Caroline: Actually, it began on a battlefield. Not World War I but the Revolutionary War. My husband John and I were spending a few days with Charles and we decided to drive to King’s Mountain, on the North/South Carolina border. It’s literally a mountain top, and there’s a mystery about one of the bodies found there after the battle was over. Charles and I were doing a little historical speculating about this mystery, and arguing several points of view. I think that’s what triggered what came afterward.

Charles: Driving back to my house, we were still talking about mysteries and about Inglis Fletcher, whose historical novel gave one explanation about that body, and Caroline said, "You know, we ought to write a mystery, with an historical setting." I didn’t take her seriously, but a few weeks later, the idea began to appeal because I was traveling so much and bored enough to try anything. The rest is history. Literally.

Caroline: Hectic. There’s research, and collating what we find and what we want to use in which book. We’re working on two series, so there are times we must stop and deal with aspects of one or the other of them, like line edits or copy-editing or checking first pass pages. And of course, there’s the actual writing. I work best late at night, when the house is quiet and I can pace the floor or talk to myself or listen to music as I work.

Charles: I work best in the early morning hours. But of course this is in general. When the mood strikes, it doesn’t matter what time of day it is. You try to capture what’s in your head before it vanishes. Then we send our ideas to each other, and weigh them, then polish or discard them. It’s odd that we work best alone, and yet collaborate so well. I think we got lucky somewhere along the line. Or maybe we are just used to each other.

C&C: Not really. It’s more consensus than separation of tasks. And that’s probably what keeps it seamless—we’re each totally involved with every aspect. In fact, when we thought about your question, we realized that neither of us would be comfortable focusing on, say, dialogue or character—they blend so well in the way we work now, one coming from the other. Like the plot, it all grows out of what we learn about each person in the story, and where that will take us next.

Caroline: We asked ourselves a series of questions, and the answers led us to Rutledge. The first question was, a mystery? Yes, we both love mysteries, so that was easy. Next was time frame. We wanted a character deeply involved in the investigation, in using his skills and his knowledge of people and his training to find whodunit. That meant choosing a period when forensics were in their infancy, and yet a time which the modern reader could relate to. This led us to the early 1900s, which was very attractive for both of us.

Charles: And what was the pivotal event of the early Twentieth Century? World War I, the historical repercussions of which were still pursuing us into the twenty-first century. And if Rutledge was at Scotland Yard in 1919, he had to be a veteran of that war—it would be extraordinary if he weren’t. So here we were with our character, our setting, our pressures and our backdrop. And when we considered how he’d spent his war, what effect it would have on his return to the Yard, we found ourselves with Hamish. Rutledge’s Nemesis, his guilty conscience, his Watson, his way of coping, all the things that Hamish represented to him and to the reader.

Caroline: When we began to write about WW I, it had sort of dropped out of the literary scene, and someone we spoke to about this idea of ours said it wouldn’t be popular. We believed them, and felt that A Test of Wills would be a trial run, we could cut our teeth on Rutledge, so to speak, and learn how to write well enough to move on to something more likely to be commercially successful. And this gave us a chance to say what we felt we wanted to say about a timeframe that was to foreshadow an entire century. As it turned out, Test surprised us—Ruth Cavin at St. Martin’s Press loved it, and we were astonished to find ourselves published.

Charles: We were both history buffs. And when you study history, you must study war, because that’s a vital part of the story of mankind. The trenches were bloody, a stalemate, a military disaster, and cost the lives of thousands of people, not just the combatants. We thought this was something that we wanted to explore, and it gave our character a perspective on life and death that was e bound to affect his return to Scotland Yard and the cases that he would have to cope with.

The second half of this interview will run in our next issue. Charles and Caroline Todd will talk about their research process, the Bess Crawford series, and give us a morbid hint of how the Rutledge series may one day end.

INTERVIEW: Part II

Caroline: Ah, that’s one of the joys of writing a period novel. You never know where you are going to find something that will make a story work or give it a shape that is fascinating to explore. We read as many firsthand accounts as we can, we walk the ground of the setting we’ve decided to use—that’s essential, to make the story come alive!—and we feel that if we can find one piece of useful information in any given source, we are lucky. It’s a never ending process. But you must make certain that whatever you use, Rutledge could/would have known. You can’t use modern interpretations, you must stick with his time.

