Bookreporter.com interviews Raymond about THE SANCTUARY

August 24, 2007

In this interview with Bookreporter.com’s Joe Hartlaub, Raymond Khoury — the author of the international bestseller THE LAST TEMPLAR — talks about the inspiration behind his second novel, THE SANCTUARY, and further elaborates on some of the scientific elements discussed in the book, such as the pros and cons of expanding one’s lifespan. He also recalls a few of his favorite childhood comic book and TV nemeses who have influenced his own literary villains, and compares and contrasts the processes of writing novels and penning screenplays.

SLIGHT SPOILER ALERT: If you haven’t read THE SANCTUARY yet, you may want to proceed with caution as some plot details are revealed in this interview.

Bookreporter.com: THE SANCTUARY is arguably the most ambitious book of the year, in topic, breadth and depth. It has its beginnings in the 18th century, involves a range of peoples and organizations from the Templars and the Phoenicians to the CIA, and concerns one of the two certainties of existence — death — by hypothesizing that there just might be a cure for that most terminal of conditions. Yet THE SANCTUARY is very tightly written, very straightforward in its purpose. I’ll ask you how you managed that in just a bit, but first of all, what got you started on the basic idea for the story — that lifespans could be markedly increased and that there is a method, lost to the ages, by which it can be done?

Raymond Khoury: Years ago, when I started exploring this basic notion for another project, a friend of mine told me that her husband — a very wealthy Texas oil man — had just taken her to a high-powered, uber-selective retreat. There, many of the top scientists working in longevity medicine were giving presentations about the state of their research, in the hope of attracting more funding. The audience was made up of billionaires spending thousands of dollars every month on all kinds of treatments. Their attitude was, “take the money, figure it out now, the one thing I don’t have is time.” This fascinated me. A company that was pioneering telomerase IPO’ed at the time, and its stock went ballistic. The more I looked into it, the more clear it became that a “paradigm shift” had taken place in scientists’ perception of aging and death. There’s so much we don’t know about what’s out there, untapped cures that are waiting to be discovered…

BRC: One of the more intriguing figures for me in THE SANCTUARY was the “hakeem,” whose matter-of-fact brutality in the name of science was one of the more chilling aspects of the book. He reminded me in many ways of Dr. Fu Manchu, a character from my pulp-fiction-ridden childhood, who was also an evil genius, a cold-blooded scientist who also bore some physical similarities to the hakeem.

RK: I grew up reading comic books and watching a lot of TV, and although I wasn’t really thinking of Fu Manchu while creating the hakeem, there are other influences I can trace back to those worlds. One that immediately springs to mind is Ras Al-Ghul, Batman’s nemesis — I have all the Neal Adams/Denny O’Neill comics from the ’70s that featured him and his “Lazarus Pit.” Another is — and this one is more obscure — Wo Fat, McGarrett’s Chinese spy-nemesis from ” Hawaii Five-0.” There was a double episode that I still remember so clearly, in which McGarrett is kidnapped by Wo Fat and subjected to a Manchurian Candidate-like brainwash in a horrific chamber on a sub. Creepy stuff for an eight-year-old…

BRC: Were you by any chance a fan of Sax Rohmer, the author of the Fu Manchu novels? And if not, what authors of any genre do you feel have had the greatest influence upon your work?

RK: No, though now you’ve got me curious.

As for the most influence, it’s varied. To relax, I read Harlan Coben, Michael Connelly and Nelson DeMille, but they are more recent. The writers who most marked me, I suppose, are Hemingway, Aldous Huxley, Robert Heinlein and Alfred Bester, whose two novels I can re-read endlessly. I remember being bowled over by William Goldman’s MARATHON MAN, Ludlum’s THE BOURNE IDENTITY and Patterson’s ALONG CAME A SPIDER when I first read them. Most of all, I really admire writers like Richard Matheson and Stephen King, who can write brilliantly in different genres. Goldman too — to come up with MARATHON MAN and THE PRINCESS BRIDE…genius.

BRC: The premise of THE SANCTUARY is the existence of a method by which the human lifespan could be dramatically extended. Your characters briefly discuss what some of the consequences might be. What do you think would be the major benefit to a lifespan increased by, for example, five decades? And what would be the major adverse consequence?

RK: The benefit would be the same as what we’ve experienced over the last 50 or 100 years — enjoying more years of life. But what these scientists are working on is extending our health span, the years during which we enjoy good health and are mentally and physically fit and active. No one wants to spend more years being old. That’s the key, and that’s what the “wear and tear” theory suggests is possible.

