Management Alternatives

Author Interview

Questions collected from various sources to clarify David's point of view.

In October, 1999, your third novel Choosing To Kill was released.  How did you get started writing?

My undergraduate education is in City and Regional Planning.  Later, I did graduate work in Cybernetic Systems.  Those programs gave me a broad enough view of the world to stimulate deeper questions that I've pondered over the years.  Eventually, in 1994, I decided to explore them through fiction because of the unlimited possibilities it offered.

What do you see in this broader view of the world?

I visualize the world as a set of interconnected, often highly complex systems with each level serving a specific function in helping the world work as it does.  Without getting into a lengthy discussion of systems theory, let me just say that such a view helps me make decisions about prioritizing the important things in my life.

And this insight comes from that broader perspective?

Yes.  The world works like a machine, but it's much more than that and it will continue in spite of what I do.  Having said that, I have the option to participate with it or not.  Every moment of my life involves a choice. The result of those choices is a measure of either success or failure and I can either make decisions that serve my best interest or let things slide.  If I do nothing, I get the default result the world offers, usually much less than I would want.

How does this connect with your deeper questions?

The toughest question for me involves how what's inside of us fits into the world around us.  Again, this is a larger question than we might want to deal with today, but it offers the belief that there will be no influential institutions in any society without dedicated people to support them.  This brings us to my writing.  It is about people and the institutions that own them.

What do you mean by that?

My writing is replete with examples of characters who are influenced by powerful organizations, even long after their association has ended.

And you think that's the same as owning them?

Sure.  When it shapes and influences people for the rest of their life, it's essentially the same.

How did this philosophy bring you to writing?

My friends were intrigued by what I said and wanted more, but for me it sounded preachy.  To continue sharing by beliefs, I decided to give them to my fictional characters.  Then I would be able to communicate the kind of world I envision.

The main character in The Dying Game trilogy is Doug Carlson.  Have you done that with him?

Yes.  He represents an average man, very much like myself.  As a young man, he went off to war much too early and soon killed for his country without really knowing why.  Years later, when the trilogy begins, he has remained a law-abiding person, but now he is again faced with killing.  That's the underlying thesis of the trilogy.

A very provocative question, why do you believe law-abiding people kill?

I sort of knew it all along, but after reviewing national crime statistics to determine why people commit murder, I was not surprised by the results.  51.6% of the murders committed in 1996 were by people who were clearly law-abiding at the time of the killing.  Depending on how one reads the data, a person might further conclude that the number was as high as 80.5%, since only 19.5% of the total murders were later classified by the police as felonies.  To review the actual statistics, click here.

Are you relying solely on those statistics to support your claim?

No.  While the crime data supports the thesis, I asked several thousand people that same question as I traveled around the country on a book-tour in the fall of 1998.  Most did not bat an eye before responding that they would kill in certain circumstances.  Those who hesitated responded with qualifications such as "Unfortunately, yes," or "Sadly, I'd kill too."  I was surprised that no one actually disagreed with the thesis.

In what situations did people say they would kill?

Most, who were parents, said they would definitely kill to protect their children.  In one sense or another, all said they would kill for their own survival or to save the life of a loved one.

How is this issue handled in your trilogy?

While there are many other reasons to kill, the trilogy begins with the one that most people understand intuitively, survival.  Because Doug is being pursued by a faction of the Mafia, he must kill in order to stay alive.  Quickly, he begins to experience flashbacks to his battle days in Vietnam. 

Those scenes enhance his character with images of "been there, done that" and add a necessary perspective to his deeper feelings about killing.  Later, he kills for revenge and then in the third part of the trilogy to serve justice when he believes the legal system has failed to do its job.

Do your novels leave us feeling that this kind of killing is justified?

That's a tough question, but I hope not.  While Doug seems to be swept away by the killing and maybe it gets easier for him, he faces an internal struggle that grows throughout the trilogy.  By the end I believe it will be clear that he is paying a heavy personal price for his choosing to kill.

With a fourth book scheduled in the series, will killing still be an issue?

Yes.  It will develop the thesis even further and I expect Fool Me Twice to be my most powerful piece of fiction so far.  

Back in the trilogy, does the reader get a close look at the motives when other characters kill?

Absolutely.  I sought to also tell a realistic story from their point of view.  Readers will see how power, control, greed, and petty arrogance turns people into unfeeling killers.

Your main character is a former Marine.  Is there any significance in placing him opposite another very powerful organization, the Mafia?

That's a very clever observation.  The Marine Corps and the Mafia are both equally powerful in their own ways.  Each organization has a code that drives them in different directions and each promotes itself with pride, loyalty, and honor.  One might argue they are opposite sides of a two-edged sword, indicating that qualities like pride, loyalty, and honor are too easily corrupted.