Official Website of Jason Pinter

There's some bad buzz going around for the big screen adaptation of the popular cartoon show. I was a HUGE G.I. Joe fan growing up. Can't say I was thrilled to hear they were making a movie, but the first "Transformers" was far better than I expected. Anyway, when I saw the trailer my thought was, "Ugh...this looks terrible."

Now, I'm not a snob, and in fact I enjoyed "The Mummy" (also directed by Stephen Sommers). As we saw with "Iron Man" and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" a really good trailer gets people juiced for the film (the IM trailer was so good that The Onion worried about stretching it out to feature film length). So here is a total breakdown of why the G.I. Joe trailer does not work. Here is the actual trailer, so you can follow along at home:

0:11 - Reveal of an underground lair that looks less like 'Cool and ominous' and more like 'Spongebob Squarepants'.2:01 - Action Movie Cliche #10: Baroness: "This has only just begun." (Mercy, I beg of you...)

Last month I did an interview with the Waterstone's website for THE STOLEN, but we touched on a number of topics. For Yankees, Waterstone's is basically the Barnes & Noble of the UK.

The interview can be read here. (Scroll about halfway down the page)

So here it is at long last, the final cover for the second of my two books coming out this year, THE DARKNESS. Along with THE FURY (in stores 10/01/09), THE DARKNESS makes up one massive storyline covering two books that will change Henry Parker's life forever.

I'm incredibly proud of these two books, how they feel both intimate yet something on a large scale. They are ripped from today's headlines, yet are based on historical events that present a frightening 'What If?' scenario that may already be taking place.

For fans of the whole Henry Parker series, THE FURY and THE DARKNESS are the most explosive, personal and timely books yet. For newcomers, this is a two-part story that will hopefully rock your world and serve as a thrilling introduction to the series.

This two-part story was inspired by James Ellroy's brilliant masterpiece L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, for reasons that I will happily go into as we approach publication date. I'm not going to post the official description quite yet, but I will leave you with this small teaser...

I woke up early this morning, flipped on ESPN and caught the tail end of "The Sports Reporters." I enjoy the show--despite it often coming off as preachy--but something Mitch Albom said caught my attention. During his final monologue, Albom discussed the death of Walter Cronkite. In doing so, Albom stated that young people "Don't see what the big deal is" about the legendary newsman.

Now, at 29 I'm not quite sure I can still consider myself--or speak for--'young people', but that didn't stop me from finding Albom's remarks incredibly condescending. I'm sure if you asked Albom what his kids thought about Cronkite, he would say they had tremendous reverence and respect for the man. So the 'young people' Albom is talking about are not his kids, they're yours or even perhaps you.

First of all, I think young people have as much respect for Cronkite--who came to prominence decades before people my age were even born--as you can have for someone whom you did not personally witness at the peak of their career. Naturally there will be something of a disconnect, likely the same way Albom's parents didn't see what the big deal was about Elvis or Woodstock. I have tremendous respect for Cronkite, but he declared his retirement in 1980, when I was exactly one year old, and he began anchoring the CBS evening news in 1962, 17 years before I was born. The vast majority of my knowledge about Cronkite comes from reading about him after the fact, yet I absolutely do know why he is a 'big deal'. And if you take a cursory glance over at his mentions on Twitter, a great many people from my generation revere the man's career and his influence.

Second, I guarantee Albom's statement was not made after polling hundreds of young people (and what age does the term 'young people' encompass? 18? 25? 38? 6? I picture Albom as the judge from 'My Cousin Vinny' asking, "What is a yout?"). It was made from of a feeling of superiority that he understands the significance of Cronkite's life whereas all these stupid little kids--what with their Xboxes and their Beyonces and their YouTubes--do not. Here's the thing: if people who grew up with Cronkite and understand his significance take the time to explain his legacy to those who did not witness it, odds are they would respect the man. Now, I respect what Albom has done in terms of philanthropy and I happen to think he's a pretty good sportswriter. But if these young people Albom refers to don't see what the big deal is, it is not their fault but the fault of those in Albom's generation who failed to teach them.

