(in: Mord am Niederrhein, Grafit Verlag)

Sandra LÜPKES, "Klackklack-Klackklack"
(in: Mein Juist, Verlag Alt Juist)

- The prize presentation will be done by Carmen Korn, prize winner 2004 -

Members of the jury: Ina Coelen, Klaus-J. Frahm, Rebecca Gablé, Nina George und Carmen Korn.

HANSJÖRG-MARTIN-PREIS - Children's and Juvenile Literature
(2.500 Euros)

Jürgen BANSCHERUS, Das Lächeln der Spinne (Arena Verlag)

Kirsten BOIE. Die Medlevinger (Oetinger Verlag)

Kristina DUNKER, Sommergewitter (Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag)

Joachim FRIEDRICH, Die geheime Tür (Thienemann Verlag)

Sabine LUDWIG, Die Nacht in der Mr. Singh verschwand (Dressler Verlag)

- The prize presentation will be done by Johanna Gerdes & Malte Friedrich Gölz -

Members of the jury: Günther Bentele, Ulrike Schweikert, Christine Spindler, Regula Venske, Barbara Wendelken,

and the young readers Johanna Gerdes, Malte Friedrich Gölz, Kerstin Jeschke, and Helene Reiner.

The panel judges affirm very strongly that a nomination for the FRIEDRICH-GLAUSER-PRIZE and the HANSJÖRG-MARTIN PRIZE signifies a major appreciation of the authors and their crime stories and novels.

Thomas Przybilka
(representing the juries)

Wishes: Since this is a fairly long e-mail before I even start on it, I'll
keep it short: may Christmas 2004 bring peace to you all and may 2005 be the
best year in recent history.

Report: 1) I have been in contact with Rafael Ramirez Heredia and Jonathan
Harrington and Mérida 2005 is going to be a very memorable meeting. We are
working on it.
2) Thomas Przbylcka has an idea for a regular newsletter. I'll (we) keep you
posted.
3) In Amsterdam, Fernando Martinez Laines suggested to organize a homage to
Chester Himes in Moraira, the Spanish village where he spent his last years
and where, by the way, there is a monument for this great crime writer. This
village happens to be in our neighbourhood and so Jaki and I went to see the
mayor. Result: Our Spanish members are invited to a homage-week end and
Chester's widow, Lesley, will attend too. Should any of you be in sunny
Spain in the week end of March 13 2005 (date can change) you are of course
welcome.
Minutes: Janet Laurence finished the Minutes of our meeting in
Amsterdam/Antwerp (thank you very much, Janet, bless your beautiful soul!)
You'll find them hereafter. Janet Titan's job might prove too much for some
of your inboxes. In that case this mail will bounce and I'll resend it in
two halves.
Remember to keep smiling and see you in 2005
Piet

Charles den Tex proposed and Helga Anderle seconded that the Minutes of the
2003 Meeting be adopted. The motion was unanimously approved.

Jeremiah Healy thanked the hosts for bringing the conference to this strange
but wonderful hotel. Applause for the organisers of the conference
followed.

Janet Laurence volunteered to serve again as secretary to take the minutes
of this meeting.

Jerry asked those attending the conference for the first time to say a few
words about themselves.

Josef from Austria said he was a crime novelist and had a small publishing
firm with an interest in crime novels to do with pulp fiction.

Jorg Bornimann was originally from Switzerland and now a New Zealand
academic who did his doctorate on crime fiction.

Bob Cornwall, a reader of crime, specialist in European and world crime
fiction, reviewer and interviewer for two magazines in the UK: CADS, and
Tangled Web, a web and data base.

Kristinn Kristiansson from Iceland, not a crime writer, a fan. Is chairman
of the Icelandic AIEP.

Aevar Josephsson: Was chairman of the Scandinavian conference in May in
Iceland.

Jerry said that the long-standing members of the conference welcomed the new
members. He then turned the floor over to Charles den Tex for Item 2 of the
Agenda, orientation.

2. Orientation: Charles den Tex welcomed the conference to Amsterdam. He
explained that the hotel is an experiment but the management had asked him
to say that they are very happy to have the conference, this group is
exactly the market the hotel has been designed for. The price of the room
does not include breakfast or any other meals. He announced that at noon
Ingrid Kurnig’s art exhibition would open. The meeting would reconvene at
2.00 pm. The presentation of the Bulgarian short story award will take
place this evening at 9.00 pm, when the two previous winners, Chris Rippen
and Bob Mendes, will read from their stories. Both presentation and
readings will be in English..

A Reception was planned for 5.30-7.00, on the highest platform above the
restaurant.

Tomorrow the conference would go to Antwerp by bus, leaving by 9.00 am and
arriving in Antwerp around 11.00. Charles passed round a piece of paper
with the addresses of restaurants where the conference would be at various
times.

Jerry reported that AIEP now has a new name for its web page on the
University of Oklahoma web site, which has been organised by Jim Madison
Davis, a professor at the university; it is: www.iacw.org and is listed
under Item 3 of the Agenda. The North American Branch of AIEP, known as the
International Crime Writers’ Association/ICWA, also have their own web site,
organised by Mary Frisque, Executive Director: www.crimewritersna.org

3A: Jim was able to fund a bound copy of the addresses, printed and funded
by the North American branch, who provided the original initiative, and
distributed in 2002. Various details have changed since then but Jim didn’t
know when a new edition could be printed.

3B If no new list of members’ addresses was coming out, this suggestion by
Chris Rippon will not be necessary.

3C Before the meeting, Mary Frisque, the executive director for the North
American branch of AIEP had made the following comments: It is fine for
AIEP world-wide to have a web page on the University of Oklahoma site. It
is also fine for the North American branch to have its own web site and for
those who have their own web sites to have them listed or even linked on the
two AIEP web sites. However it would be inappropriate to have e-mail
addresses of members accessible without elaborate coding for security, any
direct mailer could get addresses and bombard them with junk e-mail. It is
inconvenient not to be up-to-date but the alternative would be worse. Jerry
said it was important to remind the members of each branch to inform Mary
Frisque of any changes in e-mail address so that she has an up-to-date
e-mail list for any requests coming to the web sites to be forwarded. If a
publisher, for instance, wants to contact a member, the name and address of
the publisher will be sent to the member, allowing contact without invasion
of privacy. And it is frustrating for the President to send out messages
only to have addresses bounced back because they are no longer valid. So
would members please keep the President, Mary Frisque and Jim Davis up to
date with e-mail addresses. Thomas said that when he sends out a directory,
he only sends full addresses and does not include e-mail. Any enquiry goes
to Thomas who then contacts member.

Jerry said he had worked on giving member branches some information about
AIEP to use with respective branches/meeting, information that could be
helpful before next worldwide meeting.

It was ironic that he wished everyone good health and was then diagnosed
himself with cancer of the prostrate. Because of his family history, the
cancer was caught very early and he had undergone a successful operation.
He would urge everyone if they were a male over 40 or a female having a male
contact over 40 to urge them to be tested for prostate cancer during regular
health checks. The disease is detectable and curable.

Elections: Charles den Tex had provided excerpts from constitution and
information about elections. This meeting was technically a Congress as,
Jerry said, he had been elected in Prague and his four year term was now
ending. There were three candidates: Carmen Iarrera, Emanuel Ikonov and
Piet Teigeler, and they should be thanked for standing. The program
contained their addresses, which had been previously e-mailed to members,
thereby saving time at the Congress. Over the next few days, members could
talk to the candidates. However, the constitution did not provide an
election procedure. It made sense to have the election on Monday by secret
ballot. If none of the three candidates gained an overall majority on the
first ballot, there would be a second ballot between the two candidates with
the highest votes. The constitution provided that only members attending
the Congress could vote, also that members of a given region could vote for
their Vice-Presidents. Jerry announced that several delegates could not
remain for Monday’s vote. Jerry’s suggestion was that we allow them to
submit their vote for both President and Regional Vice-President by proxy.

