Stephen King, Sartre, John Wordsworth, Danielle Zigner and Me

As I return to my thriller and implement all the changes I’ve realised are necessary over the past months, I am having a read of the final 100 pages of Stephen King’s wonderful book, `On Writing'. Here are this week’s gems:

He reminds us that every book worth reading is about `something’. Perhaps my weakness (or one of them) is that it isn’t sufficiently clear what my own something is or rather there have been too many somethings. He says that the job of the second draft is to make that something `even more clear’, which may  require lots of changes and revisions.

Writing about his own struggles with plot he adds: `If there is any one thing I love about writing more than the rest, it’s that sudden flash of insight when you see how everything connects. I have heard it called ``thinking above the curve’’ and it’s that; I’ve heard it called the ``over-logic’’ and it’s that too.’

I had this moment after my session with Danielle Zigner of LBA, when she wanted there to be a connection between the two `bad’ guys, otherwise it would be too much of a coincidence that they both appeared in the protagonist’s life at the same time. My initial instinct had been correct, because I’d made them half brothers in an earlier draft, but then they’d evolved away from one another and one had taken a more prominent role. I’ve now found a much better way to link them than through blood. And I felt a shiver of excitement when I understood how that would work and how much stronger the plot would be as a result.

King adds a word of warning that `starting with the questions and thematic concerns is a recipe for bad fiction’. Good fiction begins with the story and then progresses to the theme. I remember when I was studying Sartre at uni, a constant theme was whether he was a better philosopher than writer. Did his philosophy impact negatively on his writing in terms of having fully rounded characters, rather than ciphers?

King talks about how long you should let your manuscript rest after your first draft (or, I should add, when you think you’ve finally finished it). He advises at least six weeks. I received the same piece of invaluable advice from John Wordsworth of Zeno Agency after having a one to one with him at the York Festival of Writing last September. The two other agents I met showed undiluted enthusiasm for my writing and were pushing to see the whole manuscript as soon as possible, even suggested publishers who might love it as much as they did. They promised to get back to me as soon as possible after the Frankfurt book fair, pinged off immediate responses with kisses and followed me on Twitter! I then never heard from them again, even after a cautious `chase' in November. 

John said: `

But when you've taken it as far as you can - even if that means getting feedback from beta readers, or sticking it in a drawer for a month and rereading with fresh eyes - I'd love to see it. But don't rush it for my sake.'

I should have realised that he was the one genuine person of the three! Instead, I sent it to him far too soon.

King says that for him `the most glaring errors’ on this re-read after the 6 week `rest' are to do with character motivation and I certainly think that’s true of my own manuscript. Most of all he’s looking for what he meant, `because in the second draft I’ll want to add scenes and incidents that reinforce that meaning. I’ll also want to delete stuff that goes in other directions.’

Going back to what John Wordsworth also advised, King shows his manuscript- when it's gone through the second draft- to six or eight people whose opinion he respects. In baseball, he says, `tie goes to the runner; for novelists, it goes to the writer! If some people love your ending and others hate it, same deal- it’s a wash, and tie goes to the writer.’ And that's why writing groups and friends who love to read are invaluable.

First Monday Crime Part Two

The remaining two panellists on Monday night were William Shaw and Jack Grimwood.

William Shaw has been described as a `gonzo journalist' who's spent time hanging out with neo Nazis and Scientologists. He also wrote a column for the Observer about the fascinating world of the Small Ads, which I remember being addicted to, especially the weird characters he came across, including a man who collected handcuffs.

He is the author of the much loved Breen and Tozer series, set in London in 1968-9, which he will return to. In the meantime, he's recently written `The Birdwatcher', a standalone novel, set in Dungeness (`The Clapham Junction for birds'). It concerns a police Sergeant, William South, who is a murderer himself and therefore doesn't wish to `detect', until a friend and fellow birdwatcher is murdered.

Shaw took the detective's back story from something he wrote years earlier about a 13 year old boy in Northern Ireland. The Troubles have brought a knowledge that life can be short and crimes often remain unsolved, which changes how you view the world. Shaw's own family originally came from there, but given the political situation, it was not a good time to visit while he was growing up, so a big part of his family in Northern Ireland have largely remained imagined. As a therapist I found it interesting that he denied the significance of naming his (murderous) protagonist William, citing it as a name that's been in his own family for generations...

It's very different setting a novel in a small place like Dungeness, rather than London, but he's been praised for his `superb description of a haunting, blighted landscape.' He's even annoyed readers because he didn't mention the Light Railway! When he started writing, he didn't know much about bird watching, but he was careful to check he had all his facts right with local birdwatchers and clearly admires and respects their wealth of knowledge. 