The bottom line is this: young people look up to those who speak to them, not at them. And by making such a silly, contrived, out-of-touch statement, I dare say that Albom is the one who doesn't get it.

Thriller fans - I am planning to live Tweet tonight at the banquet for the Thriller Awards, presented by International Thriller Writers. Hopefully I can do this without drawing the ire of many people who know all sorts of ingenious ways to kill someone and dispose of their body.

You can follow my Twitter feed at http://www.twitter.com/jasonpinter.

The fourth annual ThrillerFest begins today with Craftfest. I'm sure over the next few days millions of recaps and articles will be written, so I'll just point you to two links: the official ThrillerFest website, and author Jonathan Maberry's blog in which numerous authors (myself included) talk about ThrillerFest and ITW.

Tonight I'll be attending the second Strand Critics award ceremony. The Strand has been incredibly supportive to me, nominating THE MARK last year for "Best First Novel" while including that book and THE STOLEN among their best books of 2007 and 2008. It's a terrific magazine that publishes all sorts of things for mystery lovers of every ilk. Check out their website here and the list of this year's nominees here.

I'm also nominated for a Thriller award for "Best Short Story" for 'The Point Guard' which was published in KILLER YEAR: A Criminal Anthology. The awards will be announced on Saturday night. I'm up against a murderers row of writing talent, so I'l say it here first: It's an honor just to be nominated.

And if you plan to be at ThrillerFest, please stop by my panel:

I don't write about politics very often. Not because I don't follow it (I do), but because there's just so much out there from people vastly more informed than I am (and much from those who are not). But maybe that's why I should write about politics. I don't consider myself a hardcore member of either party (I could be swayed by a great candidate from the GOP or the Dems), and I'm definitely not a member of the 'loony left' or 'nutjob right'. Yet I do read commentary from both sides of the aisle (I have HuffPo and The Fox Nation bookmarked), and think that Keith Olbermann can spout as much bluster as Rush Limbaugh. So with that in mind, here are my thoughts about Sarah Palin:

As I've mentioned before, I was there when Sarah Palin spoke at the opening ceremonies at Bouchercon in Anchorage in 2007. She was sharp and funny --although more than one person remarked how little must be going on in Alaska for the Governor to take time to welcome a bunch of mystery writers. Still, she made such a good impression on me that when McCain announced Palin as his running mate, I thought, "Ooh, that's a game changer." Well, it was and it wasn't.

Palin proved to be an incredibly difficult politician to get a handle on. On one hand, she could deliver a knock-em-dead speech that electrified the G.O.P. faithful (like at the Republican

National Convention). On the other, when forced to speak off the cuff she came across as defensive, combative and uninformed. She redeemed herself slightly during the VP debate, though that was partly because the bar had been set so low due to her previous interviews. When interviewed by friendly hosts (Sean Hannity et al) whose questions seemed to fall into the "Why is Barack Obama so terrible?" and "Why does the mainstream media hate you?" category, Palin thrived. When comfortable, Palin was witty, and could deliver a line with enough bite to make an offhand remark sink in. Yet for those of us who fell more in the middle, we grew increasingly frustrated with Palin's inability to delve beyond talking points and platitudes, and at some point she officially became McCain's hatchet man, throwing about charges of socialism and accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists."

Many on the right, including Palin herself, charged the media with 'elitism.' I always laugh at that, considering Barack Obama is the son of a Kenyan goat herder who made the vast majority of his money off of books he wrote himself, while George W. Bush came from a family of wealthy politicians and John McCain married a young millionaire heiress. No knocks on either, but charges of 'elitism' tend to be driven more by ideology than fact. But I digress.

There were many on the far left who hated Palin simply for her accent and way of life, calling her 'Caribou Barbie'. But for most of us, we took what she had to say at face value. I grew tired of the 'pro-America areas of this great nation' speeches, and how she seemed to view New York and California as though they were Sodom and Gomorrah. If you govern a country, you govern each and every one of its citizens--even in states that tend to vote blue. Yet I always felt like Palin openly believed every New Yorker/Californian had the exact same temperament as David Letterman, Maureen Dowd, or even Satan himself.

