Aaaah, research! I have written previously about the issue of accuracy (#Tip 60) - when pedantry becomes procrastination, and the compromises that we sometimes need to make to balance the need for absolute accuracy with our duty to tell a compelling story.
So let's talk about research.
Writers starting out on their career are often told "write what you know". This is perfectly sound advice. But the chances are, that as you progress in your career, you will eventually exhaust the topics on which you can write authoritatively based purely on your own knowledge and will need to do research. And this is where it is all too easy to fall into a trap.
It has been said that a good writer can sound like an expert on a subject that they know very little about. This is a little uncharitable. Many writers can become something of a genuine expert on a particular topic. They spend hours reading books and articles, watching documentaries, speaking to people and even going on research trips (sometimes joking referred to as tax-deductible holidays - there are definitely times I regret setting my DCI warren Jones series in an area within fifty miles or so of where live! Sending a DCI from Hertfordshire to Venice to solve a baffling murder, and thus requiring me to go and scout out locations in person, would be a hard sell if I am ever inspected by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs!). I have friends who write historical fiction and they love perusing the archives of the British Library, or tramping around graveyards.
The problem is that having worked so hard to become an expert, you really want to share all that knowledge with your readers!
But do you run the risk of turning a crime caper that your readers picked-up for entertainment into a text book with a story bolted on? Where is the line between an entertaining story that a reader will finish and say "that was a cracking read and I also learnt something" and "It was all very interesting, but not a lot happened."
When I wrote Forgive Me Father, I set the story in a fictional ruined abbey. I had been planning the book for ages, so my partner and I used it as an excuse to go and visit old cathedrals and abbeys, (which we thoroughly enjoyed and I DID NOT claim on expenses, in case HMRC are reading). I bought guidebooks and spent many hours online reading about the dissolution of the monasteries and other history that I never learned at school. I made detailed plans of the abbey as it would have been in its heyday and then modified them to account for centuries of neglect.
Almost none of this research made it into the book.
And that is as it should be. A good rule of thumb with research is that the author should know far more than appears on the page! Or to paraphrase another common piece of advice "wear your research lightly." Aim to leave your readers feeling that you know your stuff, and if they felt so-inclined, they could ask you to expand at length - good writers are good bluffers!
The same is true of characters.
I've spoken previously (#Tip 39) about the need to plan characters - to keep a biography of key events to stop you contradicting yourself in later books; sometimes this can even act as a stimulus. Have a middle-aged character who's getting a bit stale, and you're not sure what to do about them?  Ooh look, they turn fifty in a few months - give them a mid-life crisis! Buy them a motorbike! Embroil then in a messy affair!
But again, just because you know that about them, doesn't mean you have to tell the reader about it.

​What's the best way to accomplish this balance?
The key is in the editing.
Stick everything in the first draft.
Do it! You've worked for that knowledge, and you never know what might be important. Get it out of your system. The first draft of Forgive Me Father was full of rambling diversions about medieval monastery life. And I dare say that taken in isolation, some of that stuff was pretty well-written. But it didn't add to the story. So it gradually disappeared over subsequent drafts.
Then kill your darlings.
Some of my earliest blog posts (#Tips 27, 28, 29, 30) were about editing out stuff that you might love, but which the book doesn't need. Remember, to justify its place, something has to either advance the story, set up future stories or add essential details. Look at your book with a critical - even brutal - eye. Keeping something in a book just because it took a lot of effort to write, because you like it or because you spent ages finding it out, is not justification enough to keep it in. Console yourself with the fact that a decent editor will tell you to chop it anyway, you've just saved everyone time and effort by wielding the scissors yourself!
Know your audience.
Tom Clancy was (in)famous for his meticulous attention to detail. His thrillers are sprawling, geopolitical behemoths with sometimes eye-watering amounts of detail about weapons and submarines etc. Since he died, a series of writers have continued his series, and have maintained this exacting style. Why? Because his loyal readership expect it. I have read almost all of the recent books, and will happily set aside a couple of weeks to work my way through one. They even come with maps and appendices... but these are the only books I would tolerate that from these days. Give the same story to most modern thriller writers and they'd tell it in half the space. But that's fine, for Tom Clancy. He is the exception to the rule.
Beware the information dump.
Sometimes, the need to impart a lot of information to the reader is unavoidable. One of my favourite recent reads was Rachel Lynch's Blood Rites.  The story centres around poorly understood ancient religions and cults. She could not assume any prior knowledge on behalf of her readers. The skill she demonstrated was the way that the information was trickled out in easy to digest chunks, as and when it was needed. I came away from the book having learned a lot of new information, in an enjoyable fashion, but never felt bludgeoned by it. It will come as no surprise that Rachel is a former teacher.
Avoid too much exposition.
This is related to the previous point, and I am going to write a separate article about it. Suffice to say that the old maxim "show don't tell" is worth repeating and just because you impart the knowledge through dialogue, doesn't mean you can ignore all of the above!
A final thought.
As with anything to do with writing, you can't please everyone. I've had reviews where readers have criticised my books for too much detail, and others that feel my procedural accuracy is a strength of the series.
All I can recommend is to read other books similar in style to the one you want to write to get a feel for the balance. Ask readers experienced in the genre to look your manuscript over and have an honest dialogue with them. Ask them to tell you if they think some of the research is overdone, or even if they feel a bit more is needed.
And as always, remember it is YOUR story.
Where do you stand on research? Do you like to come away feeling that you could write a short essay on a new topic, or would you rather the author just got on with the story?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time, all the best,
Paul

