A.J. Colucci’s books have been described as “full of suspense and intrigue,” “a frightening combination of well-researched science and scenes of pure horror” that are not only “fun” to read, but carry a “profound” message about “the dangers of ecological abuse and exploitation.” We are delighted A.J. Colucci agreed to stop by Book Club Babble, and discuss her books, writing, science and more.
Kelly Sarabyn: Your novels are very much based on real science. Science that most people probably don’t know much about. In Colony, it is the power and structure of ant colonies, and in Seeders, it is plants’ ability to communicate and learn. Of course, the plants in your book eventually become more powerful than they are in real life. After I read your book, I wanted to find out more and I found this interesting Michael Pollan article on plant intelligence. Are there any science writers you find particularly compelling for a general audience?
A.J. Colucci: I read Pollan’s New Yorker article when it came out and thought it was great, because it so beautifully outlined the science described in my book. One reason is that Pollan and I used the same sources. He interviewed Stefano Mancuso, an Italian plant physiologist who has been at the forefront of Plant Intelligence, and his philosophies are reflected in my character, Jules. Also, Eric Brenner, a plant neurobiologist at NYU who was my consultant on Seeders. Eric was really instrumental in making sure I got my plant biology right and didn’t go too overboard on their capabilities. These scientists are so ahead of their time and their groundbreaking work makes for very interesting reading.
KS: On your website, you mention one of the reasons you write about the natural world is because humans “consider ourselves above nature, not part of it,” and we need to “gain a better understanding of all living creatures that share this planet.” This seems like good advice, especially since more and more humans are migrating to urban environments, which makes it easy to disconnect from nature and think of it as a separate, tamable entity. Both your books serve this purpose, revealing surprising intelligence in species commonly thought of as lacking any. But do you think humans will ever be able to think of themselves as equal to plants and other animals? When I was reading your book, I couldn’t help but wonder how a vegan would react if it turned out plants were as intelligent, as say, small fish; after all, humans have to eat something. Do you think humans will always see a hierarchy of species? Are there any writers or philosophers whose work you find persuasive on the ideal way for humans to approach nature?
AJC: As I said, a lot of the philosophy on plant intelligence came from the good work of Stefano Mancuso and others in his field, who believe that intelligence should be measured by one’s ability to solve problems related to survival, as opposed to something like abstract thought, and I agree. Humans tend to measure intelligence and abilities on a human scale, so automatically plants and animals are at a disadvantage. If we measure intelligence on how successful a species is at survival, then plants, fungus and insects are way ahead of us. I think everyone agrees that plants are meant to be eaten. Fruits and vegetables fall on the ground so animals will eat them and disperse the seeds. They taste good for a reason. So even consumption is proof of plant intelligence.
KS: Seeders is a thrilling page-turner with astutely developed characters. In particular, Isabelle’s relationship with her son Sean is complicated and heartbreaking. In a flashback, we learn that, when Sean was younger, he fell twenty feet out of a tree, and transformed from a brilliant and energetic boy to a sluggish and mentally impaired one. Isabelle feels the continual guilt of the parent who was supposed to be watching him. The depiction of this tragedy is very real, and as a reader, you feel Isabelle’s guilt and loss. I was curious if the decision to have Sean transform in this way was plot or character driven? Was his condition needed for a plot you already had in mind or was it just how you envisioned Isabelle’s family? Does the balance between character development and a fast-moving plot come into place for you organically, or do you set it out ahead of time?
AJC: That’s a good question. Most of my books are plot-driven, and I believe that genres like science thrillers, horror, and sci-fi should be more about The Story. Seeders was the first time I put so much thought into developing the characters and their relationships with each other. Their arc, their inner transformations throughout the story, happens naturally. So the way I saw Sean at the beginning of the book, and how the island changes him, simply unfolded as the story progressed.
KS: The relationships in your book are so well drawn. There is Luke and Monica, with their fumbling, emotionally charged teenage love. There is Isabelle and her abusive husband, and Isabelle and her failed crush on a scientist. Since the relationships feel so real, I was curious if you ever thought, as we might in real life, about how all these relationships would have unfolded if they hadn’t been intercepted by tragedy?
AJC: Funny you should ask, because I do know how they would unfold. When I’m writing about a relationship, it’s not with the idea that, hey, he’s going to get killed before this romance has a chance to blossom. I see my characters falling for each other, and I get into their heads. So I know Luke has every intention of staying with Monica forever, and that Isabelle would love to trade up her crummy husband for true love with her childhood crush. She can see the white picket fence, and so can I. To be convincing, you have to be in your characters’ head at each moment in time, and ignore what you know will happen down the road.
KS: Many of the descriptions in both your books are disturbingly vivid. I remember reading Colony in my bed, and the blankets shifted, and I jumped. Because, of course, killer ants might be invading my bed. How did it feel to write these scenes? Were you on edge and scaring yourself?
AJC: You know, I’m as jumpy as you when it comes to reading scary stories or watching horror films. My eyes are closed for a couple minutes during every episode of The Walking Dead. Yet, when it comes to my own writing, I never flinch. Describing scenes of gore and violence don’t bother me. I suppose I feel safe inside my imagination. Probably because that’s where I’m most in control.