It was suggested that a proxy vote should declare a first and second choice
to cater for possibility of a second vote.

There followed considerable discussion on the desirability of holding the
election at a time when neither one of the candidates nor the Chairman of
the Election Sub-Committee, Kirsten Holst, could be present. Delegates were
reminded by the president that an amendment to the constitution was adopted
three years ago that provided that if the president for any reason was
unable to fulfil their term of office, then the four vice-presidents would
confer with each other and select one of their number to be the successor to
serve out the term. With that in mind, the president suggested that
delegates caucus amongst the other members of their region present to select
the best candidate as Vice-President for the region. Thomas Pryzbilka
announced that he was willing to run as candidate for the Vice-President of
Western Europe.

The position of Vice-President for Latin America was raised. It was stated
that Rafael Ramirez-Heredia was the only candidate. Communication with him
had proved difficult and it was possible that he had not received proper
confirmation of his position. After some discussion it was agreed that
Jerry and Fernando Martinez Laine would send him a telegram stating that the
Congress had confirmed his position as Vice-President Latin America and
asking if he was willing to organise the proposed conference in Merida,
Mexico at the end of October 2005. This was agreed.

Further discussion covered the desirability or otherwise of electing a
Deputy President but it was left that the current situation whereby if the
president was unable to continue as president, then the four vice-presidents
would select one of their number should continue. The president considered
this procedure was more flexible and covered the situation.
Vice-Presidents would have to be aware that they could be voted into the
office of president should the occasion for a new president arise.

Finally, after considerable debate, the conference voted to hold the
election for both the President and the RegionalVice-Presidents on the bus
between Amsterdam and Antwerp on the Saturday as all the delegates would be
present and it would utilise spare time.

The President then invited Deen Kogan to make a pitch for members of AIEP to
attend the 2005 Bouchercon.

Deen announced that she had had the pleasure of having AIEP participate in
the 1998 Bouchercon in Philadelphia. She was chairing the 2005 Bouchercon
in Chicago the 1-4 September, Labour Day Weekend. She extended an
invitation to all AIEP members to attend and asked that they spread the
word; it was important at this time in history there be this kind of
interaction. It would be very good for non-US writers to come to a
Bouchercon, to have the opportunity to share work and name with a broad base
of readers and other writers. Bouchercon offered 1500-2000 people
interested in the genre, Deen said she aimed at a 60% element of
non-professionals in the genre. There would be the opportunity for
attending members to participate in general panels, she suggested those
delegates who hadn’t attended Philadelphia, when an AIEP conference had been
run in parallel with participation in the general conference, talk to those
who had.

It was suggested that if Deen could prepare a letter giving details of
Bouchercon, say half a page to be sent by e-mail, it could help delegates
with visa applications. It was pointed out that an electronic passport
would not require a visa.

Jerry said that while it had been Jonathan who had produced the draft
programme for Merida, he and Fernando had agreed that Rafael must be the
effective head of the conference. He would do his best to bring that about.
Fernando said that Rafael did not believe that he had received official
blessing for his position as Vice President Latin America. Jerry felt there
was a difficulty about communication. It was decided that Fernando would
compile a telegram in Spanish to send to Rafael from both Jerry and himself
confirming Rafael’s position.

Jutta Motz said that the draft programme offered a choice of an excursion to
either Jonathan's hacienda or Aztec sites. She felt delegates would want to
do both and that they should not be faced with similarly difficult
decisions. Jerry said her comments would be noted. The draft programme had
been put together in a great hurry due to the difficulties resulting from
the four hurricanes which had savaged the region recently. This was a
perfect opportunity to get Latin America back into the organisation and he
urged delegates to make every effort to attend. The current exchange rate
meant that, once there, the cost of visiting Mexico was very reasonable.
Fernando pointed out that, while this was true for delegates from abroad,
for most of Latin America the costs were too high for delegates to attend
unless there was some sort of subsidy. It was another reason to ensure that
Rafael was the main organiser of the meeting. Otherwise the main reason of
the meeting, that of meeting with Latin American people, would fail.

Jerry confirmed that from the beginning it had been intended that this
should be a Latin American conference. Helga Anderle explained that Rafael
Ramirez-Heredia was one of the founding members of AIEP and a famous Mexican
writer. He had organised two previous conferences in Mexico and had
excellent connections to the government. He had experience in organising
subsidies for Latin American writers who need financial help. This was a
last chance to get them involved again, after the conference, they will go
back into the woodwork. At the moment there is nobody in Mexico who is
organising a branch or any activity.

There was more discussion on the point that, whilst Jonathan has been active
in arranging a draft programme and is certain that the conference ‘will fly’
and communication difficulties will be overcome, it was important that the
conference was not seen as being organised by the US. Jerry felt that
everything should be done to ease the ability of those without much money to
attend the conference, as the North American branch had done in providing
scholarships underwriting people attending Bouchercon in Philadelphia.
Answering a point raised by Piet, Jerry said more could be discussed about
funding and incorporation under Item No. 6. He also told Susan Moody that
Any Other Business could be brought up under Item No. 10.

At this point the meeting broke up to attend the opening of Ingrid Kurnig’s
exhibition. She had taken short stories and books by various of the
delegates and made monotype/mixed media illustrations that picked up various
references and made them into a work of art. These were greatly admired.

6) B. Possible sites for the AIEP 2006 conference: Jerry had found it
helpful to have an idea of where the conference could be two years ahead.
He asked if anyone had given any thought to this possibility. It would not
be a Congress as it would not be necessary to elect a President.

Thomas Przybilka explained that in 2006 the German Crime Writers,
Kriminale, would celebrate 20 years at a conference at Coblenz on the Rhine
and would like to invite AIEP to join them. It would not be necessary to
have two days of business meetings and he would try to ensure that writers
would be put on panels and would give readings. There should be a special
hotel rate but he didn’t have any more details at present. The conference
would be from Wednesday, 26th April to the 1st May, which was Labour Day in
Germany. Nearest international Airport is Frankfurt and Coblenz was a 20-30
minutes train journey from the airport. Low cash carrier flights went to
Cologne and that was also near, just over the Rhine.

Jerry said that there had been a precedent for AIEP holding their annual
meeting in the springtime as part of or a supplement to a major crime
conference.

Susan Moody said that Fernando, who was out of the room at this point, was
anxious to have the 2006 meeting in Zaragoza. 2006 was also the 20th
anniversary of AIEP, it would an important conference for the organisation
and this needed to be recognised.

Jerry said that this point could be discussed further after the branch
reports had been received. He thought that either suggestion could work
well, both Thomas and Fernando had organised wonderful conferences for AIEP
in the past.

Piet said that Benidorm in Spain could be considered as a permanent reserve
as a conference location. It was serviced by cheap charter flights and the
Alicante province was much more interesting than its reputation. Out of
season there was very good and inexpensive hotel accommodation..

Deen Kogan pointed out that the German suggestion would clash with the US
Edgar award weekend. Jerry did not feel this would cause the conference to
lose too many members.

At this point Fernando returned to the room and confirmed that he was
exploring the possibilities of holding another AIEP conference in Zaragoza
in 2006 and he was 90% certain it would be possible. The conference would
be similar to the last one held there and there would be a lot of help from
the local government, etc. As for timings, it could be in the Spring, June,
or in the autumn, early October, later than that would be too cold.

Jerry said he would be hesitant to explore which venue would work best as it
would be up to his successor as President to be in contact with Thomas and
Fernando on which centre makes sense for which year, with Piet’s suggestion
of Benidorm as a back-up location.

Emanuel at this point said that he would like to offer Bulgaria as a
location. As it wouldn’t be possible to organise the 20th anniversary of
AIEP in Cuba, he’d thought Bulgaria could be an alternative location, the
conference was welcome there any time. Perhaps, though, the most profitable
location would be Germany as the media was more interested. Bulgaria was
closed as far as news media were concerned and he hadn’t noticed the Spanish
media publishing much on an AIEP conference. The decision need not be made
now but these comments could be helpful.