Jack Grimwood has previously written Sci Fi and Fantasy, but his debut thriller is `Moskva' with Major Tom Fox, set in the 80's with the Cold War starting to thaw. There is a serial killer on the loose and  the Ambassador's daughter goes missing. Grimwood claimed to not yet quite know who Tom Fox is. In a Sitcom people never learn and that's what makes it funny, whereas in crime fiction lots of changes are possible- people divorce, are bereaved, go bankrupt...

He began writing the book simply with the image in his head of a child in the snow standing in front of the Kremlin. Fox is often drunk- though practically teetotal by Moscow standards- and his best friend is a one legged helicopter pilot who's fought in Afghanistan.

He said he admired a place where people will queue round the block for a new book of poetry and also made a few jokes about the KGB: half are now running the country and the other half are running the Mafia. He was fascinated by the idea back in the Cold War that there were no criminals in the USSR as this was a degenerate Western concept.

When talking about research, he related a story about once writing to the SFPD, saying he was an English novelist and could he come and talk to them. He was invited for a Ride-along and even ended up with a complete set of an Officer's notes and reports for that day's crime, which included a person's credit card details. It's a good thing he only writes about crime!

The discussion ended with the fascinating question about who is the monster in a particular crime novel and who does the author think it is? There is a need to empathise with all the characters, good and bad, as heroes can be dull.

As I reached the Tube later, I read the thought for the day on the noticeboard, which seemed particularly apt: `Tough times don't last, but tough people do.'

Our lovely goodie bag

Monday First Crime with Chris Fowler, Jack Grimwood, William Shaw & Sarah Hilary, Part 1

Last night I attended the second First Monday Crime night at City University. They were anticipating a larger turnout than last time, so we were in a bigger, lighter room. I followed the paper signs up the stairs, twisting and turning along various corridors- like a treasure hunt.

It was too muggy an evening to drink the proffered wine, when I reached the X-marks-the-spot, so I gulped down a massive tumbler of water and watched everyone arriving, with lots of kissing and waving. I felt less at ease than last time, as neither of the people either side of me spoke, except to get help with the WiFi.

The panel of 4 writers: Chris Fowler, Sarah Hilary, William Shaw and Jack Grimwood were introduced by the journalist, Jake Kerridge, who did an admirable job of interviewing them. The tone was quite different from last time. This was a serious discussion rather than the levity of last month's event. They all seemed to be seasoned panellists, confident and articulate.

I will cover the first two writers in this blog and the second two in my next, as it seems a lot of ground was covered!

Sarah Hilary's debut novel, `Someone Else's Skin', was a Richard and Judy Book Club bestseller and won the Theakston's Old Peculiar Crime Novel of the year 2015, an unusual and particularly admirable feat for a debut novelist. She's currently working on her 4th in the series featuring DI Marnie Rome. `Tastes Like Fear' has just come out- strange happenings around the urban wastelands by the river and disappearing, homeless girls.

Her DI is a compassionate figure with her own tragic past and her own demons. Sarah Hilary doesn't like the trope of the alcoholic, divorced cop who lives in a caravan- her DI forces herself to live in the real world. (Although Hilary does like the word `trope'). When you're writing a series, the character has to grow- she feels her DI is becoming stronger, yet softer. She said she's deliberately parsimonious in revealing details about the DI's childhood, so she doesn't later write herself into a corner.

She no longer lives in London, but fortunately came up to town and took a look at Battersea Power station, which she'd seen in her mind's eye as it used to be, `an urban cathedral', dominating the landscape. Now it's been `hobbled', closed off to the public and the rebuilt towers will become penthouse apartments (Sting has bought one!). She spoke eloquently about London being all layers, from these glass penthouses right down to the many Saxon finds, when developers start digging the foundations for a new building. London changes all the time, so she feels she has licence to change things and create a London partly from her own imagination.

She was inspired by the Gorilla Experiment (Google it, you'll be amazed!) which shows how much we miss about what goes on around us- and yet we have little idea that we're missing so much. I guess that's where the phrase, hidden in plain view, comes from.

The second writer, Chris Fowler, has written more than 40 books and has been described as an `unashamed anorak'. A Guardian reviewer once wrote that he would make a good serial killer. He was tanned and muscled, with broad shoulders and a narrow waist and definitely looked as if he could do some damage down a dark alley! He said: `Don't ever say to a writer, do you write Cosies?' I felt I'd be very unlikely to ask him anything contentious, at all, although last night he was very much the affable gentleman that I'm sure he is.