​In today's #TuesdayTip I am going to highlight a huge difference between crime writers and real-life police officers.
Writers love custody clocks!
In most jurisdictions around the world, there are strict limits on how long a suspect can be detained for questioning before they have to be charged with a crime or released. This is sometimes known as 'The Custody Clock'.
This article will focus on the UK, specifically England & Wales, so if you are setting your book somewhere different, be sure to do your research. Similarly, the rules have evolved over the years, so again make sure of the facts for your time period.

For law enforcement, these limits can be something of a headache. The clock essentially starts from the moment of arrest, meaning that unless the police want to release their suspect (either without charge, or on bail, or more recently 'under investigation'), they have to amass enough evidence within that time to pass the 'threshold test' and receive authorisation to charge from the Crown Prosecution Service (or Procurator Fiscal in Scotland).
But for a crime writer, this same restriction injects a element of dramatic tension into the narrative - will your hard-working detectives manage to reach the threshold in time, or will a suspected serial killer be let back onto the street, to potentially kill again?

PACE yourself - the rules in England & Wales.
Rules concerning detention limits are governed by the Police And Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 (specifically Code C).
When a suspect is brought into the station for questioning under caution, their detention has to be authorised by a custody officer - this is usually a trained constable or sergeant. They are responsible for the welfare of the detainee (not the 'prisoner' or the 'criminal') when they are in custody, and are independent of the investigation. The custody officer has to be satisfied that that they have been correctly arrested, they have been properly cautioned, and there is reasonable suspicion that they may have committed an 'indictable offence'.
At this point, they will be risk and medically assessed and a solicitor arranged if requested (a 'duty' solicitor will be engaged for free, if they cannot arrange their own representation). Translation services will also be organised and, if necessary, an appropriate adult (for example if the detainee is a minor or a vulnerable adult).
Contrary to what is shown on TV, their phone call can be withheld if there is a a risk that they may use it to communicate to accomplices.
This is the point at which they may be searched and fingerprints and DNA etc taken.  
If you want to see this in action, I recommend fly-on-wall documentaries such as 24 Hours In Custody.
Unless you are specifically intending to write about police corruption, avoid the temptation to 'bend the rules'. Neither the custody officer or the detainee's solicitor will let this happen. I recommend making a note of what time your character is arrested in the timeline of your book and when they would need to be released to avoid any errors.

Period of initial detention.
Persons can be detained without charge for an initial period of up to 24 hours after their arrest. This time starts typically when they are presented at an appropriate police station and their detention is authorised - this is referred to as the 'relevant time'.  No later than 6 hours after this, their detention must be reviewed by an inspector or above, followed by further reviews every 9 hours. The review officer has to be satisfied that there are still reasonable grounds for them to remain in custody. This cycle of reviews is sometimes referred to as the 'review clock'.  
This is often overlooked by writers of fiction, but could be a source of narrative tension.
Initial extension.
An officer of at least the rank of superintendent, who isn't directly involved in the investigation, can review the detention and extend it by up to 12 hours, to a maximum of 36 hours from the relevant time. Further 9 hour reviews by an inspector are still required. Again, they have to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for their continued custody.
Further extensions.
Further extensions can only be granted by a warrant issued by a magistrates' court. These can be up to 36 hours in duration to a maximum of 96 hours (There can be multiple extensions of 36 hours or fewer, it is just that the total time must not exceed 96 hours from the relevant time). For practical reasons, these applications can be made before the previous extension has elapsed or up to 6 hours after.
Disposal or charge.
Once the relevant extension has expired, the detained person has to be either released (disposed of) or charged - remember, in serious cases, charging must be authorised by the CPS or Procurator Fiscal.
Upon charging, the suspect will be taken to a Magistrates' Court (the 'lower' of the two UK courts - no jury). 
For a lesser offence (less than six months maximum custody or fine) the case may be heard and dealt with there and then. For serious offences that are beyond the remit of the magistrate to deal with, the magistrate will then commit them to a jury trial at the Crown Court. They do not enter a plea at this point. The detainee can either be placed on 'remand' (sent to prison) to await their trial or released on bail to return at a later date. Unlike in the US, there is no 'bail bond' - in other words, you cannot stump up money to avoid being remanded. The decision to remand into custody is based on flight risk and potential danger to the public. Any time served on remand will be subtracted from any subsequent custodial sentence, so people convicted can in theory be found guilty then released immediately due to time served.