Fernando suggested that the meeting vote on which place was preferred
because he could not talk with his contacts in Zaragoza if the decision
still had to be made.

Jerry suggested that the vote be postponed under Any Other Business on
Monday when his successor would be in place.

Paul Ott enquired how much money was needed by the organisers to put on the
conference?

Charles said he had had fifteen and a half thousand Euros to spend, which
made a number of things possible. Actual requirement for money depended on
the place where it was organised. Part if the money in Amsterdam was
required to subsidise hotel rooms, which ran to 4000 Euros, this might not
be necessary in another location.

Susan asked if Thomas’s offer still stood if the meeting voted for an autumn
conference?

Jerry explained that it was a piggy-back situation. Fernando said that a
spring meeting could offer too little time between the Mexican conference
and the German.

Jerry said that voting on the 2006 conference would take place on Monday at
Item 10. Before then members could think about the various issues. This
was a question for the new President, not the outgoing one.

Emanuel announced he would keep it short. As usual the Bulgarian AIEP had
run a short story competition in the name of Atanas Mandadjiev and that
night the winner of the third competition would be announced. Apart from
that, efforts were being made to get the Bulgarian crime writers together.
Things hadn’t changed much in Bulgaria, it was difficult to make money with
crime or any other type of writing. However, they were hoping to move
forward and for AIEP to meet in Bulgaria again.

In the Netherlands, the Dutch Crime Writers Association was growing steadily
with the number of members increasing every year. In the last year there
had been many new writers coming to the fore; it seemed that every year
there were more debuts, more writers publishing their first book. In a
remarkable development, the first he could remember, the Netherlands has
produced a Dutch best-selling crime author. Saskia Noort had her debut last
year and then shot to the top of the charts with her second novel and
remained there. The Dutch Crime Writers Association had spent a long time
looking for a new sponsor for their annual prize and have now found a chain
of bookstores to take it on, we hope for three years.

There were sixteen members in Austria. After Thomas made a new list of
German language writers, Helga wrote to everyone who didn’t have an e-mail
and then dropped those who didn’t answer. The genre is getting more and
more attention from the press and critics. The association had a meeting
recently on making a web page for AIEP Austria but it had too many mistakes;
now a Carinthian expert was working on it. There is an anthology coming out
in October – Scene of the Crime, Vienna - with female authors and if it was
successful, there could be a follow-up anthology.

The meeting has already covered the web page and web site. Ever since Janet
Hutchings, editor of Ellery Queen, met with AIEP, she has had a Passport
Series and publishes a different foreign writer each month. The North
American branch had a dinner honouring her this autumn. The people from
Alfred Hitchock magazine were there and it was hoped that they will start a
similar series. There are a couple of anthologies in the pipeline.

In 2001 readers became aware that there are Swiss authors and not only
German authors. This was due to Paul Ott’s success in organising a meeting
for authors living in Switzerland. There was a big expo in 2002 over the
whole summer in five different locations, where he brought crime authors in
every Saturday night. In 2003 a meeting was organised by Jutta and Katerina
Graf in Zurich over four days with meetings in restaurants and libraries and
some theatres. There were over 10,000 visitors. Paul has not only
organised the meeting but he has been writing a book containing biographies
of Swiss authors and the history of Swiss crime writing, which he has to
finish by the end of October. He has organised an anthology of short
stories where authors have had to choose a location in Switzerland for a
crime to take place. He has been making clear to the public that there is a
difference between Swiss authors and German authors.

Paul added: There are authors writing crime novels in German, French and
also one in Italian. If we count everyone producing books over the last 17
years is included, there are 60-70 authors; those meeting regularly are
about twenty. The booklet produced by last year’s AIEP organiser gave Paul
the impetus for a bigger essay on crime literature and for the book on the
history of Swiss crime writing.

Kirsten said she was only representing Denmark at the conference because the
Danish have decided to leave SKS, the Scandinavian Crime Assocation. There
are several reasons for this; they were not very interested any longer
because they didn’t hear very much from the top, no news. The SKS President
didn’t send out news about AIEP meetings, news didn’t go to members, they
didn’t hear enough, didn’t know enough, were not informed, so decided to go
our own way.

Kristinn Kristjansson: We sent information about the conference in April to
the President and for October last year, it was his problem that he didn’t
send it.

Kirsten: The Danes have their own Danish crime academy and are trying to
make that work. A small meeting was held in her house with about eight
staying there for the weekend and the decision was taken to go it alone. On
paper there were many paying the membership fee but there were not many
active members. In Denmark there is the Palle Rosencrantz prize for the
best crime novel published in that year. SKS has been informed that the
Danes were leaving but would like to remain on the GLASS KEY jury panel for
electing the winning Scandinavian crime novel. Kirsten had mentioned the
problems the Danish of the SKS had been having at last year’s AIEP
conference when she asked if the Danish branch could declare independence
and remain in AIEP and she had heard nothing to suggest that that would not
be possible.

Jerry said he hoped that if more AIEP members would come to meetings then
rifts and schism within regional groups could be ironed out more
effectively. It was difficult when some members stop communicating to keep
enthusiasm going.

Aevar announced that he was now President of SKS. A communication had been
sent out last fall about the conference, including to the Danish President.
It had been a very a very successful conference but only one Dane had
attended. He was sorry to hear about Danes going their own way. The
situation had been discussed in Iceland but there had not been enough
information available on the problem. It had been agreed that efforts would
be made to get the Danes back into fold. He was the one to initiate the
talks and hoped to talk to Kristen. He believed the difficulties were only
on the surface and that SKS could be one happy family again. The situation
regarding the jury for the GLASS KEY would have to be discussed with the
different Scandinavian Vice Presidents because GLASS KEY was what SKS was
all about, it was a powerful tool that could lose some of its power if a
country dropped out, and it was at the conference that the award was made.

Then Aevar moved onto a report on Iceland and the rest of Scandinavia. The
GLASS KEY for the best Scandianivan crime story had gone to Norway this
year, to Kurt Aust for an outstanding historical crime story. Kurt Aust is
a Dane living in Norway and writing in Norwegian. The book has not yet been
translated. His Icelandic colleague Arnaldur Indridason won two years
consecutively. He is now published in Germany, UK, Netherlands, and about
to be the first Icelandic writer to achieve publication in the US. The
conference in Iceland was very successful, it was very good to have Jerry
with them giving them news of AIEP and that had stimulated his attendance in
Amsterdam. There had been good discussions on crime novels and Icelandic
sagas. The Finnish Crime Society was celebrating its 20th anniversary and
had invited Aevar. In Iceland there were have thirty members, in Finland
there are 950, but the Icelandic association stuck to authors, critics and
professionals involved in the genre. In Finland they include enthusiasts.
Discussions are taking place in Iceland over whether to follow this
practice. They had only eight people who did anything. It might not be
possible under the AIEP constitution or there could be ways round it. The
Icelandic society is very young, it was founded by Kristinn. A short story
competition had been organised, all meetings were in a bar in Reykjavik and
they provided 2700 Euros for the first prize, 1200 for the second, and beer
for the third prize. The best stories were published in an anthology.
There have been crime novels written in Iceland for something like ninety
years but it is only in the last few years that they have appeared
regularly. Now other writers are jumping on the band wagon. Aevar
concluded by hoping that it would be possible to get Kirsten and the Danish
association back in SKS.

