Author Interview: Sullivan Lee

I'm excited to introduce you all to the wonderful Sullivan Lee (aka Laura L. Sullivan) who will go down in Nylon Admiral history as the first author to be interviewed on this bloggy-wog! Sullivan Lee has just self-published her "criminal love story" Brightwing this year but she's no stranger to the world of writing. Under her real name she's released novels aimed at children and YA audiences through Macmillan/Holt and has several more books under her belt just waiting to be written. In order to whet your appetites for my review of Brightwing which will be posted on Thursday I give you my interview with Sullivan Lee, aka Laura L. Sullivan, where she discusses her new book, self-publishing and her writing process. There is some Brightwing related talk which may confuse those of you who haven't read the book or heard of it, so if you'd like you acquaint yourself with it check out the synopsis on Goodreads. Enjoy!

K: You’ve written books for a wide range of audiences (children, YA historical, adult etc) what draws you to such variety?

SL: I write a wide variety of books because I read a wide variety of books. I'll jump from reading historicals to fantasy to the Victorians, and though I'm probably not going to try to emulate Dickens any time soon, I think I'll eventually try my hand at every genre. I'm kind of a dilettante, and I like to dabble.


K: Are there any genres you’d like to try in the future?

SL: I have an idea for a great horror story, with a bad-guy I don't think anyone has used before, so I'm really anxious to start that after I finish a couple of other projects. And one day I'd like to write a true romance with an unequivocally happy ending. I usually have at least a little ambiguity in my finales, so I'd love to leave a couple at the altar and know I didn't have to worry about them any more.


K: What is your writing routine?

SL: Right now, I'm only guaranteed about two hours a day to write – during my Little Guy's nap time – and I feel like I have at least ten hours of work to do! Still, I get at least a thousand words in almost every day. I'm curious to see how my productivity will increase when he starts school next year. They say work expands to fill the time allotted for it, so it might just end up taking me eight hours to write the same thousand words!

K: You decided to self publish Brightwing. What were you reasons for stepping away from a traditional publisher?

SL: Let me first say I'll always write for a traditional publisher as long as they'll have me! But people shouldn't have to limit themselves, and I was excited to be able to explore a parallel career on my own.

Self publishing is particularly well-suited to Brightwing, I think, because it is in many ways a non-traditional book. Where would a bookstore shelve it? That's the first thing publishers ask, and if there isn't a clear-cut answer, they usually pass. Is Brightwing a love story for women, or an adventure for men? (There shouldn't be gender reading divisions, but when publishers market they consider those things.) It resembles a romance in many ways, except for the ending. And what about Mallory, the sociopath? I was told I had to either make him a clear-cut villain who gets his just desserts, or make him more sympathetic. But I knew there was room on the virtual bookshelves for Brightwing's kind of moral ambiguity. Brightwing is gradually finding its audience – which would be impossible on the narrow, contained bookshelves of a traditional store, but is highly likely in the very fluid world of self publishing and e-books.

K: In Australia there is a certain anxiety that plagues authors trying to write an Indigenous character. Your main character is a Native American, did you feel a similar anxiety or that you had a responsibility to present this character as accurately (in terms of history, lifestyle, voice) as possible?

SL: Oh, I was chock-full of anxiety! I cheated a little bit, because though Lucy Brightwing's tribe, the Tequesta, really existed, they've been gone for three hundred years, and very little is known about them outside of scant archaeological evidence. That gave me a lot of creative freedom, and made it less likely I'll offend any existant Native American.

I did tons of research, though, and (short of killing a raging wild pig with a knife) I've done, or attempted to do, a lot of the things Lucy does to survive in the Everglades. The legends of her people are fictional, but I created them after reading as many other Native American myths as I could, so they are realistic.

Several decisions caused me some anxiety, though. I decided to use the word “Indian” throughout the novel. In public I, for a variety of reasons, would always use the term “Native American” but every Native American I've known, every Native American I've eavesdropped on, every Native American in a book written by a Native American author, uses the word “Indian” almost all the time. (Except when trying to make a political point.) So when seeing the world through Lucy's eyes, I felt justified.

Names were another matter, and for the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes (both alive and well in South Florida) I did take some liberties with the names of the crime bosses, Lazarus Nighteyes and Billie Bald Cypress. They aren't entirely authentic, but since the characters are parallels with Mafia dons, I decided if a mobster can be Sammy the Bull or Baby Fat Larry, I could have a bit of leeway with my Native American criminals.