Charles: Making sure that what we have is actual fact, making sure that what we are trying to do realistic and likely for the time and the people involved, making certain that we have the right setting for the right story—these are a part of the process that make each book different from the last and gives each a life of its own. I can’t tell you how exciting it is when all the work we have done begins to develop into people on the page and a story that hooks us. It’s what makes all the hard work and effort worthwhile. And it is a lot of work, a lot of long and wearing hours.

C&C: You have to think about the people involved. They have a life of their own, they aren’t puppets on a page. So we see them evolving with each case, with each kind of story. Rutledge—like the rest of us—is a part of all he’s done and felt and experienced. And so he will grow or change just as we would. We listen to our characters and try to see how life is treating them. That makes it easier for us. And we also keep the time between books narrow, so that we see how Rutledge is dealing with his own issues.

C&C: So many cases of shell shock ended with a pistol shot in the back garden. This was—sadly—all too true in real life, as people struggled to carry on. Sometimes it was just not possible, and they tried to spare those they loved. And it could well be the way Rutledge deals with the burden he carries. Will it happen that way? Only Rutledge can answer that. Meanwhile, we document his life from case to case, and leave the ultimate decision to him. Living exacts a price. That’s true for all of us.

Caroline: We’d been thinking about Bess for some time. When we were writing THE MURDER STONE, our stand alone set in 1916, we debated whether that should lead to a series about a woman’s view of the war. But Francesca’s story turned out to have an ending that brought what she had to say full circle. And so Bess had to wait awhile longer. But Bess has been developing all this while, and she’s all the richer for hanging in there.

Charles: We wanted to try something very different from Rutledge. Bess is first person, for instance, and the war is still going on when she is introduced. It gives us a chance to develop her character in a way that fits her as a person, her background, etc. The more we talked about her, the more potential we saw in her, and finally we felt we were ready to introduce her. Who takes credit for her? I’d have to say Bess herself kept nudging us to get on with it. And of course Carolyn Marino, our editor, who picked up on something during a conversation we had one day in her office and wanted to know more.

Caroline: We’ve had many strong female characters in the Rutledge books, so shifting to a female character’s point of view wasn’t as difficult as you’d think. And their cases are different—Rutledge is Scotland Yard, a professional who is involved in murder because he’s a policeman. Bess on the other hand must find herself involved in situations that come to her. So it’s a diverse mindset, and that’s what is exciting about a separate series, it keeps you on your toes. As she and Rutledge will probably never meet, we must be alert to the fact that their worlds are their own and don’t overlap in any way. Except for one character who figures largely in both series—because she’s so unusual. And that’s Melinda Crawford.

Charles: We were looking for three things in developing Bess. First, she had to have a background where she could understand weapons (her father was a Colonel in the British Army) and where she could deal with bloody situations (her service, like so many young women of her time, in nursing the wounded), and she had to be independent of the Victorian upbringing that stifled a generation of young women (she grew up in another culture, living with her parents in India). She doesn’t go looking for cases to solve—on the contrary, she is drawn in through a sense of duty and an obligation to others that is typical of her upbringing and her time. That’s Bess in a nutshell.

C & C: We’ve just turned in A Lonely Death, the latest Rutledge (which our editor says is a terrific book). It will come out in early 2011. Meanwhile, Bess # 2, An Impartial Witness, will be published in late August, and we are already hard at work on the third. A trip to England in May gave us some absolutely marvelous material for both Bess and Rutledge, and we’re really looking forward to exploring that. And—can we add a bit of really exciting news? We’ve just learned that A Duty to the Dead, the first Bess mystery, has been nominated for the Sue Feder Historical Mystery Macavity Award! It’s a great honor, and we are up against a strong field. So here’s to Bess, and a successful Bouchercon in San Francisco. N

J. Steven White’s fight direction has been featured in more than 19 Broadway productions and 22 productions for the Public Theater, including: The Pirate Queen, The Jew of Malta, Pillowman, Color Purple, A View From the Bridge, The Tempest, Julius Caesar, The Taming of the Shrew, Macbeth, King Lear, A Language of their Own, and Cymbeline. When asked to name his favorite production he said, "Pillowman, by Martin McDonagh, produced on Broadway in 2005 with Billy Crudup, Jeff Goldblum, and Michael Stuhlbarg. The director, John Crowley, is brilliant. He created a terrific structure and the fight scenes are unique. Obviously the cast was amazing." He has worked with numerous well known actors such as Edward Norton, Ethan Hawk, Alec Baldwin, and Michael C. Hall among many others. He says he particularly enjoyed working with: Billy Crudup, Alec Baldwin, Vanessa Redgrave, Live Schreiber, Michael C. Hall, Anthony LaPaglia, and Viola Davis. Do not expect any titillating inside scoops this October though, he offers full "patient privilege."