KS: Did you envision Seeders as a morality tale? Not in a didactic way, but in a more classic sense of a tale of foreboding, warning humans that there could eventually be consequences if we aren’t more cognizant and respectful of nature?
AJC: Definitely. When you write science thrillers, you read a lot of science magazines and watch a lot of nature shows, and you can’t help worrying about the environment. The more I studied plant intelligence, the more I was disturbed by human manipulation of nature. Thereare so many things we do wrong for the sake of convenience and cost effectiveness. Feeding billions of people isn’t an easy task, but the people running the seed and food industries are usually looking at the bottom line, not necessarily what’s best for people or theplanet. I think that comes across in my books.
KS: Were the ants in Colony and the plants in Seeders inevitably personified for you, or were you able to keep them conceived on their own terms, with their own, non-human motivations and goals? Do you have an opinion on whether personifying animals and plants in stories and film is generally a good or bad thing?
AJC: I wouldn’t say they were personified, but they certainly have their own form of intelligence and amazing capabilities. I grew up with old black and white sci-fi movies like Them, Body Snatchers and Day of the Triffids, and I loved those films. But stories like that, which give human qualities to non-human entities, don’t play well today. When writing science thrillers, there has to be a certain level of verisimilitude, hard science to back up your claims.
KS: I don’t want to reveal any spoilers, but the end of Seeders is much darker than the end of Colony. Is a dark ending normal for this genre? Did anyone try to tell you it should be lighter? I thought the ending was appropriate to the story, but it did surprise me simply because (and I say this as someone who often reads thrillers, but not horror) most contemporary fiction seems to conclude on a lighter note.
AJC: You’re right, and I chose a dark ending on purpose. I take book reviews with a grain of salt, but when I do read my reviews it’s with the idea of improving the next book, and I noticed some people weren’t crazy about the happy ending in The Colony. It was maybe too sappy. So I kind of went the other way with Seeders. This time, everyone thought the ending was appropriate and satisfying, but far from happy. Dark endings can be emotional, but they can also make you think. Considering the message of the book, I really couldn’t have ended it any other way.
KS: I thought it was interesting you said, on your website, that you didn’t think connections, or being in the right place at the right time, would sell a mediocre book. Is that because you don’t think mediocre books are published, or is there another way they end up being published? What are your thoughts on books that could not find a home with a traditional publisher but then were successfully self-published? (Like Still Alice, for example, whose author tried and failed to get an agent for a year, and then very successfully self-published.) Doesn’t that suggest good books may fail to find a home with a traditional publisher?
AJC: On that particular question, I was saying you’re better off spending your time writing, as opposed to marketing yourself, because the writing is what counts in the end. So if you know you’ve written a mediocre book, and most people know if they have, you need to keep polishing it. That said, books are highly subjective. I might think a book is boring while someone else thinks it’s the best novel they ever read. That’s the great thing about being an author. You can find your own audience, either through traditional or self-publishing. If you’re passionate about writing and you don’t suck at it, if you keep perfecting your craft, you can get published. Of course there are terrific novels that fall through the cracks, but again, that’s because books are subjective. It’s why doing your homework is so important – finding an agent who cares about your story and likes your voice.
KS: Recently, I read an article by Catherine Nichols on Jezebel, detailing her experiment of querying her literary manuscript under a male’s name as well as her own name. She reported that querying under her female name garnered 2 requests out of 50 queries, and querying under a male pseudonym (with an identical query) garnered 17 requests out of 50 queries. After reading this, I wondered if you chose to write under your initials because thrillers are a genre where people may have an unconscious preference for male authors. J.K. Rowling, for example, chose to pen her crime fiction, a similar genre in some ways, under a male pseudonym. Do you think that readers, unconsciously or not, think men can write more authoritatively on violence and mayhem?
AJC: I did use initials because I thought some men wouldn’t be as open to reading a science thriller by a woman. I turned out to be wrong, at least judging by feedback from my fans, more than half of whom are women. And no one reviewing my books ever complained about the science being wrong, if anything they thought it was too detailed. But I have no doubt that readers and agents discriminate against women in certain genres. The same way women readers might be less likely to pick up romance novels, cozies and chick-lit by a male author.
KS: What genres of fiction do you read? What are you currently reading? Do you read fiction while you are in the process of writing your novels, or does a different voice interfere with your own writing? Any favorite books you would like to recommend?
AJC: I read everything. I enjoy literary novels that take me away to a different time and place, like A Fine Balance, The Prince of Tides, Crazy in Alabama. Of course I read genre, mostly thrillers, by authors like Karin Slaughter, Linwood Barclay, Lisa Scottoline. I often re-read classics that I loved in the past. Recently, To Kill a Mockingbird and The Call of the Wild. I’m always submerged in at least two books when I’m writing, usually in the same genre or non-fiction works on whatever I’m researching. I don’t find it interferes with my voice, but inspires me to write better. One of my all-time favorite books, which I just ordered because it’s not in my home library, is A Confederacy of Dunces. I just love satire.