
the novel I’m currently completely rewriting
Kaitlyn Dunnett/Kathy Lynn Emerson here. Fellow writers—does it ever seem to you as if a writing project is never truly finished? If you have a contract and a deadline, there is a point where you have to say “Enough!” and let the manuscript go. But if you’ve ventured into the Indie field, or have rights back on a previously published book you’ve decided to revise and reissue, getting to that point is a whole lot harder. I’ll probably talk more about fiction at a later date, since revising and reissuing has been my “thing” since I (Hah!) retired a few years back. But today I want to focus on nonfiction, particularly history and biography, where there really is no point where everything is just right and will never need to be updated.
My A Who’s Who of Tudor Women is a perfect example. Boy is it ever! For years I simply posted these mini-biographies at my website and didn’t even attempt a book version. That way I could easily make additions and corrections.
If you’re thinking “It’s history. Facts don’t change.” Think again. New research is being done all the time. Back when I started this project, the concept of Women’s Studies was brand new. Before that all the emphasis in historical research had been on what men contributed. Women barely got a mention and when they did, male scholars often neglected to mention their given names. They were simply the wives or daughters of the important historical figures.
Anyway, things have changed. Digitizing source material made it easier to access. More people, men as well as women, took an interest in the distaff side of history. There was no way I could keep up with every new tidbit of information about the women who had entries in my Who’s Who.
Then came Covid and my realization that I might not be able to keep the webpages going forever. I took the 2300+ entries I had at that point and finally produced an ebook edition. Well, I thought, I can still make changes easily. And I can put up an “additions and corrections” page at the website. Soon, however, there were requests for a print edition. You know this part of the story already. It came out in three huge volumes at the end of last year. But guess what—other writers are still writing new books about the Tudor period and penning biographies of those women whose lives provide enough material for a full-length study. And in every one of those new books, at least one new detail emerges about one of my 2300+ women. Sometimes it just adds information. Sometimes it contradicts what I thought, based on older research, was accurate.
A case in point is a new biography of Anne of Cleves, fourth wife of Henry VIII. I had read only a short way into Accounting for Anne by historian James Taffe, in which he uses Anne’s account books to study her life, when I hit a name, Dorothy Fitzherbert, that sounded familiar. The story of how she had to go to court to enforce her marriage contract with John Wingfield, however, was new to me. Fascinating stuff, but the point is that it’s new information even though it has been around, waiting to be noticed, since the 1540s. I also saw that (oops!) I had assigned John the wrong parentage. Someone else, a reputable scholar, did that first, but still, what’s in my mini-biography of Dorothy is wrong.
There was other “new” stuff in Accounting for Anne too, and I’m talking about just the first third of the book here. I had never seen a list naming the gentlewomen she brought with her from Cleves before. Or how much her English “Mother of Maids” was paid per quarter (£5).
I’ve also recently read a convincing argument for the parentage of one of my favorite Elizabethan figures, Elizabeth’s governess, Katherine Champernowne Astley, written by novelist, Rosemary Griggs, who is working on a biography of Kat Astley. I’d have loved to include her reasoning in Kat’s entry, even though there is no absolute proof it is correct.
The upshot of all this is that the current version of the Who’s Who will have to be the final one . . . but I’ll probably be penciling notes in the margins of my copy till I drop.

Kathy Lynn Emerson/Kaitlyn Dunnett has had sixty-four books traditionally published and has self published others. She won the Agatha Award and was an Anthony and Macavity finalist for best mystery nonfiction of 2008 for How to Write Killer Historical Mysteries and was an Agatha Award finalist in 2015 in the best mystery short story category. In 2023 she won the Lea Wait Award for “excellence and achievement” from the Maine Writers and Publishers Alliance. She was the Malice Domestic Guest of Honor in 2014. She is currently working on creating new editions of her backlist titles. Her website is www.KathyLynnEmerson.com.
AND DON’T FORGET! One lucky Maine Crime Writers reader who leaves a comment on the blog this month will win a bundle of books!




I close the WIP, pull up my friend Gracie, and let her go have an adventure. Grace Christian is a somewhat wayward US Marshal who first appeared several years ago in a story published by Level Best Books called “Gracie Walks the Plank.”Gracie has voice and Gracie has attitude. She’s a true badass and it’s fun to see what she’ll think and say. After “Gracie Walks the Plank,” I wrote a second Gracie story about a battered wife and jewel heist called “All that Glitters.” Then, just for fun, because she’s a vacation from my other characters, I wrote “A Hole Near Her Heart,” and then Entitlements.” In a recent bout of playing hooky from quotas, I wrote “Black Widower.” I am gradually turning all the stories, plus more, into an entire Gracie novel.
story, will be promoted as part of a special sale on @Smashwords to celebrate Read an Ebook Week from March 1 – March 7. Be sure to follow me for more updates and links to the promotion for my books and many more! #ebookweek26 #Smashwords.
Cold Hard News was published in 2015, and about a year after that, someone at a book group asked me why I gave Bernie ADHD and how I did the research. It was the first time anyone brought it up. My response was that she has it because it helps with character development, as far as some of the pickles Bernie gets into. And research? “I have it myself.” That was met with an uncomfortable silence. I started to elaborate a little on research and rewriting the character, but I’d lost the room. Someone quickly asked me another question — probably if I knew when the next Paul Doiron book was coming out. That’s a joke. I can’t really blame ADHD for my sense of humor. Or maybe I can. In any case, someone asked a question far, far from the topic of ADHD.
Kaitlyn Dunnett/Kathy Lynn Emerson here. Last fall I posted about an online scam trying to trick me into taking advantage of a wonderful promotional opportunity for one of my books. Since then such offers have proliferated. I get at least three or four similar emails a day at each of my email addresses, although they are indiscriminate about which name is listed as the author of the book in question. It isn’t just me receiving these solicitations, either. Every writer I know has been spammed relentlessly.
That said, I almost fell for one recent email I found in my spam folder. This one was a little different from the norm and there is even a minuscule chance that it might still turn out to be legitimate. Several clues in the text, however, make me 99.9% certain this is just another scam.
Clue five: She claims to have been reading one of my books and after telling me what she “absolutely loved” about it, she writes that she’d “genuinely love to connect and hear what you’re working on next.” Again, not a professional approach. But wait—there’s more. The book she claims to be reading is one of the three her company published. It came out in 2016 and rights reverted in 2025. Not only that, but shortly after the real editorial director took the job at this publisher in 2024, she expressed an interest through my agent in seeing of another book in that series from me. That is the way editors solicit submissions, although it is pretty rare for them to solicit them at all. I had my agent tell her I wasn’t interested in writing a fourth book in the series. Less than two years later, surely the real editorial director would remember that exchange.












