An Interview With Charlie Huston, Author of The Shotgun Rule, Part One

I got turned on to Charlie Huston by Patrick Anderson, who reviews thrillers for The Washington Post. While doing an interview on his new book about thrillers, Anderson and I realized we seemed to be in synch regarding those authors who are great (including Michael Connelly, George Pelecanos) and those who, at least in recent years, suck (such as Patricia Cornwell, David Baldacci, Tom Clancy).

About a month ago Anderson asked if I’d read Charlie Huston’s books. I contacted Huston’s publicist who kindly sent me both Huston’s Henry Thompson trilogy and his new novel, The Shotgun Rule. Anderson’s review of Huston's new book came out about two weeks ago and it picked up on some good points about the book, Huston’s first stand-alone thriller. More on Anderson's review in a minute.

The Shotgun Rule is set back in the summer of 1983 in a California suburb and, having grown up in that state during that time period (I’d be 15 then if you want to do the math), I can tell you it’s pretty authentic. The book is about four teenagers who are always getting into trouble. The trouble reaches a new level, though, when they come across a crank lab and steal a sample with plans to sell it. Then mayhem ensues but it’s far from fun – it’s intense and dark. If you are looking for light or happy material look elsewhere. But if you want something dark and pure check out this book.   

If an endorsement by Patrick Anderson or me is not good enough, Stephen King also has a blurb on the cover: "Anyone not acquainted with Charles Huston's blistering, unputdownable novels will want to tie their sneakers nice and tight before starting The Shotgun Rules, or they are apt to be blasted clean out of them."

Scott Butki: How would you describe what this book is about to someone unfamiliar with your work?  

Charlie Huston: The short answer is that it’s a book about four juvenile delinquents who break into the wrong house and steal the wrong thing and shit gets all fucked up. Implicit (and explicit for that matter)in that answer are the ideas that the book is both violent and vulgar. The violence in all my books tends to be graphic. I try not to write it for entertainment value. I know that’s how it’s often read, but that’s not the point. And more than my past books, the violence here isn’t padded by a large number of genre conventions. It’s not a caper. It’s not old school noir.  It has some of the tone of hardboiled crime, but put in a mundane setting. There’s humor, black and otherwise, but it’s incidental. The vulgarity is part of my nature, but particularly relevant here as the protagonists are four teenage boys. There’s simply no way to wrote that dialogue without using “fuck” just about every other word. 

Article Author: Scott Butki

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education... then into special education.

He reads at least 50 books a year and has about the same number of author interviews each year and, …

Visit Scott Butki's author page — Scott Butki's Blog