A: I am very interested in history. I think it is one of the proper subjects of fiction, particularly the novel. In lots of ways, I think the novel can do a better job of history than history text books do. Without being absolutely chained to factual data as far as what happens when and to whom and so forth, sometimes you can depict in a more true way what happened at a certain time.

Q: DEADMAN and DEAD FOLKS seem like they could have been one complete novel. Did you plan it this way?

A: By the time I got to the end of HIT ON THE HOUSE, I knew these guys were heading for Montana where Joe Service had a place. I figured DEADMAN and DEAD FOLKS would be the next couple of books, but I didn't know yet exactly what form it would take. I thought this would be an opportunity in which I could get Mulheisen out of Detroit. It was successful to a degree but not totally successful. I think a lot of readers were disappointed that they didn't have more of the urban quality of the previous crime novels.

Q: Was it a nice change of pace?

A: That's the way I saw it and I didn't see any reason why I wouldn't be able to still maintain a Detroit interest. But I remember when Carl Navarre, then president and editor of Atlantic Monthly Press, was alarmed because he had bought these books and thought they were going to be Detroit crime novels. But suddenly they were all in Montana. Actually, there isn't enough in Montana to sustain a crime series, I don't think. Maybe there is? I felt like I had to maintain that Detroit connection.

Q: Will Mulheisen ever return to Montana?

A: I think he might come back. I left that open purposefully because I think there are some things that he can do. I've got to consider Mulheisen's future as a policeman. He may not have much of a future in Detroit from what I can see. I've been spending more time in Detroit lately. I am very happy for Detroit's resurgence, but it may not go well for Mulheisen. There might be another policeman that could step in there.

Q: A new character?

A: Yes, a new character. Or say an amplified older character. I was thinking of maybe Leonard Stanos. Stanos is a hard ass and he's a wacko, besides he is sort of like Grootka. I don't know, Stanos may come out of it, but there could be another guy. I have to see what develops in the new book.

Q: You have said before that in your books, "Everything can't be explicated or solved, much of it is left to the reader to sort out and imagine." Explain this.

A: I think that's the way it has to be. I'm very bored by literature that tells us stuff. I think that's probably always a mistake, that authoritative manner, because lots of things can happen. Things rarely happen exactly the way we would predict them. It is particularly ludicrous in a genre that is classically realistic for it to suggest that at some given point -- let's call it point Z -- that everything is wrapped up. That was the classical form, that British novelists in particular used, to call all of the characters together in the library and the detective would explicate the whole thing. Well, a lot of people objected to that because it seemed like some sort of bizarre urge towards tidiness. They had to tie up all of the loose ends and make sure that the reader could now turn off the light and go to sleep. In a realistic medium it was foolish. That is not the way it is, crimes aren't particularly solved. In fact in one of the earlier Mulheisen novels he talks about Jimmy Hoffa: "Everybody knows what happened to Jimmy Hoffa but no one knows what really happened to Jimmy Hoffa."

Q: Solving what really happened to Jimmy Hoffa is the basis of your latest Mulheisen novel, "MAN WITH AN AXE." Why did you want to write about Detroit's most famous unsolved murder?