Nikita offered his greetings as the representative of the Russian branch of
AIEP and thanked the hosts for the excellent organisation of the conference.
He reported on the project of the Russian branch which had been named,
‘Detective Stories on Friday’. After the AIEP conference in Daun he had
been inspired to introduce foreign writers to Russian readers. He had had a
difficult search before finding publishers who were interested in the
project and had the necessary funds available. What was now planned was a
series of twelve to fifteen weekly issues of a pocket-book publication, each
issue to consist of a crime novel, a detective short story by a different
writer and some features such as reviews, publicity, crosswords, etc. He
was very grateful to all who had submitted work for consideration and
announced that six crime novels and two collections of short stories had
been selected. The work proceeded slowly as foreign texts had to be
reported on by a reviewer proficient in the language. Works positively
reviewed were issued with a contract and a professional translation was
commissioned. Then a Russian editor worked on the story. The whole process
takes two to three months and is expensive. So he apologised to the
selected authors over the delay in issuing contracts and paying advances.
Also that the project was more prestigious than commercial. Because of the
cost of translation, etc, they were only able to pay $200 US for a novel or
for a collection of short stories, plus a royalty of some 8%. He looked
forward to receiving more texts from AIEP members, every one would be read.
He also asked permission to use the official AIEP logo in the series design.
He ended by wishing everybody big drawings and huge royalties.

Since the first enormous Italian crime novel success, many people wished to
write crime stories and publishers sought the same success by publishing a
lot of crime novels. Hundreds are coming out, both translations and novels
by Italian writers, but few of them are good, many are called mystery novels
but only because they contain a dead body. In the Noir festival in the
first week of September, 120 novels for the year were considered for the
Hour and Carmen had the honour of being one of the short listed five
nominees, though she didn’t win. The news as far as AIEP is concerned is
both good and bad. Good because the President in charge since 2001, the
publisher Gianfranco D’Orsi, is doing a good work collecting stories from
AIEP members for anthologies. One had been published, and she was working
on another that had been commissioned. On the other hand. Gianfranco has
no interest in getting people together, since he was elected president,
there had been no meetings and he didn’t write letters. However, he had
done a very good job for AIEP by organising three anthologies. Maybe,
Carmen said, he had the right idea because when she was president, she had
to struggle to get people together and to explain what it was all about,
Italian writers were possibly more selfish than other nationals; she never
had a friendly hand from one of her colleagues, as she had had from most
other members. In Italy there is lots of jealousy. She didn’t know if
there would be a new President next year and feared for a future without
meetings or the sharing of information, etc.

Jurg apologised that being asked to report on the situation in New Zealand
had caught him off balance. Three years ago there was a very happy two
weeks of a book fair in Auckland, poetry, novels and a panel on crime
fiction. He had talked to one of the writers and been told that most of the
books there came from overseas. There were about twenty active and regular
crime authors living in New Zealand. The writer he’d talked to lived in
Australia, which offered a somewhat larger market. If AIEP was promoted in
New Zealand, it could bring the writers together, and he would be willing to
work on this, he had three or four names to canvass.

Susan Moody said that she tried to contact crime writers in Australia and
tell them about AIEP; but they weren’t interested and didn’t want to join.
It was an incestuous society there with everyone stabbing everyone else in
the back as hard as they can. However there were some really good crime
writers in Australia that it would be good to get together. Currently there
was no AIEP society in Australia or New Zealand. There was a Sisters In
Crime branch in Sydney, very catty, that wasn’t connected to the US
organisation, and a loose affiliation of Australian crime writing ladies.
Trying to get writers together there was a struggle.

Population of Estonia, said Paul, was one million, perhaps a little less,
and little opportunity for expansion. There were not many crime writers,
though an interesting trend was in writing about true crime, which reflected
the rise in actual crime that was following on the rapid economic
development. If true crime writers want to be popular, they have to tell
stories. Some of them are joining in with the crime writers. In the
Estonian branch it has been decided that, rather than have meetings
complaining about being a small nation, action has to be taken. They are
working on selling ideas to groups wanting to organise mystery weekends.
Also they want to make audio anthologies, cassettes with all the writers
contributing stories. They are also looking to bring in Latvia and
Lithuania and are currently looking for contacts. Paul is already
corresponding with possible members. It will take time but perhaps one
beautiful day there will be members from all the Baltic countries attending
AIEP conferences.

The situation is slowly, slowly improving. She wouldn’t talk about the
general situation because this would be covered on Sunday afternoon. There
was a new AIEP member, a publisher and an authority on Dashiell Hammett, who
was unable to attend the conference but is very interested. Last year
Virginie attended a Franco/German conference on crime writing in Berlin,
very serious. French authors who came were very impressed by the Germans.
They asked Virginie how she knew so many of the writers. She told them that
for years she’d been trying to interest them in AIEP, it was through AIEP
that she had been introduced to these writers. At the conference a director
of a big salon and a guy who runs a crime festival said they wanted to make
one on German crime authors. She suggested that if this was so, Thomas
should contact them and made them do one on AIEP. In the French branch they
have six or seven writers who are on the list as members but never attend
meetings. The branch needed people who will come, attend and do things.
Through the Germans it might be possible to interest the French in doing
something. The general situation, though, was good, people were not
stabbing each other in the back because everyone had work.

Janet reported that the crime market in England seems to be quite sharply
divided between the exceedingly successful writers, such as Ian Rankin and
Minette Walters, who receive large advances and publicity tours, and the
rest of the field. Over the last five to seven years, the major publishers
have cut their crime lists and looked for new voices. Many an established
crime writer has had to be published by reputable but small houses such as
Allison & Busby and Severn House, who pay very small advances. They have,
however, little alternative and at least they get Public Lending Rights,
which bring in a useful annual income. No one writer can earn more than six
thousand pounds, which prevents the most successful writers scooping the
pot.

While new voices are being sought, fewer and fewer publishers will read
unsolicited manuscripts and fewer and fewer agents are taking on new
writers. The outstanding writers will, of course, succeed. The less than
outstanding are having more and more of a struggle.

Serial murders and blood and gore are popular but so also are
psychologically motivated novels, very often with a hard edge. Crime for
the new writer is still one of the most inviting of genres but writers are
expected to carve out a sizeable market for themselves within three or so
books. The Mystery and Thriller Writer Bookclub, part of the monumental
Book Club Associates, has this year taken on the sponsorship of the UK Crime
Writers’ Association Dagger Awards. Some writers have been outraged as they
consider the book clubs rob the writer of the royalties that are their
right. Others accept that the book clubs sell large quantities of books at
a discount that would not be sold at the recommended retail price and that
the more of their books that are sold, the more their careers will benefit.

For once, he said, he had a success story. About 3-4 years ago, Chris
Rippen proposed we invite the AIEP conference to Amsterdam together with
Antwerp. After he had agreed, he’d realised he would have no help
organising the Antwerp participation, so he founded a Flemish association
for crime writers. After a difficult beginning, they had a board and an
organisation. The president, Hubert van Lier, ws also president of the
Flemish Association of Literary Writers, which has about 400 writers as
members. The Diamond Bullet award had been organised, open for all crime
books published in Dutch. Now in its third year, the award has received a
lot of attention. The sponsor gives the winner 12,500 Euro’s worth of
diamonds. There has never been so much crime writing, publishing, reading
in Flanders as now. In most countries, the best sellers are Anglo-American
writers. In Flanders at least five of the top ten are Flemish writers. The
Flemish association of crime writers has been active on several different
fronts in past twelve months. They are participating in the book fair which
is part of the Antwerp World Book Capital of Literature for 2004. Although
the population of Belgium is only six and a half million, already the Fair
has received 75,000 visitors. Bob had signed between one and one and a half
thousand books, some authors had sold more. He had seen people going out
with baskets of books. A few weeks ago in Antwerp there was an open-air
manifestation with writers and poets coming to read. It had 15,000 visitors
and the stadium was full. The Association edited an anthology that was
freely distributed in libraries. There is a website much used by schools
and media when they want to write about an author. There is not much crime
or criminals in Belgium, they write about it instead.

Thomas said he would add some sentences to what Virginie had said. This
November there will be a new conference in Berlin on German, French and
Polish crime writing. The annual meeting of Kriminale took place beside the
River Rhine and included colleagues from the Netherlands who gave readings,
there were more than 160 readings during the week. Five prizes or awards
were given, each of 1500 Euros. Kriminale had about 40 members,14 from
Austria, 9 from Switzerland, 1 from Luxembourg. Syndikat last year
supported more than 18 national and international crime writers’ events with
money. Thomas asked members to read his letter when they received it and to
answer the international questionnaire, answers would appear on the website.