J. Steven White was born in Pittsfield, Illinois, to Rev. Dr. James K. and Marie White. He and his wife Staci have two children, Justin and Riley. In high school he played a variety of sports, including football, baseball, and wrestling. He says it was his background in sports that influenced his entire career on stage. "Sports was the major influence. I think two actors executing a fight have to accept teamwork as the essence of what they are doing. If one gets ahead of the other, or pushes, you run the risk of accidents. They try to work with each other’s energies more like dancers." In fact, when asked what drew him to the stage White said, "Of all the aspects of an athletic background, I liked the physicality of it. Plus it was, and remains, an imaginative outlet." He pursued this love of athleticism and creativity beyond high school.

White attended Southern Methodist University where he studied fencing and stage combat, under Dr. Franco de Gaulle, who represented Hungary in the 1936 Olympics. White assisted Dr. de Gaulle teaching actors in the theater program. He said this was his genesis with swords and combat.

He continued to study combat with Patrick "Paddy" Crean at the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco, where he taught and acted for ten years. The impact of these two teachers was incredibly significant. Dr. De Gaulle taught him to wear a mask and compete, says White, while Paddy taught him that actors don’t wear masks and you have to follow certain rules of safety.

Having had such positive experiences with teachers it is no wonder that J. Steven White has done so much teaching himself, starting about forty years ago at the American Conservatory Theater. He also serves on the faculties of Graduate Acting Program at NYU-Tisch and teaches for the Stella Adler Studio and Public Theater’s Shakespeare Lab. "It is gratifying to see the students who say they are not ‘physical’ suddenly get it and take space. It’s a joy to see their joy as they learn to extend and enter into big physical shapes," he says.

Obviously fight direction encompasses more than just creating amazing fight scenes; it is also about the safety of the actors. "In most plays which require fight scenes, the fight director must intensely and singularly focus on the safety of the actors. There are moments in the story that affect the rest of the story. If the actors are hurt, we don’t have a game. The director in charge of everything is everything. He creates the outline in which all the personnel operate including the fight director. But we isolate into those defined moments which must be believable, but safe." Every precaution is taken to ensure the safety of the actors. "The safety is in the technique. Distance must be maintained between the fighters so the sword or fist is moving short of the real body target. I’ve had some bumps and bruises but my record over fort years in hundreds of shows, and thousands of hours of teaching is solid."

INTERVIEW: Part II
 

A: Oh, you have to look at the whole thing.  You have to understand the character to determine HOW they might fight.  Read the script, learn where this person is going and where they’ve come from. For example, I did A View From the Bridge with Anthony LaPaglia and Allison Janney on Broadway. Anthony played Eddie Carbone. If you read the script, it mentions his love for boxing. So he will throw a punch like a boxer as opposed to a Karate guy like a Jackie Chan.

Q: How long do you work with the director before a show goes on? 

A: I meet with the director usually around a month before the first rehearsal to hear his/her ideas. I attend production meetings to look at the proposed set as well. Usually the director gives me his/her ideas of actions they’d like to see in the scene. Some don’t really say much as they want to see me build it and then make their comments and request adjustments.

Q: How long is a typical fight scene? What is the shortest and longest you have directed?  

A: Fight scenes are short.  I have done every Shakespeare play but Henry VIII. In Romeo and Juliet, if the Tybalt and Mercutio sword fight is two minutes, that’s an eternity. It depends on the story we are trying to tell and the moment to moment release. But fights with weapons conclude quickly. My longest was the battle in Cymbeline, which I did in Central Park for the New York Shakespeare Company. It had 26 actors and was just over five minutes and ended with Liev Schreiber and Michael C. Hall (Dexter) fighting in the sand. The shortest was in the musical Bombay Dreams on Broadway.  Anisha Nagarajan (now on the TV show Outsourced) gave the villain a Karate chop and brought down the house.

Q: Is dialogue usually going on during fights, or is it normally separate? What sort of challenges does having dialogue along with fighting present? 

