We continue this week with the second half of Taylor Anderson’s interview.

The early reviews are all very positive (mine among them). Did you anticipate such a warm reception? Has this translated well into sales?

Frankly, I didn’t know what to expect. I’m a little new at this you know. Everything I’ve done before has always been more . . . objectively qualitative. When I built a fine flintlock fowling piece, for example, I knew it was good from years of experience. I also knew other people would know it was good. Differing tastes might or might not appreciate the style of carving or engraving, but there was no question that it was a well-made piece. Writing is different, more subjective, beyond simple varying preferences in decoration. It involves a subjective appreciation of entertainment, and people’s tastes in entertainment can be wildly personal.

That being said, I guess I am a little surprised by how well “Into the Storm” has been received. I’m gratified beyond measure by the reviews and I can’t tell you how glad I am when I get a letter from someone telling me how much they like it. After all, that’s what I set out to do: write a fun, thought-provoking story, with a few old-fashioned values thrown in, that people would enjoy.

As far as sales are concerned, I don’t have any firm numbers yet and it’s a little too early to say, but it seems to be doing well and my publisher is pleased.

Your next book is due in October, which is a scant four months after your first release. Did you have the second novel already written? Are you comfortable with a second book coming out so closely on the heels of the first?

Yes, the second book, “Crusade,” was already “in the can.” At first I was a little dubious and thought I might have liked to see some feedback before it was too late to make changes. Then I remembered that I started this series with a “vision” for its direction, and it really didn’t make much difference. People’s tastes are as diverse as the people that have them. They will enjoy the tale or they won’t. I would like to have had the opportunity to change any historical issues more informed readers might catch, and I’ve already received some interesting ideas about secondary storylines that might have been fun to pursue, but regarding the primary “vision,” I won’t hold my finger in the air and chase good opinions. That’s a losing proposition, and nobody can please everybody.

How many books do you foresee in the series?

Three . . . so far. But the “Earth” the Destroyermen find themselves in is just as big as ours and the “trilogy” will end with an awful lot of it unexplored . . .

You feature several sketches on your Web site. Are you the artist of those sketches?

Yes. I used to draw a lot – mostly pen and ink – but with gun-making, etc, my artistic expression became more and more three-dimensional.

Have you served in the Navy previously?

No, but I love ships and the sea, and a fair percentage of my very good friends over the years have been Navy men.

Your Web site tells the story of your serving as a script consultant for historical war movies. How receptive is Hollywood to a dose of realism? Did you ever find that your advice was overruled or discounted?

Not so much regarding dialog – that usually has little to do with “official” scripts. I haven’t seen many scripts that have much dialog during action sequences of the kind I help with. (Battles.) Usually it’s just “so and so does this, the cannons fire, and such and such happens.” Often, that leaves quite a “hole” that scriptwriters don’t necessarily know how to fill. That’s when directors or AD’s ask “But what would he SAY?! What commands would he give?” That sort of thing. Usually, my advice is given on the fly, or sometimes privately to an actor before a scene.

I have had technical advice over-ruled before, with occasionally silly consequences, because the storyboards called for something else. A few times, I have asked not to be credited as an advisor because I didn’t want to be “blamed” for a particularly ridiculous artillery scene. I have also asked to be credited as “Artillery Trainer” instead of advisor before, because I was proud of the crews I trained, but not some of the things they had them do.

How did you come by your expertise in artillery?

Doesn’t everybody love cannons? I always have. I’ve fired flintlocks since I was a kid, but I’ve always been fascinated by the “great guns.” I have been fortunate enough to meet many people who knew a lot about cannons, and I built a little mountain howitzer about 25 years ago. Then I built another one. About that time, I discovered that there was such a thing as cannon competitions! I have always enjoyed competitive shooting and the idea of a cannon shoot was awe-inspiring. I formed a crew – most of whom are still together – and we built a 6pdr on an 1841 #1 carriage. We competed with that for many years, firing solid shot and canister. Eventually – since there aren’t a lot of guys running around with cannons – we started doing movies.