Jerry said there were some interesting questions on it and the answers could
be made use of by the author himself.

Fernando reported that the Spanish situation is improving little by little
and becoming rather good. But people are very unrealistic. There was the
same problem as Virginie had in getting members to do a concrete job.

There was a recent meeting in Madrid. The association had the possibility
of becoming an autonomous section of Spanish Writers Association, which
would be very good as it would give a place for regular meetings, also
perhaps some financial help for organising meetings. It was hoped the
situation would be resolved in the next weeks or months. There was a big
bookshop in Barcelona called Negro dedicated to noir crime novels,
thrillers. The shop was run by a man dedicated to organising crime groups,
to sending messages, recommending new books, etc. Fernando could supply his
details, he could supply anything required in the way of information about
authors, books, etc. There is also an association in Gijon called Friends
of Crime Literature which has published a magazine called Gansterera, it has
been on the web for several months and it is now published on paper.

There is still Semana Negra in Gijon every year but it is Paco Taibo’s
organisation so it is only used as a meeting point by the Spanish
association. Fernando is now directing a new mystery series of books to be
produced by a big Spanish publishing house, which is selling the idea to the
Spanish speaking market. He invited members to send him a story of about 40
pages. The idea is to produce a new publication every two months, like a
magazine, containing four previously unpublished stories. Submissions must
be made in Spanish, if that was possible, Fernando would read stories with
pleasure and would pay if they were published.

Jerry said although he had always asked for reports from the branches that
would not be attending the conference, he had never received any.

Piet said that he had awakened one night with an idea. It was a pity AIEP
didn’t have any money but why didn’t it raise some in order to sponsor
translations or to give money to South American writers to attend meetings
and conferences? His son-in-law, who is a notary public, said that the best
way to raise money for an association such as AIEP would be to do it via a
foundation. Incorporation would be very easy and the only cost would be the
notary fee. The difficulty would be that in order for a donation to be
tax-deductible, the foundation would have to be based in the country of the
donor. The good news is that the money could be distributed outside the
country of the donor and such a foundation, should it be based in New York,
for instance, could hand out money to Spain, for instance, or have a branch
there. Association fees (donations) were probably tax-deductible in most
countries and there would be no upper ceiling on them. If Patricia Cornwell
paid a membership fee of half a million dollars, she could deduct this from
her taxes. Incorporation in Belgium wouldn’t cost much. Only trick left to
do is to find the donors.

Jerry said that was something the association might consider. In his
January 2004 report he summarised the fund raising situation. Unless AIEP
incorporated in Belgium with Belgians willing to donate sufficient money,
there wasn’t much that could be done. Jim Weikart agreed that Jerry’s
report was a fair summary of what had been decided by the North American
branch.

Jerry had attended the SKS conference in Iceland in May. He was there
principally to present a talk on the problems of being published in
translation in the US and the partial solutions. He said that as he
underwent his prostate operation as soon as he returned from the conference,
he hadn’t been able to reduce the speech to a written form but he would do
this and post it on the web as soon as he could.

With respect to translations of novels, publishing houses were beginning to
publish foreign novels if they dealt with some social issue in the home
country of the novel. Jerry asked Mary Tannert to explain the difference
between commercial and literary translations.

Mary explained that a commercial translation was bought and paid for by the
person who owned the document. Once having been paid the translation fee,
the translator gives up all rights to the work, it was a closed contract.
Literary translation has other legal issues. The translator had rights and
could insist on right of review, on a credit as a co-creator. Translators
had pipe dreams of royalties but these were not achievable in the current
climate. Members wishing to be translated needed to take on board what was
involved. They should make sure they retained control over the rights to
their work so that it would be possible to have the right to publish a
translated version of a work already published in their own language. They
might have to pay a fee. It would be easiest to offer a translation of a
work that hadn’t already been published.

Jerry reported that TeknoBooks are making an effort to get as many mystery
writers published in America as possible. Leading authors and also
non-leading that are good writers. Jerry sends out the call each year for
stories from TeknoBooks but he said he didn’t seem to get much feedback from
it. Mary Frisque also sends out the solicitation letter from Tekno.

Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine Passport to Crime editor has made a commitment
to AIEP, for each of ten to eleven issues a year she would love to have at
least one short story from a non-English source. It would have to be the
first time it’s published in English and the magazine would have to have
first North American rights. Usually the amount of money the story would be
paid is around $300-$500 US, which could be the same amount as it would
require for translation but the cost could be worth it for the exposure and
as a passport.

Mary said that the editor does have some funds for translation. So it could
be worth submitting a story not in translation.

Bob Mendes said that he had had trouble receiving acknowledgement of receipt
of a story, which made it awkward when wanting to sell the story to another
magazine. A short discussion revealed that there could be a delay of six to
seven months before hearing whether a story was accepted or not, which was
an argument for sending a story previously published in a language that wasn
’t English. When submitting, an accompanying letter could state that if an
acceptance hadn’t been received within a certain amount of time, it would be
assumed that the magazine wasn’t interested:

Jerry said that he was trying to persuade the editor of Mystery Scene
Magazine, Kate Stine, to begin publishing short stories but so far had not
succeeded. It was probable that if she did publish fiction, she would
probably start with established American writers.

Carmen suggested that each member branch should send a list of their short
story outlets to Jim Davis for placing on the web site.

Delegates were reminded that the winner of the Bulgarian short story
competition was to be announced that night. Also that the hotel wants to
build a library and would like to have copies of books whose authors had
stayed in the hotel. Books, which should be signed, could be left with
members of the cultural embassy this evening. On Sunday there would be a
visit to ALIBI, an Amsterdam bookshop that specialised in crime fiction.
The owner likes to have as complete a section of books on offer as possible,
she has invited the delegates to coffee and would also welcome copies of
books. Books should also be brought to the reception for publishers.

Jerry closed the session by reminding delegates that the election for
President would take place the following day and he encouraged everyone to
talk to the candidates and get a sense of who they would like to vote for.
Similarly, for the regional Vice Presidents. North Americans had already
arrived at a concensus for their VP and it would be good if the other areas
could also come to agreement without a vote having to take place. The bus
for Antwerp would leave at 8.45 am.

The vote for the next President of AIEP was held on the way back from
Antwerp. Each of the candidates gave a short address to members on the bus.

No candidate received an overall majority in the first round of the voting.
Carmen Iarerra was eliminated as the candidate receiving the least amount of
votes. A second vote was held between Emanuel Ikonov and Piet Tiegeler.
The winner of this second ballot was Piet Tiegeler. In his acceptance
speech he said one shouldn’t talk of ‘winning’ but of taking on the burden
of the task.

The US AIEP branch had not had a candidate standing as President so were
able to caucus and had chosen James Madison Davis. The Latin American Vice
President would be Rafael Ramirez-Heredia. So the vote had to be taken for
the Eastern Europe and Western Europe Vice :Presidents.

Jerry Healy as outgoing President then consulted with Eastern European and
Western European representatives and announced that each region had caucused
and Emanuel Ikonomov had been unanimously elected as Eastern European
regional Vice President and Thomas Przybilka had been unanimously elected
regional Vice President for regional Western European regional Vice
President.

8c A discussion was held on the form of future conferences. Jerry
announced that he would speak for Piet as much as possible to save his voice
as Piet was suffering from laryngitis.

Suggestions were asked for and it was pointed out that Carmen had made some
interesting ones in her Presidential address.

There were difficulties over some of these since book discussion was
impossible when books were published in languages not everyone could read.

A discussion followed during which it was agreed that delegates should
submit before the conference a short account of what they were working on
and had had published, maybe including what was selling well or not, points
of interest, etc. It was possible this might indicate to a publisher works
that could be interesting to have translated.