The adverse consequences are those which ethics panels and policy makers whip out at every opportunity, although even that’s starting to crack — overcrowding, limited resources, the old not making way for the young. The thing is, it’s not going to happen overnight. It will be a gradual change, taking place over decades, and mankind has demonstrated a great talent for adapting to change. We’re already so radically different and live such different lives from those who came centuries, even decades, before us.

BRC: On a related note, what do you personally believe has been the most significant medical advancement of the last 10 years?

RK: A lot of room for jokes here — I wouldn’t have my lustrous mane without Regaine (see photo) — but I’d go with the advances in mapping out the genome and in stem cell research, which is showing so much promise, despite the hurdles blocking that avenue of research. We’ve also come a long way in understanding, predicting and pre-empting heart disease, one of our two main killers, which is a huge achievement.

BRC: Your work evidences a great deal of cultural and historical research. How do you go about gathering your sources? To what extent do you rely on assistants to do this?

RK: Sadly, I don’t rely on assistants for my research — I don’t have any. A year ago, I hired a script editor from the last series I worked on for a week to collect some general research for the settings of the book’s historic chapters, but that was it. I like to do it myself — it’s part of the pleasure of writing something like THE SANCTUARY. And it’s varied: Internet searches, books, talking to experts… In the case of this book, I spent months looking into the science of longevity, doing a ton of research that only ended up on a few pages of the book. But it’s key; it’s a way of thinking about the story while immersing myself in the theme, making sure it’s doable, viable.

BRC: How does your writing process evolve? Do you begin with a character or an idea first? What similarities and differences do you encounter between writing novels and screenplays? Which do you prefer, and why? And how, when you deal with topics of the breadth of those in THE SANCTUARY, do you keep on track?

RK: I start with the idea, definitely. I have to have a big theme that I’m interested in — religion, death, longevity. From there, the plot evolves as I read up about the subject and churn it over. Then, the characters come in organically. The similarities between novels and screenplays are, for me, in the structure. I built up the story of THE SANCTUARY on several huge charts I had all running along the wall of my office, as well as in endless notes that filled two notebooks with several pages per scene — all the main turning points, the locations and linkages between scenes, where the characters are at each point of the story, their dates of birth and death, relationships, etc. Structurally, it has to be ironclad, and the choices for the characters’ actions and reactions have to follow a clear logic. The attention to pacing is also the same in both. I try not to have anything superfluous; in a screenplay, every page costs a fortune to film, so if it isn’t crucial to the story, it’ll end up omitted from the shooting script.

The main differences are two-fold. In the book, you’re inside the characters’ heads, and can write what they’re feeling and thinking. You can’t do that in a screenplay, where you can only show what the character’s doing unless you use a voice-over, which is to be avoided at all costs. The other main difference is that what I’m writing ends up in the readers’ hands, which is a HUGE satisfaction. This isn’t writing by committee; there are no compromises. A script is subjected to meetings and notes from producers, network or studio execs, and then is “interpreted” by directors who then slap on the notorious “a film by” credit. To a certain extent, this is somewhat merited, but there’s a reason why a recent study found that screenwriters in Hollywood lived, on average, several years less than directors…

BRC: After you have finished writing a novel, who is the first person after you to read it? Do you have a group of people whose judgment you value to read and critique your work?

RK: I have a handful of trusted friends who read as I write — maybe they’ll see the first third or half of the book, then chunks as and when I write them. I value their comments and their insights tremendously. Professionally, my agents in London and in New York will then read it too, as well as my editors in both cities.

BRC: You have had a very successful career in the creative arts in a number of media. Is there anything that you wish you had done differently in starting your career? If so, what?

RK: Although I can hardly complain about where I am right now, which is pinch-me land in every respect, I do have a lot of regrets. I would have loved to have the time to design some great, or at least some memorable, buildings, but I didn’t really get a chance to in my aborted architectural career. I also still would have liked to possibly direct a movie — ideally one I’ll have written — although the often unpleasant realities of that particular world significantly watered down that ambition.

BRC: What are you working on now, and when might readers expect to see it? On a related note, the Phoenicians are mentioned near the beginning of THE SANCTUARY. Do you have any plans for a novel utilizing their great, lost civilization as a moving force?

RK: I’m in the early stages of conceiving my next book that, in the best of worlds, would be ready to hit the stands in a year’s time or in early 2009. I’d also love to write something involving the Phoenicians — it’s my proud heritage, after all! — and it may well happen.