If there is insufficient evidence for them to be charged at that time, then the police have several options.
No Further Action (NFA).
There is insufficient evidence that the offence occurred, or no realistic chance of a conviction. They are released, but this decision can be revisited if further evidence comes to light. They are still recorded as having been arrested.
They can be released on pre-charge (police) bail pending further enquiries.
Bail can have a wide-range of conditions imposed. For example, no conditions set, the requirement to report to a police station at regular intervals, surrendering of passports, restrictions on movements, electronic tagging or who they associate with etc. This would be authorised by an Inspector or above.
The suspect is required to surrender to the police for further questioning etc when asked to do so. Breaking these rules can result in them being remanded in custody. Unlike the US, the requirement for a surety (financial or otherwise) is extremely rare. As a writer, I'd recommend not going there.
Note: The rules surrounding bail changed in April 2017 in England & Wales.
Prior to this, people could and would be placed on bail for months, even years, as the investigation ground on. Given the impact that bail restrictions can place on a person's life (not to mention the complications and stigma arising from being suspected of a crime - eg suspension from work, or the blocking of child access arrangements, not to mention the stress and affect on relationships), it was decided that it should be restricted to a period of 28 days. An extension of 3 months can be granted by a senior officer (superintendent or above), after which applications need to be made to a magistrates court  (the complexity of Fraud cases mean that these can have longer time limits). 
Fundamentally, the change was to stop police dragging their heels and keeping potential suspects on bail 'just in case'. Remember, in the eyes of the law, these people are innocent.
Once this period of bail has expired they must either be charged or disposed of. 

To compensate for the fact that in complex cases it may take longer to amass the necessary evidence to charge than the bail rules allow, a new option was created.
Released Under Investigation (RUI).
This differs from bail in that there can be no restrictions placed on them, and they do not have to keep police informed of their whereabouts. They will need to return for further questioning if asked to do so and the police can retain their property. 
Note: being 'de-arrested'.
This is different to being released without charge. It can happen for example in cases of mistaken identity or if a person is able to give a good reason for their actions (eg arrested at the scene of a crime, but they later demonstrate that they had just arrived there by coincidence). The fact of their arrest is not logged, but may be recorded in the police report if relevant and in theory can come up on an enhanced DBS check (a criminal records check that determines if a person should be barred from certain types of work).
The timing here is crucial - the de-arrest should happen before the detainee is processed by the custody officer.

Additional rules, complications and exceptions.
In order to stop police 'gaming the system', the custody clock and the review clock are not reset each time a person is released from custody. So police cannot simply release a suspect approaching their detention limit, then detain them again and have another 24 hours.
In simple terms, if a person is detained at midday on Tuesday, reviewed at 6 pm and released from custody after 10 hours, then if they are brought in again for further questioning on the Friday, the police only have 14 hours remaining of their initial detention, before they need to extend, charge or release. They will also need a review within 5 hours (9 hours, minus the 4 hours they were in custody after their first 6 hour review). 
A change to PACE in 2006 allowed people suspected of terrorism offences to be held without charge for up to 28 days. The rules are outlined in the Terrorism Act 2006.
Detainees are entitled to 8 hours sleep every 24 hours, 3 meals and drinks 'on demand'.
The custody officer will enforce these, so no getting your naughty detectives to interview them for 48 hours straight until they break!
The custody clock does not stop during this time.
Suspects are not typically questioned under caution in hospital or outside a police station. But exceptions to the rules do exist and are outlined in PACE Code C.
Forensic delays don't give you a free pass.
It can takes days or weeks to fully search a property or process samples. Unfortunately (for the police), they can't simply hold onto a suspect whilst they await what may or may not turn up. The detention limits are inviolable. Unless they have other evidence sufficient for them to be charged, they have to be released.
Running down the clock.
If a suspect believes that the detectives don't have enough to charge them within the custody time limits, then they may try to 'run down the clock'.  By refusing to comment or cooperate they may gamble that the investigating officers may eventually have to release them without charge.