The possibility of having a theme related to writing for each conference was
also discussed. Jerry said that he had discussed with Charles the
possibility of including a seminar at this conference on the importance of
rewriting and editing a novel before submission but the programme was
already so full it had been decided to suggest this for Merida, where agents
and publishers would probably not be present so the process of writing could
be concentrated on.

Susan Moody said she didn’t think there was enough discussion on the craft
of writing and there should be an opportunity for everyone to have an input
rather than listen to a talk.

Charles den Tex suggested the organiser of each meeting could be instructed
to build something into the programme.

There was a discussion on the possibility of helping members with short
story writing, whether English speaking members could ‘proof read’ English
translations, with the point being made that selling stories was extremely
difficult but that members could help with information and experiences.
However, there was the danger that the English speaking members could find
themselves overloaded, though it was pointed out that there were 250 North
American AIEP members who could help. Members should feel free to ask for
help. It was pointed out that translating was an extremely skilled business
and that it could be best to employ a professional translator at the start.
To the suggestion that members put stories on the web page, in their
original language, it was advised that the space available was unlikely to
make this possible. However, links might be established to individual
author pages which could give publishers access to their work. The number
of readers who would be willing to access a page where they can read
original work should not be underestimated. Perhaps a multi-language
journal, issued quarterly, might be attractive to a large number of people.

A mentor programme similar to the one run by Mystery Writers of America,
where a submission of 50 pages from an unpublished writer was worked on, was
suggested. It would need a list of names willing to offer mentor services.
It might be possible to offer this through the web site, though there was
still the problem of different languages. But this idea might be extended
to offering help in a more general way, offering writers contacts they need,
for instance.

Piet stated that it was necessary to build the AIEP brand before branching
out. It might be hard to convince prospective members to fly to Mexico but
everything must be done to increase the number of delegates at conferences.
Let people know we are members of AIEP, publicise membership, link on the
website.

It was suggested that if links with websites grew, the need to update the
website would increase and the site would have to grow, which could mean
having to leave the University of Oklahoma and go elsewhere. Perhaps to
somewhere that could sustain an on-line journal and connect with an on-line
bookshop.

Jerry advised taking matters slowly. Perhaps starting with a list of
mentors, members of AIEP, though not with address on-line, and information
on the placing of stories then see how that goes for a year. A new button
on the website could access short stories in original language. He
suggested Paul and Jim could work with Jim Davis on this and produce a
report for next year. And Kristinn could produce a proposal for creating a
mass media approach to increase readership and sales. Both to be presented
at Mexico for discussion.

Item 9: Possibilities of new AIEP branches: Despite contact being made,
there had been no response from Ken Matsukako or with the Turkish member.
Jerry knew of no other countries who could be interested in forming a
branch.

Thomas reported that he had had contact with a Brazilian, but there seemed
little co-operation there between writers. Jurg that he was thinking of
trying to contact other crime writers in New Zealand and would see if a
branch could be formed there.d

a) A suggestion was made that the web site might include offers for house
swapping.

b) The situation regarding the two offers for the twentieth anniversary
conference in 2006 was discussed, the one from Thomas in Germany
co-operating with the German conference, the other in Zaragoza. With the
German offer, it was pointed out that there could be more publicity
generated, but not everyone agreed that publicity was what AIEP was about,
it should work by building small groups which are representative of more
people, who build networks in their own countries. Also the German
conference would be in the spring, only some six months after the Mexican
conference and, with so many other authors there, it was possible AIEP could
be something of a side-show. On the other hand, the conference would offer
an active and very full programme and contact with other authors. The
suggested Zaragoza conference would take place in October/November 2006 and
would concentrate on celebrating the twentieth anniversary of AIEP,
independently without other distractions. A decision was needed as
successful arrangements would take time to be made. Fernando had not yet
made contacts with hotels and flights for Zaragoza but he had talked with
people there who liked the idea of the conference and would help and promote
it. There was the possibility of doing another anthology. To the
suggestion that Zaragoza could be the location for the 2007 conference,
Fernando said that that had not been discussed with his contacts and he
would have to start again if that was the proposition. A vote was taken on
the location for the 2006 20th anniversary conference. For Zaragoza: 9
votes. For Coblenz: 6 votes. There were 3 abstentions.

Piet then closed the conference, thanked the organisers for a wonderful
meeting and looked forward to the next one in Merida.

This is a written version of a presentation I made initially to the
Scandinavian Crime Writers Association in Iceland during its annual
conference in May, 2004. I would like here to thank once again Viktor
Arnar Ingolfsson of the Icelandic Crime Fiction Society for his efforts
enabling me to attend that conference; Linda Hartley of the United
States Embassy in Reykjavik for her support in financially sponsoring
me; and my colleagues at the conference from all the attending countries
in welcoming me. However, as with my audience for that presentation, I
expect a number of people reading this analysis will NOT have English as
their first language. Accordingly, forgive some redundancy of phrasing
toward my enhancing clarity for those readers.
Some definitions are necessary to lay the foundation for this analysis
because, while some of the following sound alike, they mean very
different things in context:
1) A “literary” novel: Sometimes called “mainstream,” it is a work that
does not fit easily into a genre category (like crime fiction, science
fiction, romance, etc.).
2) A “literary” agent: A man, woman, or firm that represents an
author’s work to editors at publishing houses, the representation
including initially submitting the author’s work to the editor and
negotiating the terms of the publishing contract.
3) A “literary” translation: A careful, nuanced translation of a novel
or short story into another language, with polished prose and dialogue
(contrast here a “commercial” translation of a computer manual or
intructions for assembling a child’s toy).
4) Publishers Weekly: The trade magazine of our industry in the United
States (URL: www.publishersweekly.com).
5) Publishers Lunch: An almost-daily, online newsletter about the
publishing industry (e-mail: publishersmarketplace@yahoo.com).

Unfortunately, some statistics are also necessary to my analysis as
well, so please bear with me through them:
1) Of all books purchased by consumer/readers in the United States, the
three categories of Mystery/Detective, Espionage/Thriller, and
Suspense/Psychological comprised 13.1% in the year 2002. The next year,
2003, that percentage had climbed to nearly 15% of all books purchased
in the U.S.A. (Publishers Weekly, April 19, 2004, page 5).
2) Every three years, Publishers Weekly commissions a survey of
readers’ preferences. So-called “moderate book-buyers” are those
Americans who buy between three and ten books per year. Despite this
rather low number of books purchased by the average American reader, the
last four surveys, covering twelve years total, have consistently
reported that between 25% and 30% of these “moderate” book buyers chose
crime novels. Therefore, we have a very wide, if somewhat shallow,
“pool” of crime-novel “fans” within our nearly 300 million American population.
3) Each year, the Drood Review (URL: www.droodreview.com), a very
respected newsletter that reviews crime novels, compiles a study of all
crime novels published for the first time in the United States.
Approximately 44% are written by women, 54% by men, and the remaining 2%
by male/female collaborators or authors whose gender is not revealed.
(Mystery Writers of America, THE THIRD DEGREE, August/September, 2003,
page 11).
I think the above three categories of statistics show that crime novels
are clearly popular in America, and that male and female authors enjoy a
rough parity in being published. We also have had a number of crime
novels published in translation in the United States. Some, like Maj
Sjovall & Per Wahloo’s Martin Beck series sold well in the 1970’s. More
recently, Umberto Eco’s THE NAME OF THE ROSE from Italy and Peter Hoeg’s
SMYLLA’S SENSE OF SNOW from Denmark even appeared on THE NEW YORK TIMES
best-seller list.
Yet, of ALL books translated into ANY language (all the following
statistics from Publishers Weekly, May 21, 2001):
1) 50% are from an original English-language work;
2) In a typical week, 50% of the best-sellers in France and Germany
will be works in translation from languages OTHER than French and German
(I alone have been translated into French and German, but also Italian,
Japanese, Spanish, and Turkish);
3) However, only 6% of all books translated WORLDWIDE are translated
INTO English, and only rarely does such a book reach national
best-seller lists in the United States.
Why? In this increasingly global economy, why are fine works from other
languages NOT translated into English, and, if they are, why do they NOT
sell well in the United States?
I will divide my analysis into the following four sections:
I. Reasons for the difficulties in translating other-language works
into English.
II. Partial solutions to these problems.
III. What YOU can do to help your own cause.
IV. Conclusion