I could go on about the problem some people seem to have with authors writing outside of their race (or ethnic group, or gender, or orientation, or religion) but I won't use your blog as a soapbox! Suffice it to say that authors need characters who struggle, and I think anyone, or any group, with something to overcome is fair game. Stories need to be told, and it doesn't matter who tells them. The world is big, and we should be too. There – off soapbox.


K: Mallory is such a terrible person, did you feel dirty after writing some of his more shocking scenes?

SL: And how! Lots of cleansing bubble baths after writing Mallory's scenes! It was particularly difficult, coming from a law enforcement background. The cop in me wanted to hunt him down. The writer in me needed him to live. I felt so bad about it I wrote an apology to my law enforcement friends for his character.

The number one comment I get about Brightwing is, “I despise Mallory! How could you let him live?” The number two comment I get is, “I'm ashamed to admit it, but I found myself almost liking Mallory sometimes.” Readers were finding that they felt sympathy for him – if only for a second – and then felt absolutely disgusted with themselves.

Now that's the kind of reaction a writer wants to hear!


K: When can we expect the sequel to Brightwing and can you give us any hints about what it’ll contain?

SL: I have a ton of commitments over the next months, so it will be a while before I can really dig into it. It will be called Swamp Bordello, and though I'm still playing with ideas, I know there will be a whorehouse in the swamp, and Lucy will take in orphans – making her territory a candy store for someone with Mallory's tendencies! Lucy will be tempted by another man, and then betrayed by him. Edgar will salvage his masculinity in book 2, and by the end he and Lucy will truly be equals, and even more deeply in love.


K: Thanks so much for taking the time to answer these!

SL: And thank you so much for having me on Nylon Admiral, Kayleigh!


If you want to get to know Sullivan Lee a little better you can visit her blogs, The Omniscient Third Person and Sullivan Lee Writes. Oh and keep your eyes peeled for the review due up on Thursday!

Monday Links

*This week's clip is how Harry Potter should have ended by the HISHE gang. It's a bit of fun and brought a smile to my face. Oh and Snape fans should get a real kick out of this one!

*Here's an excerpt from Tina Fey's book Bossypants that looks at how the rules of improvisation tie in with the ways to have successful relationships, both personal and professional.

*Here's a link to where you can sample (or buy) the book How I Became a Famous Novelist by Steve Hely. Known for his writing on 30 Rock and The Office I've heard nothing but praise for this novel. I'm hoping to get into it myself soon!


*Evanna Lynch, the actress who plays Luna Lovegood in the HP films has been sorted into a house for Pottermore with some surprising results.

*Jason over at Literature Frenzy has written a review of Graham Greene's A Burnt-Out Case which has successfully convinced me to take my copy off my bookshelf and finally give it a read.

*I'm almost at the end of my August readathon to raise money for MS Australia but you can still donate to the cause if you feel so inclined. It'd be much appreciated, by me and the wonderful people who the money would go towards. 

Fanart Friday: Miscellaneous edition

Since I'm not the most organised person when it comes to preparng these posts in advance I often receive the OK from artists after the post that they should have featured in was published. But because they're amazing artists and their work make me all giddy I decided to compile a miscellaneous post of  the artworks that haven't yet been featured but should have. So here are a couple of images from incredible artists who have created amazing artworks inspired by Alice in Wonderland, Game of Thrones and American Gods. Take the time to click through the links and see the rest of their work, it may take your entire afternoon (it's rather addictive!) but it's definitely worth it!

Alice in Wonderland by Maye1a

Lyanna Stark - Game of Thrones by DubuGomdori

Ibis and Jacquel by Hal-O

Review: Kingdom Come by J.G Ballard

Kingdom Come
by J.G. Ballard

Published: 2006

Synopsis (via The Ballardian): Richard Pearson, a 42-year-old advertising executive is driving from central London to Brooklands, a town near the M25 on the western edge of the city. A few weeks earlier Richard’s father, a retired airline pilot, was fatally wounded during a shooting incident in the Metro-Centre – a vast shopping mall and sports complex, in the centre of Brooklands – when a deranged mental patient opened fire on a crowd of shoppers. It soon becomes clear to Richard that there was more to the incident than meets the eye. He senses that people are covering up what really happened. His suspicions are confirmed when the local mental patient arrested by police is released. Pillars of the community, among them Dr Julia Goodwin a young doctor who treated his father after the shooting, testify that the patient was with them and could not have committed the crime. Richard resolves to track down the real killer.