I stated at the beginning that I love custody clocks. Although the time limits can sometimes cause logistical problems when structuring a novel (eg can I realistically get a DNA match back before the time expires?), the narrative opportunities from the race against time are well worth it. Can the interviewer get the suspect to stop 'no commenting' and cooperate before they run the custody clock down?

Where do you stand on custody clocks? Are they an annoyance that get in the way of your story, or are they an opportunity to be exploited?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul.

Last week it was the elephant in the room, this week it's opening a can of worms - yes, May is cliché month!
Like it or not, we live in a society where racism still exists, and if we as writers wish to reflect reality then it is something we need to consider. This was something that I was forced to grapple with when writing my 2018 DCI Warren Jones novel, The Common Enemy.
The book centres around the murder of the leader of a far-right extremist party, during a march against the opening of a so-called 'super-mosque' in my fictional town of Middlesbury.
By necessity, the book was populated with extreme racists, as well as members of Middlesbury's Muslim and Sikh communities.
The simple fact is that if I wanted the book to feel authentic, I had to realistically portray the attitudes of these characters and that included the offensive language used by them.
I'm not going to lie; writing this book took me well outside my comfort zone.
I am a white man of English heritage. I was brought up in an ethnically diverse city and was taught from an early age that certain words and phrases are deeply offensive; they simply aren't part of my normal vocabulary.
Writing them was hard for me, and I was extremely conscious that reading them would be deeply uncomfortable for many of my readers. My series is far from cosy, but this was an aspect of society that I had not previously explored.
When does it switch from authentic to gratuitous?     
It was a given that my white supremacists were going to use the N-word, the P-word and other pejorative terms. But I was keen not to have the manuscript dripping with these words and so I had to think about ways of finding a balance between minimising their use and writing an authentic story.
How can you tread this line?
Use the terms occasionally - to give a 'flavour' of the language they would use, but in other instances, simply allude to them.
For example, report dialogue 'second hand' rather than deliver it.
"Joe Blog's account of the incident, delivered in typically offensive fashion, matched that of other witnesses."
If the incident in question involved non-whites, and the character Joe Blogs has been previously established as a foul-mouthed racist, then your reader can fill in the gaps for themselves without you needing to spell the words out explicitly.
Actually use the terms 'N-word' or 'P-word'.
If a person is reporting dialogue second-hand, and is themselves not racist, then they often won't say those terms in full. It can look clunky, but then it feels that way in real-life. The person is already rewording the language to make it more comfortable for them to say, so it probably will feel unnatural.
For example.
"He's a real bully, officer," the man looked uncomfortable, his voice dropping almost to a whisper, "A couple of times I heard him call the old lady next door a 'lazy N-word', if you know what I mean."
or
"He's always wiping graffiti off the wall." He blushed. "'Go Home P-word', that sort of thing."
Interrupt their speech.
Modern police officers simply won't tolerate a foul-mouthed racist rant, they can and will insist that witnesses and those they are interviewing moderate their language. Something that isn't always appreciated, is that the law in England & Wales regarding hate speech doesn't necessitate it being directed at the protected group that it concerns. In other words, a white person over-hearing racist language about Asians can report it as a racist incident, even if there are no Asian people within earshot.
The language needs to be specific to the era, the society and the character.
Language evolves at an incredible pace, and terms that were acceptable just a few years ago are now no longer appropriate today.
The term 'coloured' was once seen as a relatively inoffensive way to refer to black or Asian people (at least by white people). That is no longer the case. In recent years, the term 'People Of Colour' (POC) has become a more favoured term. Similarly, 'half-caste' is now no longer acceptable, with 'mixed race' or sometimes 'bi-racial' more appropriate.
But as a writer, you have to consider if the newest terminology is the most appropriate language for your book. Characters in a novel set thirty years ago wouldn't realistically use the term POC. Similarly, older characters in a modern setting may still be using terms that have gone out of fashion. Is it realistic that an elderly white woman refers to her bi-racial neighbour that way, or is she more likely to describe them in an interview as 'half-caste'? It doesn't necessarily mean she's an overt racist, just somewhat out of touch with the latest trends in language.
An extreme example of this involves a former flatmate of mine from (very) rural Ireland, who in the year 2000 asked me if I wanted anything from the P-shop when he popped round there. He was absolutely mortified when I explained to him how that word was simply not acceptable in England and told him a little about how the word's usage had mutated from a simple abbreviation of Pakistani to something far more offensive and sinister.  
Used correctly, their use of language can inform the reader about a character.
For example.
"Look, DCI Jones. You're not racist and neither am I, but we both know that since they started letting the Asians move in, the area has gone down hill. Of course two white blokes like us could never say it out loud, we'd be crucified."