We immediately realized that movie people, for the most part, don’t know much about cannons and we had to assert ourselves when it came to safety issues. (Even blanks from a 6pdr can blow you in half.) Over time, we gained a reputation for being safe and competent and unafraid to yell at people – even directors – when they wanted something stupid or dangerous done with cannons. We take safety seriously. In all our years of shooting cannons, live and blank, and training guns crews for movies, etc, no one has ever been injured on, or by our guns, and neither has anyone under our instruction. We are proud of that.

In addition to movies and documentaries, we have done a lot of living history and reenactments over the years, but our main focus has always been live fire. Cannons eat a lot and we only take them out a few times a year, but when we do, we learn so much that has been lost! Trajectories, pressures, velocities, penetration, accuracy – these are things that we strive to learn more about. A few years ago, we did a documentary for the History Channel and fired a 6pdr over 5,000 frame per second video. We saw things I don’t believe anyone ever has. It can be very exciting. Needless to say, we have also become conversant in the various sounds all sorts of projectiles make in flight.

We have fired many different types of artillery – I’d have to think a while to name them all – but the ones we shoot most are a 3″ Ordnance rifle – as accurate as any direct-fire modern cannon – and a new 6pdr. We finally retired the old one for a well-deserved rest after numerous movies and about 3,000 live rounds. It now resides in a museum.

A great many of my readers are kindred spirits, in that we shoot in rifle/pistol competitions and get the thrills both from seeing things explode and controlling a firearm accurately and safely enough to achieve an objective. Do you have any videos of the competitions in which you compete online that I can point the readers to? 

We do have videos, but we’ve never put any online. It honestly never occurred to me before. Maybe we will, now. Cool idea. Hmm . . . If we do, I’ll sure let you know. My cannons can be seen and heard at work in a number of movies, but about the only way to see what they are capable of is a single picture of a “counter battery” target under the “bio” section of my website. If people show enough interest, I may post more pictures. We have a number of pictures that show the results of matching a 19th century 3″ Ordnance rifle against a tracked ammo hauler. Wow. The last time we went down to Ft. Hood to shoot – just for practice – we engaged an M-60 tank that was leaning slightly towards us at 1,000 yds. We put 3 rounds, one after another, down the commander’s hatch.

One video I wish we could post is one we did for the History Channel at the YPG in Yuma. The problem is, with the exception of a few scenes used in the show, the rest is the property of the Army. I received verbal permission to use it in a safety training video, but I never could get written permission, and subsequent queries went unanswered.

Can you share how you came to be published?

I suppose I’ve been blessed. I read all the time about authors who’ve been trying for years, have jumped through all the hoops, and done everything right – and still can’t seem to break through. My heart goes out to them because I know if I can do it, anyone probably can. In retrospect, I was incredibly lucky. I didn’t have a clue what I was doing. I decided to write a book, did it, and then just bumbled along trying to find an agent. (That much I knew I had to do.) I began sending out query letters, but continued teaching and building guns and working on shows. I kept writing, too. Every now and then I’d get a form-letter rejection – usually polite, sometimes not – and I’d shrug and shake my head because none of the letters ever gave any reason why. It was frustrating, but I had other things to do.

I probably got 20 or 30 rejections and had just about given up. I hadn’t given up on my story, or writing, but I figured I was doing something wrong and I’d try to find out what it was when I had the time.

Then, all of a sudden, I got a rejection that was different from the others. An agent named Russell Galen had actually taken the time to tell me why – in great detail. He believed in the story too, and carefully enumerated its many fatal flaws. Within a couple of months, I thought the flaws were fixed and re-submitted the manuscript. About a month after that, I had a contract. It was amazing.

I now know agents are incredibly busy, and for Russell to take the time he did with me was extraordinary. But it also goes to show not only how essential agents are, but how important it is to have one who will get behind you and push. Russ is the best, and I’m proud to call him my agent and my friend.

Taylor, thanks for taking the time to answer some questions. If you’re going on a book tour in the near future, please let us know and we’ll post the information on the site here.

This entry was posted on Friday, August 8th, 2008 at 6:15 am and is filed under Author Q&A. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.