I. Reasons for Difficulties in translating other-language works into English.
A) Most editors at American publishing houses can NOT read fluently--or
even comfortably--a language other than English.
1) English has become the language of international commerce, and so
there is less pressure on Americans in general to learn even ONE other
language. Regarding American editors in particular, even those editors
who work for a publishing company owned by a foreign-language company
(for example, the many American subsidiaries of the German media giant
Bertelsmann) communicate with their European superiors in English.
2) Foreign language study is often NOT required for admission to
American universities from our secondary schools, and because of
budgetary problems in those secondary schools, often no foreign language
study is even OFFERED.
3) In the past, many editors would “major” (concentrate heavily) in
English literature during their university matriculation, and perhaps
even pursue a Masters of Fine Arts in literature or creative writing.
Now the graduate degree of many editors is a Masters in Business
Administration, focusing on the financial “bottom line” at large
publishing conglomerates such as Random House, Simon & Schuster, and Penguin/Putnam.
This lack of bi-lingualism (much less multi-lingualism) presents a
classic dilemma, or “Catch-22”: An American editor cannot read a foreign
book in its original language to evaluate whether that book is WORTHY of
a costly translation without first COMMISSIONING that costly translation
in order to evaluate the worth of the book. Some American editors are
now using people who can read a given foreign language as “guides” or
“screeners” to the quality of a work in that foreign language. By
contrast, however, every European editor I have ever met could read
English, and therefore can make his or her OWN evaluation of whether a
book originally published in English is worthy of translation into that
European editor’s home language.
Accordingly, American editors tend to “internationalize” their author
lists by publishing British, Canadian, Australian and South African
books because, while novels from these countries may contain strange
idioms or allusions, at least the text is in English as a starting point.
B) Most American editors believe that “books-in-translation” will not
make a profit for the United States publisher.
1) A nuanced, stylistic LITERARY translation (as compared to a mere
COMMERCIAL translation, like a computer manual or assembly instructions
for a bicycle) is very costly, between $5,000 and $15,000 American
dollars. That is more money than most first novelists in America receive
as an “advance” for writing the original book, and it is also a
significant additional PRODUCTION cost OF the book. Yet such a literary
translation is absolutely essential for a novel to be published in the
United States. To quote Valgerdur Benediktsdottir of Edda Publishing in
Iceland: “A literary translator is to the author’s original novel as a
bow is to its violin.”
2) Many less expensive translations (say, “$80. American per thousand
words of translation) are, bluntly, not very competent, especially in
trying to capture the American equivalent of CURRENT slang or jargon in
dialogue. (Publishers Weekly, May 21, 2001).
3) Perhaps because most Americans never learn a foreign LANGUAGE, we
are perceived to be not interested in the CULTURE of a country that uses
that language. Also, we learn virtually nothing in our schools about the
criminal justice systems of our European and Latin American friends.
Even in our law schools, many foreign students, usually already lawyers
in their home countries, attend to learn about AMERICAN law. However,
when I attended Harvard Law School in the 1970’s, there was only ONE
course offered in “comparative law”--the laws of other countries--and
that was a small-enrollment, non-required course.
4) Americans are ALL the descended sons and daughters of immigrants,
and so perhaps we have a subliminal preference for an optimistic,
“happy” ending--or at least a “justice-is-served,” satisfying ending.
Many European and Latin-American crime novels do NOT feature such an
ending, and indeed are more dark, fatalistic, and even unjust in their
conclusions--the culprit WINS at the end. Because Americans in general
are so optimistic, a “life is horrible and then you die” plot will not
sell well here.
5) American readers, raised on movies and television, prefer “action”
stories (involving car chases, karate, and gunfights) to “cerebral”
stories of detection and psychology. And even our more “cerebral”
Americans can get enough “clever puzzles” from the various franchises of
television series such as LAW & ORDER and C.S.I. (the latter standing
for “Crime Scene Investigation” and dealing with the intricacies of
forensic science).
6) American publishers fear that a foreign-language author might not
be able to promote their works efficiently in the United States due to
airline and hotel costs as well as insufficient English for smooth
“talks” and radio/television interviews.
C) Many American editors are simply intimidated by the logistical, and
perhaps legal, problems of dealing with works first published in another country.
1) This is especially true for younger (say, under the age of 40)
editors, because they have spent their entire careers dealing with
literary agents, NOT authors directly, on issues of the amount of
advance to be paid, the publishing rights granted, marketing and
publicity, etc.
2) Finally, since September 11, 2001, many publishing houses will not
allow their postal mailroom employees to even OPEN packages with
unfamiliar return addresses for fear of letter bombs, anthrax virus, or worse.

II. Partial Solutions to the Problem
A) Grants for translation costs.
1) In many European countries, there are established, sometimes
governmental, organizations that provide funding for the arts, including
writing in general and crime writing in particular (Publishers Weekly,
May 21, 2001). In the United States, however, such funding is generally
limited to literary fiction and poetry. Crime writers are viewed as
“rich enough” not to need financial aid from our government and its
taxpayers (Mary Higgins Clark received an advance of $11 million
American dollars for EACH of her last five books, and sales of Dan
Brown’s THE DA VINCI CODE have produced over $20 million American
dollars for him in royalties alone). While these are NOT typical crime
writers, they are the examples legislators and voters think of as
counter-arguments to any proposal for funding.
2) There are so-called private charities that contribute money to
worthy causes of all categories. However, such “foundation” funding is
very difficult to obtain, also, and general cuts in GOVERNMENT programs
have multiplied the number of groups (advocating for theater and dance
as well as feeding the homeless and pre-school programs for poor
children) applying for, even BEGGING for, these private grants. And due
to the decline in our stock market, many of these private foundations
have suffered severe reductions in their endowments (Publishers Weekly,
January 27, 2003, page 116).
3) Our own AIEP--or IACW (“the International Association of Crime
Writers,” as it is known in the English-speaking world) has as one of
its constitutional goals “the translation and promotion of works” by our
members from Language A into Language B, so that more people in our
branches and elsewhere can enjoy crime literature written in Language A.
During my four-year term as president of AIEP, I contacted many of these
private foundations in an effort to secure such funding. However,
various tax law problems prevent our organization from qualifying as a
“charitable corporation” under the foundations’ charters. These same tax
problems would mean that contributions to us, even from wealthy,
individual authors, would NOT be tax deductible for the donating author.
4) The PEN [“Poets, Essayists, and Novelists”) American Center in New
York City has enjoyed somewhat greater success in raising money for
translations, though typically, again, literary fiction/non-fiction and
poetry are those works chosen for translation into English. Visit their
website (www.pen.org/transprize.html) for the first ten lucky authors
and a short description of their works. However, even these translation
awards average only $2,500 for each selected book (Publishers Lunch, an
on-line newsletter, April 23, 2004).
B) Smaller, but still commercial publishers; some independent, others
smaller divisions of major publishers
1) Some smaller publishers (gross revenue of less than $20 million
American dollars annually) have found they enjoy “discovering” new
authors in translation. Some examples I have in turn “discovered”:
The New Press: Henning Mankell (Sweden)
Jean Echenoz (French)
Akashic Books: Arnaldo Correa (Spanish)
Grove/Atlantic: Johanna Sinisalo (Finnish)
Harcourt,Brace,Jovanovich: Karin Fossum (Norwegian)
Akira Yoshimura (Japan)
Luther Blisset (Italian)
Knopf: Arthur Japin (Dutch)
Toby Press: Yasmina Khadra (French)
Bloomsbury: Javier Cercas (Spanish)
Seven Stories: Jorge Franco (Spanish)
Doubleday/Talese: Margaret Mazzantini (Italian)
Walker & Company: Helga Schneider (Italian)
Random House: Boris Akunin (Russian)
Ecco: Peter Esterhazy (Hungarian)
Henry Holt: Luiz Alfredo Garcia-Roza (Portuguese)
Dalkey Archive: Jacques Jouet (French)
Penguin: Carlos Ruis Zafon (Spanish)
Aliform: Jesus Zarate (Spanish)
Soho Press: Many foreign language crime novels
2) The problem?: Smaller publishers generally mean smaller advances
and print-runs of copies, and often very little publicity or promotion.
Also, to a great extent, Spanish is the “second” language of the United
States, so potential translations from Spanish into English often
dominate publishers’ radar screens.
C) University Presses
1) Northwestern University Press in Chicago has said through its
director: “We are a small powerhouse of literary translation.”
2) The problem?: Even smaller--or NO--advance, even smaller print-runs
of copies, and virtually NO promotion or publicity from university
presses.
3) Also, a given university press may consider only translations of
works from the “heritage country” of its students’ ancestors (for
example, University of Minnesota Press might be interested ONLY in works
from Norway and Sweden).
4) The emphasis is almost ALWAYS on literary or academic books (as in
the quotation from Northwestern’s director in item IIC1), above.
D) Prize-winning books
1) Jose Saramago won the Nobel Prize, resulting in the English
translation of his year 2000 book ALL THE NAMES selling over 30,000
copies in the United States. (Publishers Weekly, May 21, 2001).
2) We discussed at our own AIEP conference in 2001 the prospect of
encouraging translations in the United States of ONE crime novel from
each of our (then) 22 member countries, preferably the book that WON
that country’s AIEP award for best crime novel. However, despite asking
in our minutes over the succeeding years for branch presidents in each
country to submit those award-winners to AIEP, and follow-up e-mails by
me as (then) worldwide president, we have had no response to our
suggestion. If such a response WERE forthcoming to our new president,
Piet Teigeler of Belgium and Spain, perhaps a competent translation of
the first few chapters of an award-winning work in, for example, German,
could be sent to a “volunteer” North American branch member for
slang/jargon and other stylistic “polishing” and then submitted to
literary agents here toward approaching American editors with the
“sample” of that novel.
E) Publishing in translation in Great Britain
1) Almost 120,000 books were published in Great Britain in 2003
(Robert McCrum, THE OBSERVER, Sunday, February, 2004). Publishers lunch
put the total at nearly 125,000 different titles. And Mr. McCrum
believes that “translations are snapped up on hearsay”--that is, without
the English editor even reading the foreign-language work.
2) The problem?: Probably also small advances and print-runs, but at
least a publication INTO the English language (despite different idioms
in Britain versus the United States), which will produce an
English-language text of the novel readable by an American editor (a
route pursued successfully by award-winning author Arnaldur Indridason
of Iceland for his novel JAR CITY: English edition by The Harvill Press
in 2004, forth-coming American edition by St. Martin’s Press in 2005).