My god this novel packs a punch! I picked up my copy of this at a book sale because the $3 price tag was one I couldn't balk at and I've always heard such great things about Ballard, even though I've rarely picked up any of his books. All the reviews I've read of this book suggest it's vintage Ballard but since I can't vouch for that I'm going to do my best to explain why this book left me with my mouth hanging open days later.

As the synopsis describes Richard has headed back to the scene of his father's death in order to try and get some answers. I was actually a little confused at the start, when you join Richard he's struggling to find his way around the labyrinth of roads that tangle around the Heathrow suburbs and I felt as though the book had actually started two chapters earlier and somehow my edition was missing those crucial introductory pages. I was jarred by Richard's character, his motivation, the death of his father, the bizarre restaurant that he stops at, the old couple making out on the street. It was like I was one step behind or I was missing that final piece of the jigsaw that would allow me to see the picture clearly. It became pretty obvious that this is what Ballard wants you to feel. He wants you to be uncomfortable and confused and reading closely because what happens next will require your full attention.

The England he sets his story in, the suburbs surrounding the major highways and Heathrow airport are on the fringe of 'normal' society. They're the suburbs that you drive right by without giving a second glance or thought. Though they're relatively close to the action of London they're left to their own devices and left out of the major activity. They're near enough to the action and hubbub of London that they need stimulation but too far away to attain it with ease. Basically they're bored. They're bored and they have nothing better to do than go shopping or to the sports club to watch the latest soccer/rugby/hockey game.

They don't realise it but the people of Brooklands are spiraling out of control. The sports events have become a front for the "St Georgers," men and women wearing the St George cross, and going on rampages through the street terrorising anyone of ethnic or class difference. When Richard arrives at Brooklands he sees an Indian shop owner bar up his windows when someone in a St George shirt walks past, he sees a group of muslims escorted out of their mosque by the police as men and women with shopping bags around their wrists scream abuse and hurl rocks and punches in their direction. The air in Brooklands is tense and the only respite seems to be the astronomically large shopping centre that glows invitingly no matter where you are. But is it respite?

One review comment on the cover of my edition described this book as a dystopian novel. I'd have to disagree...sort of. In my mind this is event that leads to the dystopia. This is the build up of frustration, anger, hatred, stupidity and violence that ends society as we know it and plunges the world into a right load of shit. I haven't read too many books where I think "yep, this is what the world will look like when the world is on the precipice of the apocalypse". This book absolutely nailed it. The boredom, the rampant consumerism and the dangerous advertisements and inappropriate leaders/false idols. This is our world today dialled up a couple of notches.

The thing that sparked my interest was how real yet unreal this book was. It was almost like walking through a fun-house looking at yourself in all those crazy mirrors. You can recognise yourself but you're...different. The Metro Centre sounds like so many shopping centres I've walked through. The bright lights, soothing music, plastic shiny things adorning the walls and floors and ceilings. But then you take a closer look and you see the animatronic bears that are the shopping centres mascots. Nothing too strange about that, but then you notice the pots of honey and get well cards laid out in front of them to wish them well after the shooting that recently took place and claimed Richard's dad's life. You notice the slightly crazed fervour that the PR rep speaks with when he gives Richard a tour of the centre. You realise that people always seem to be either going to or from the shopping centre regardless of what time of day or night it happens to be.

Similarly the crowds at the sports games are recognisable, and not. You recognise the atmosphere that permeates the air post-game when the crowds move through the streets towards home, cars or buses. You recognise the team shirts, the singing the beer cans in hand. Then you notice the Pakistani family cowering behind a wall waiting for the crowd to pass, or the fact that the crowd doesn't actually seem to be heading home but pushing towards an area of town that's marked by broken windows, overturned cars and ominously dark houses.

The book manages to create this real build of unease as Richard spends more time in the town and realises it isn't quite the quaint suburban town he thought it was. Everyone seems to have hidden agendas and switch from trustworthy to questionable at best. The quest to get to the bottom of Richard's father's dead gains more importance then drops then gains more prominence. There is this faint whiff of absurdism, hilarity on the verge or hysteria throughout the novel. It's intoxicating and you find yourself swept up in it from time to time.