A: Normally separate. But there are few who have to fight and talk: The Kate and Petruchio scene in Taming of the Shrew is hard as all the moves have to be timed so the audience HEARS Shakespeare’s words. Cyrano de Bergerac is another when he composes the poem as he duels Valvert. I try to release the sound of the fight, i.e., the swords clashing, or the simulated sound of the fist or foot connecting during the pauses where the actors have to breathe.

A: Almost everything. Swords, guns, knives, spears, shotguns, and axes. The ax is my favorite to use in a Shakespearean battle scene.

A: Only if they feel the requirement to fight difficult. I am there to help them tell a story; to put it into movement. But I’ve run across many who are tentative. Then it’s hard.  Hesitation leads to danger. 

A: The easiest part is helping them understand why they are fighting. The hardest part is tricky. Often the director sees a bit of action happening in a moment, for example, he/she wants the character to fall. And the actor doesn’t want to fall because they are afraid of injury. Then you must be a diplomat and try to give the director the moment and yet help the actor feel comfortable.

Q: How long do you typically have to work with the actors? Is a lack of time ever an issue? 

A: Lack of time is always an issue. Nowadays, there is never enough time. And money! With weapons, I’m usually there four weeks. One week to train, one week to stage, two weeks to watch rehearsals and run-throughs. I used to get called in sometimes for just a day. With Pirate Queen, I worked on it for one full year. For Shogun, the Musical, I was the associate director for two years.

A: With film, you can stage eight or so moves, rehearse them while they are lighting and adjusting the cameras. You film it and then everyone breaks. You set up eight more, film it, break, etc. and on it goes till you have it. With a play, you can’t stop. I directed the fights for Alex Baldwin when he played Macbeth at the New York Shakespeare Festival. He couldn’t say "cut" and bring on a stunt double or stop for lunch and then come back and resume. He had to speak the part, fight, dance, etc. within the flow and timing of the play.

Q: Why do you prefer to work in theater as opposed to TV or movies? 

A: Actually my pay is the same regardless of the media. However, I love the theater and movie work bores me. Only the big director has any fun. Stunt coordinators in film are primarily concerned with the technical requirements of doing a moment of elevated action. In theater, I coach the whole scene – the moments leading to the fight and out of the fight. I consider myself a choreographer and that means seeing my work flow without interruption, with no one saying "cut."

A: Absolutely, it affects the sightlines. In other words, when we make the simulated sound of flesh on flesh, we need to hide certain actions from the audience. The further the audience is from the action, the easier it is to hide and then reveal what we want like a magician. The closer, the harder.

Q: Have you ever done the same show more than once?   

A: Yes! Twenty-one professional productions of Romeo and Juliet, including Michael Smuin’s Ballet version for the San Francisco Ballet for 15 years. Six Macbeth’s (last one with George C. Wolfe at the New York Shakespeare, Richard III’s (last one directed by Bartlett Sher at the Intiman Theater in Seattle),  three Cymbeline’s (last one with Leiv Schreiber and Michael C. Hall for the New York Shakespeare Festival).

Q: As a producer, what do you look for in a screenplay when deciding what show to put on?  

A: Humanity. I want a human exchange. I want to see a story that gives me a new insight into the human condition. Be it comedy or drama. I’ll even take a clichéd story as long as it goes right into the teeth of it and comes out with a new take. I like to see something relevant. I produced a play last June for the Harold Clurman Lab Theater at the Stella Adler Studio here in New York. The play was Zayd Dohrn’s Long Way GO Down about an American (a "Coyote") who smuggles illegal immigrants into Arizona, and the relationship he and his family have with the Mexican couple family.

A: I love Anton Chekov and his plays about Russian life. It’s ironic as they have no combat in them. The combat is the internal conflict of the heart. Three Sisters is my favorite. I saw it in Russia in 1976 at the Moscow Art Theater and it changed my life. My favorite play to do fights for is Romeo and Juliet. It better be as I’ve done 21 productions.

A: I am actually just retired from staging fights in the business. I still teach Stage Combat at New York University in the Grad Acting Program (20 years for them) and at the Stella Adler Studio in New York City (15 years). I have a full time job at Stella Adler producing plays for their company. I mention it as I have more time to go see my friends in plays and musicals now that I am not working out of town so much. My wife and I go about once a month to the theater, or whenever we can get a babysitter for our 10 year old and 6 year old. N