III. What you can do for yourself.
A) Obtain a literary agent.
1) Since American editors ARE so comfortable dealing with authors
through literary agents, more than half the battle of being published in
the United States is to HAVE a literary agent. The Association of
Authors’ Representatives (“AAR”) is the trade organization of literary
agents, requiring its members to adhere to a code of ethics. Visit the
AAR’s website (www.aar-online.org) and search through the website’s
listings for a reputable, honest agent in the United States who
expresses an interest in representing foreign-language authors. Notice
also from the AAR website that agents generally require a query letter
(or, in some cases, an e-mail) from a potential author/client BEFORE
wanting to see even only a partial manuscript of the work.
2) The problem?: Very few American literary agents, who are often
former editors with publishing houses, can read a language other than
English, so we are back to the Catch-22 problem of needing SOME kind of
English-translation, though perhaps only as a “sample.”
3) The advance to be paid by the American publisher to the author of a
work in translation might also be so small that the agent’s (typically)
15% commission will be only a few hundred dollars for many hours of work
on a difficult project to sell to an editor.
B. Commission a translation yourself.
1) In order to show an American literary agent or editor your work,
you may have to commission a translation yourself of approximately the
first 30 pages of manuscript of your book.
2) I mentioned earlier the attempts of AIEP to get prize-winners from
each branch country translated into English in the author’s home country
and then polished by a volunteer American author. If you have a friend
in your home country who reads English well (especially someone who has
lived for some time--preferably RECENTLY--in the United States), perhaps
you can pay him or her enough to do the 30-pages translation, and then
send it to an American colleague of yours for polishing.
3) Perhaps that American colleague will even know an American literary
agent or editor who might be interested in your work. And the way to
meet such American colleagues is by attending the conferences of AIEP
and other international writer organizations.
C) Commission a translation of a short story.
1) For several years, I have been able to persuade Janet Hutchings,
the editor of ELLERY QUEEN’S MYSTERY MAGAZINE (“EQMM,” URL:
www.dellmagazines.com) to establish a “Passport to Crime” section in her
crime-fiction magazine. She is hoping to publish one
foreign-language-translated-into-English story per issue (or
approximately 10 stories per year). The story MUST be in publishable,
literary English AND have NEVER appeared in English before anywhere in
the world. Also, you MUST be able to submit the story in BOTH hardcopy
(paper) form AND via computer diskette or e-mail. Due to the dangers of
computer virus, however, an attachment TO an e-mail will not be opened
by EQMM, so you may have to COPY-AND-PASTE the text of the story into
the body OF an e-mail.
2) The problem?: The cost to you of a literary translation of the
short story will probably equal--or even exceed--the payment from EQMM,
but you at least will have an example of your work in English as
published by a very professional magazine.
D) Playing the Ethnicity Card.
1) I mentioned earlier under item IIC3, above, that a university press
might not be interested in novels set in countries where its students’
ancestors did NOT live. The reverse, however, can be an advantage if
your country--and the student body at a given American university--”match.”
2) Visit the websites of state-supported universities in regions where
people from YOUR country have immigrated (an over-simplification, but:
our West Coast for Pacific Rim countries; our Southwest for Mexico and
the rest of Latin America; the Midwest for Scandinavia and Germany,
etc.). Perhaps if that university is already publishing ethnic-specific
literature, it would consider a crime novel from that ethnicity’s home
country (Publishers Weekly, April 19, 2004, page 33).
3) Perhaps that university might even have a professor OF your
ethnicity’s literature who could perform a literary translation or
arrange for one for your novel.
E) Attend writers conferences in the United States.
1) A calendar of these with contact information can be found by
visiting the website of MYSTERY SCENE MAGAZINE
(www.mysteryscenemag.com).
2) Caution: Distinguish between a fan CONVENTION (like a Bouchercon or
Left Coast Crime) during which established authors speak from panels to
audiences of readers versus a writers’ CONFERENCE (like New England
Crimebake near Boston or SleuthFest in south Florida) during which
established authors, literary agents, and editors speak from panels and
workshops to audiences of aspiring authors as students. It is the
writers’ CONFERENCE where you will get the chance to meet agents and
editors, and perhaps even have an interview with them toward “pitching”
(presenting an oral summary of your book and why it would “sell” in America).
3) Be sure to have a VERY polished translation of your first 30 pages
of manuscript to show the agent or editor. AND be sure that the first
THREE TO FIVE pages of manuscript are perfect, as the agents and editors
know that American consumers generally decide on buying a novel by
reading only the first two-three pages of the final, printed book itself.

Getting published in the United States via translation into English is
NOT easy. It is even unlikely. But this is true of getting published in
ANY language in ANY country.
The bright spot is that getting published in the United States is not
impossible, and I will therefore leave you with the words of Winston
Churchill. After the Second World War, he was asked by a journalist to
give his three secrets to success in finally winning the war. Churchill
thought for a moment, then said, “Never give up, never give up, never
give up!”

Jeremiah Healy
Boston, Massachusetts
December, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------

AIEP News

Zaragoza 2006

Nominees for the Das Syndikat (German Language) 2006 Crime Writing Awards