The book has three parts and covers the space of several months and like the start sometimes seems to black out chunks of information. It's such a weird book because in some ways it's like any murder mystery but in so many other ways it is anything but. All I can really say is that J.G. Ballard is amazing and has completely won my heart and mind with this book. I am a convert to the J.G Ballard way of life! His writing style is easy to read but holds landmines of truth and commentary just ready to explode out at you.

This book makes you feel ashamed for your consumerist behaviour but it never preaches. Instead it opens your eyes to the dangers of rampant advertising and unrestricted consumerism and the disgusting nature of sports hooliganism. It connects the two is such a complex and yet simple manner that it astounds and revolts. A must-read for anyone who wants a dystopian novel with a twist, a sci-fi a little closer to home and a mystery that's impossible to crack even though you know the answer from the start.

My rating: 4/5

In which I put my rant pants on

I feel bad that the blog has been faltering a little lately in terms of content and while I have a couple of book reviews almost ready for posting today's post is not book related at all.

Yesterday in my Monday Links post I posted a link to a ridiculous article by an Australian opinion writer as well as a couple of comical rebuttals to her bizarre beliefs. For anyone who didn't read my post or the articles it linked basically the article was about Australian Finance Minister Penny Wong's announcement that she and her partner are expecting a baby in December. The article basically slams "leftists" for creating a society where people are forced to feign exaggerated happiness for alternative life decisions and if they express their real opinions, i.e. that homosexual marriage and adoption = the death of society, the traditional family and the end of the world, then they are branded bigots, homophobes and "right-wing".

She then went on to say, after slyly suggesting that the birth of this baby coincides rather closely with the coming election (is she freaking kidding me!), that the London Riots were largely a result of fatherless children and therefore if we allow, and especially if we celebrate, gay parents (or single parents for that matter) then it's only a matter of time before the same happens in Australia. Now let's overlook the glaring oversight she's made in suggesting the London Riots had only one cause and ignores that there has been a building of social and economic insecurity in England, and Europe in general, for months now. Let's even overlook the fact that she suggests that mother can't possibly raise anything other than a thug or a hoodlum if she doesn't have a strong man to discipline the children (hello, 1950s calling) and that she's drawing parallels between single parenting in low socio-economic or troubled neighbourhoods (for the most part) and a rich, upper class family that has two loving (though gay which apparently is important) parents and a support system in place.  Let's even overlook that she says, and I quote,"Sure, there are aberrations, and you can always find evils within traditional families, domestic violence and child abuse. But even this imperfect institution is better than the Hobbesian social chaos the children of the underclasses have been born into for the last 50 years."

I'm willing to overlook all of that today because I am shocked and amazed at one thing in particular, namely, that gay couples are somehow different to "normal" couples. Seriously, why is this even a conversation? Why are we still at a point where we talk about homosexuality as though it's some new "lifestyle choice" that is currently the latest fad. Since the dawn of time there have been gay men and women. This isn't news people. They've been lurking through history since before some of your countries were discovered. They're responsible for some of our best art, literature and music, they've lead men to war, governed countries and educated students. Sure for a great part of our history they were stigmitised or kept in the shadows or even executed but that doesn't mean that guys haven't been falling in love with other guys for centuries.

However reading Miranda Devine's article, or any article/blog post from like minded people, you would think that homosexuals were a new form of life that need to be studied before we can truly allow them into our society. In the comments of several articles I've read that have rebutted Devine's idea I've seen people say "I've got nothing against gay people but until there are peer-reviewed studies done to prove that two parents of the same sex won't harm a child's development I'm a little uneasy about the idea".

Seriously world. You want peer-reviewed studies to tell you that, surprise surprise, being gay will have absolutely no effect on your kids, except perhaps they won't be disgusting homophobes and close-minded twits like you? Being gay does not transform you from being human into some alien life form that needs to be studied. The only difference between you and a gay person is that when they go home at night they bang someone with the same bits as them. Seriously. That's as complicated as it gets. This idea that someone they're going to instill harmful or dangerous "whatevers" onto a child is simply ludicrous. Of course there will be bad gay parents, but I can think of a dozen bad straight parents while I sit here and type this up. Being heterosexual does not make you infallible when it comes to being parents, you have just as much chance of cocking up and destroying little Jimmy's life as Jack and James down the road does.