Eventually Palin played the sexism card, which she had a right to do, though it came off as somewhat hypocritical considering she had previously knocked Hillary Clinton's similar views. To some extent, the sexism/elitism charges were warranted. There were attacks on Palin and her family that neither Obama or McCain (or even the Bushes) ever saw. She was right in confronting David Letterman, whose joke about her 14-year old daughter was tasteless and defenseless. But then she crossed the line as well. Palin put out a statement condemning Letterman's remarks, the final paragraph of which stated, "Willow, no doubt, would want to stay away from David Letterman." The insinuation being that Letterman was either a child molester or someone who could not be trusted around a 14-year old girl.

Palin had the high road. And with this remark she took the low, low road. On the Today Show, Palin said of the comment, "Take it however you want." As though the comment might have numerous meanings. It did not. As a public figure you have every right to protect your family, but her comment was simply put, messed up. And very, very unbecoming of someone who might seek the highest office in the land.

After the election, Palin's star seemed to rise as McCain's dimmed. Her name was included in every discussion about the future of the G.O.P., and she was immediately considered a frontrunner for the 2012 presidential nomination.

And then she resigned.

Now as many have pointed out, there are four possible reasons for Palin's departure:

1) Family.

Palin and her family have been dragged through the mud, and face half a million dollars in legal bills. She's tired of the public scrutiny, tired of her children being in the spotlight, and she wants to lead a (relatively) normal life. Noble, if that's the case, but I don't really buy it. Everything Palin has said since her resignation has led us to believe she plans to stay in the public eye, even mentioning (on her Facebook page, of all things) that she has a 'higher calling' and still intends to work for change.

2) She wants to run for President.

At this point, I have to agree with Charles Krauthammer that Palin is just not a viable candidate. She already had a long way to go to convince anyone outside the far right that she was capable, and with her resignation Palin's Presidential ship has struck an iceberg. She barely made it 2.5 years into a 4-year term, and quit on the very people of Alaska who elected her. Use whatever basketball analogies you want, the bottom line is she quit. I still do not understand how an elected official can simply resign from office without informing her constituents of the reasoning behind it. The bottom line is this: if Palin runs for President, anyone who runs against her, whether it be Republican challengers or the Democratic candidate, can say, "You can't handle being the Governor of Alaska, how the hell can you handle being the President of the country?" And this is one question Palin simply cannot spin.

3) Money.

This ties into #1. Palin has mounting legal bills. But she is also the most recognizable name and brand in the Republican party. It is very possible that Palin knows she is a long shot to win a nomination and/or the presidency, so why not cash it when the chips are high? Between books, speaking engagements and a possible television show, Palin could easily reap in many multiples of the $125,000 she currently earns (or earned) as Governor. By doing this, she could continue to be a prominent right-wing voice without facing the scrutiny of being a national candidate.

4) Scandal.

It's possible, but I'm not sure I buy it. I just can't believe that after all the scrutiny she faced as a Vice Presidential candidate, somehow investigators (both Federal and in the media) failed to unearth some massive conspiracy up that would derail her career. I can't say it's impossible, but why would something come out now that did not come out during the campaign, when she was under a far more powerful microscope?

If I had to guess, Palin's resignation is a combination of 1 and 3. Mounting debts combined with massive earning power convinced Palin that the best thing for her would be to work from outside the Governor's office. We'll see if that holds water.

Sarah Palin remains one of the most interesting politicians of our age. She is without a doubt the most ring-wing politician on the national stage in some time, yet she does not look or act like a typical politician. But as John Green pointed out in this funny video, Chewbacca is not a typical politician either. This is not to compare Sarah Palin to a hairy wookie, but to say that she is simply not cut from the same cloth at Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. If you're on the far right, this is a blessing. If you're on the far left, it's a curse. If you're like me and fall more in the middle, you simply interpret the facts as they come. And from my perspective, I cannot see Sarah Palin competing again on the national stage. I would not vote for someone who resigned from their elected position without having the decency to inform their constituents as to the reasons for their decision. Say what you want about 'politics as usual', but I would want my candidate to stand firm in harsh wind.

Daily Mirror (UK) gives THE STOLEN 4 Stars...