His series of detective fiction (maybe 15 or so and counting), feature `golden age detectives in a modern world'. Detectives Bryant and May, from the Peculiar Crimes Unit, are based on a unit his dad worked on in WW2. He's interested in `bumbling' characters who can screw up a lot, who don't have all the answers. But definitely not cosy.

He works a great deal from local police notebooks. Apparently, someone gave him all their notebooks upon retirement, dating from the Seventies to the present. What a treasure trove! She was a very forthright police officer, apparently, who wrote about liking the ammonia smell of the pigeon shit on the roof, when watching a crackhouse overnight, as it cleared her bronchitis.

His picture of the city is partly shaped by what he's read about London and he's a big fan of Marjory Allingham and also recommended `King Dido', by Alexander Baron.

He has his own website and writes daily blogs. I took this from his website, which is really helpful as a brief overview:

`Whats your advice for first time writers?

Fiction means you can make stuff up.
Dont be ashamed of embarrassing yourself.
Romances need a moral dilemma.
Remember its fiction, not biography.
Ask yourself what the hero wants.
Think the unthinkable.
When you think it cant go further, go further.
Characters need to grow, and not repeat themselves.
Choice is a dilemma between irreconcilable goods or the lesser of two evils.
You dont always need to explain why people do things.
Crisis moments are better when theyre completely static.
Leave room for characters to breathe.
You have to love your hero.
Dialogue is not conversation.
Its better to do than to describe.
Believe what you write.
You dont have to write from experience.
Make sure that something always remains unknowable.'

I walked out into the night after the evening and felt inspired to look up as I walked along, something we so rarely do in this beloved ever-changing city:

Beat the Rejection Clinic with Agent, Danielle Zigner

I recently made the decision to invest £225 of my hard earned therapy money on a half hour `Beat the Rejection’ clinic through the Writers’ and Artists’ Yearbook. There was a handful of agents who were offering these slots at the Bloomsbury offices in Bedford Square. I picked Danielle Zigner, a junior agent at LBA, as it mentioned in her profile that she was interested in psychological thrillers with a unique hook.

It was a warm day and I arrived early. I pictured myself sitting on one of the benches in the lush gardens of the square, but it was locked- for Residents and keyholders only. Instead, I walked around the Georgian square, with its beautifully preserved Grade 1 listed buildings, fantasising about a different life.

With 15 minutes to spare I was buzzed into Reception at the Bloomsbury offices and sat admiring the intricately moulded ceiling and the new Harry Potter editions on display. Silent young women with long legs and swinging hair moved swiftly through the doors at one end, while clusters of men in dark suits ushered each other along, talking in hushed tones, as if this were a library. I had a Visitor’s pass which would only clip on back to front. I was anonymised.

Danielle arrived, looking exactly like her profile picture, so I introduced myself and we chatted about the sun, Harry Potter- she’s a big fan- and her own nearby, rather more cramped offices in an old townhouse.

She was collected ahead of me and when I was fetched, I followed a young man down into a basement warren of corridors and tiny offices, moving- I surmised- into the adjoining buildings. I was asked not to push the table at which Danielle was sitting, as it had been found propped against the wall and was very unstable. A little how I was feeling. We both had several glasses of water, for which I was grateful- it was very stuffy in these nether regions. We were definitely in the servants’ quarters.

Danielle had prepared well and immediately handed me a revised submission letter. She said that the next day she had 200 submissions to get through and a letter of my length was not going to get read (it was just over one A4 double-spaced page), which meant my chapters might not even get considered. She added that there was no point in telling me why I’d picked her, as everyone said the same thing. All she wanted to know was the genre, the length, the pitch and any relevant courses (only selective ones) or publications. She said I should also mention that I’m a therapist because that gives me credibility. 

She didn’t like the fact that my book is 120,00 words and said I should cut it down to 100,000, which is quite substantial editing, but I wasn’t there to argue or defend myself.

She told me my synopsis was well written, but it posed a number of questions about the plot, particularly concerning the characters’ motivation. She asked good questions and made strong points about the links between characters, which made me feel she knew what she was talking about.

I agreed with most of her observations, although I struggled with her saying my protagonist, Rebecca, is too naïve and self-deprecating. I need to make her more likable. I like my protagonist and yes, she is naïve and self-deprecating, but she’s only 22 and can’t speak, which doesn’t do a whole lot for your self-confidence, I imagine.

Danielle said that psychological thrillers weren’t really her thing- or rather, she’s yet to find one she likes- she’s more into YA, science fiction and fantasy. However, she did say I should send it to her once I’ve made my revisions.

I can see I have a lot of work to do, but I still think it’s worth the effort. I owe it to Rebecca.