One argument that crops up over and over is that little boys and girls need female and male role models in order to grow up balanced and good and smart enough to know that looting is for dicks. You know what, I don't disagree with that. But two men (or two women) who choose to raise a kid are not going to live in a bubble secluded from everyone. Have you ever heard the phrase "it takes a village to raise a child"? It's well-known for a reason. In the past it was expected that an entire village or group would raise a child. The grandparents, aunts, uncles, sisters, cousins, brothers, neighbours all played a hand in imparting their knowledge, love and ways on a child. In parts of the world this is still the status quo.

The idea of the traditional family being mum, dad and children is bunk. Even in modern western countries you (usually) grow up knowing your grandparents, uncles, cousins, aunts and in some cases, god-parents. Your parents have friends who spend time with you, come round for barbecues or you go on trips together. You have coaches and tutors and teachers and your friends have parents who mingle with your parents. The village might have changed but no parent, single, gay or in a traditional marriage, does it completely alone. Sure there are studies that say that a boy needs a male role model, but that doesn't mean that a boy growing up with two mums is going to grow up without one. It might not be his dad but it might be his grandfather, his English teacher or his soccer coach. Bonds happen regardless of whether you are related to someone by blood. One of my biggest role models is a teacher who I never had for a single class. When I graduated primary school he took me aside and told me that I was destined for great things and that all I had to do was work hard and the world was mine.That single sentence is worth more than everything any other teacher or blood-related male has said or done for me and has stuck with my in the 10 years that have passed.

I feel I might have shambled over a few points here rather haphazardly but basically what I want to say is this. Being gay does not make you different. It does not make you unpredicable as a parent. The idea that people think we need to study homosexual parents as though we're studying the nesting habits of the penguin appals me. wake up people, we are all the same. Who you want to have sex with doesn't change how you'd be as a parent.  I'll say it again, the only difference between a gay parent and a straight parent is that when the kids are finally asleep the gay parent bang someone with the same bits as them. Those same bits do not mean they are going to raise pedophiles or murderers or thugs. They are human beings, their sexuality does not change that. I guess the crux of my point is that I should not be writing a blog post saying that there is nothing different between a straight or a homosexual parent. I hate that I've had to write this and that I've had to use the words "they" and "them" because I feel like I'm drawing a line in the sand and backing up ideas suggesting an "us and them" mentality. I'm only 23 but I'm tired, physically tired, of speaking out against bigoted ideas and breeches of basic human rights. I shouldn't have to speak about the lack of differences in this situation and the fact I am doing that right now makes me extremely sad and weary.

Ok. Rant over. It feels good to get that out of my system. I promise next time I'm back it'll be with a book review.

Monday Links

*A quirky infograph which charts luminous authors and their go-to while-writing snacks.

*Season 2 of The Walking Dead (based on the graphic novel series by the same name) airs soon but the series has been rocked by scandal now that news has leaked that creator Frank Darabont's departure wasn't his choice. He was fired.

*Stephen King has a new novel due for release in November, 11/22/63, that has a character travel back in time to try and stop the assassination of JFK. The film rights to this book have already been sold. Let's hope it lives up to the expectation!

*In other Stephen King news The Stand has received the go-ahead for a multi-film release. Yay! It's being lead by the team behind the HP & the Deathly Hollows films, director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves. Yep, easy to say, I'm pretty excited.

*First a bit of context. An Australian politician and Finance Minister, Penny Wong, is openly gay and her partner has just announced that she's pregnant. This has been in the papers and on the news as a source of celebration because "YAY in Australia we accept politicians regardless of race or sexuality" and the fact that she can live her life openly without having to closest her life away like gay politicians in other countries do. Miranda Devine is a hate-filled, angry right-winger who gets far more column space than she should (that should be 0, by the way). Devine decided to write a ratherdisgusting column (surprise, surprise) on the "issue" where she draws links to the UK riots (yeah I didn't get it either...) which has, thankfully, been rebutted by Australian comedian Tom Ballard on Youtube and blogger Max Lavergne tackled it rather creatively on tumblr just to name a coupe. Language warning...

*The boyfriend has started a tumblr and I feel a responsibility as the girlfriend to promote the crap out of it. I feel it's rather...prudent...to explain that these posts are an extension of his stand-up comedy routine and are not for the faint-of-heart. Think of the dark and disturbing comedy of Terry Gilliam, The League of Gentleman, It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia and Jam blended together and amplified by 100, then you'll be getting close...