Think about what we've just learned about this character.
First of all, he clearly is a racist - just putting the word 'the' in front of Asians telegraphs this. However, he has enough self-awareness to realise that he doesn't want to be perceived as such, hence the 'I'm not racist but...' caveat. He is also aware that his views are increasingly unpopular and so he is seeking approval from someone he hopes is a kindred spirit.  
Is it the writer speaking or the character?
One of the inescapable problems that all writers face is that some readers can be so drawn into a novel that they find it hard to separate the views expressed in the book from those held by the author. This is especially true of the narrator. For those writing first person - in other words '"I did this", "I thought that" - it can make the reader feel as if the writer is sitting down and telling them a story about events that happened to them and sharing their innermost emotions and feelings. Obviously that is what a good writer strives for, so it seems a cruel irony that readers who don't know the author personally can subconsciously imbue them with character traits and attitudes that bear no resemblance to them in real life.
I am fortunate enough to write in the third person, and my narration is most closely associated with DCI Warren Jones, who I have openly admitted shares many of my personal views. This means that I can disassociate myself somewhat from the more unpleasant individuals that I write about through Warren's thoughts. To reinforce this in The Common Enemy, I made certain to draw the reader's attention to Warren's personal revulsion at the views expressed by some of the racist characters in the book. 
Avoid the temptation to write a 'pantomime villain'.
When writing about characters that you find personally offensive, it is all too easy to fall into the trap of giving them no redeeming features whatsoever.
In The Common Enemy, my far-right extremists are violent, offensive thugs. Yet they still have loved-ones, they perform acts of kindness and they have a sense of humour: in other words, they are human!
One of the reviewers of the book stated that they expected it to "tar anyone right of centre as an extremist" but were pleasantly surprised that it was more balanced. Although it should be said that they then gave away their true feelings on the subject by objecting to my use of the 'meaningless term' islamophobia (it isn't) and refusing to accept that the police would waste resources on a hate crime unit (these exist in real-life, and the police do monitor online race-hate groups), and criticising my apparent lack of research.
Whilst I'm never going to lie awake at night worrying that I may have offended some thin-skinned racist, I found the review rather satisfying, as I felt it showed that I had done my job as a writer.
Draw your own red lines.
We all have our own views on this subject and there are lines that we don't personally feel comfortable crossing. For example, I don't feel I am able to write dialogue between black people, where they refer to themselves using the N-word.
There is a belief by some in the black community that it is possible to 'reclaim' the word. It, and an alternate spelling, are used in some forms of black music, and dialogue between (usually) young people. However, its use is nuanced and like a lot of language it evolves rapidly. As a white person who is not part of that community, there is a strong risk that any attempts by me to use it will be clumsy and unintentionally offensive. Furthermore, it is likely to age the book - something I might get away with in 2018 may make me cringe with embarrassment five years later.
I am also conscious of that fact that there are many who don't agree that the word can or should be 'reclaimed'. Some years ago, I saw a documentary interviewing some of the people who lived through the American civil rights movement of the 1960s, and experienced horrific racism in the decades before. I was especially struck by an old lady whose first-hand experience of that word meant that she found it deeply upsetting when she heard young black people using it. For her, it will forever evoke memories of violence and fear.
So for those reasons, I will steer well clear of doing it.   
Final thoughts.
Racially-charged language will always be a potential minefield. I thought long and hard about whether I wanted to dip my toes into this particular paddling pool. However, the desire to write The Common Enemy had been nagging me for several years and with racism and extremism always close to the top of the news agenda, it was something that I felt I could no longer ignore.
Ultimately, all that any writer can do is try to write the best story that they can. Crime fiction provides the opportunity to explore the most topical of issues and we should not shy away from them.
My advice would be to do your research (watch documentaries, and read articles from all sides of the issue) and then run it past trusted readers.
Doubtless there are things that I have got wrong, and I'll listen and take on board any valid criticism, but touch wood, in the three years since the book was published, it has been generally well-received, with no serious objections that I am aware of, and I found it a rewarding experience.


What are your thoughts about using racist language in books? Is it a complete taboo, or do writers have a duty to reflect the uglier side of human nature?
As always, please share your thoughts here or on social media.
Until next time,
best wishes,
Paul.

Oh boy, 2020 and 2021 are going to be a challenge for writers of up-to-date fiction who like their books to be as accurate as possible!
It all boils down to one simple dilemma - do you mention Covid in future books or not? And if you do, to what extent?
At the time of writing, Covid has been with us for almost eighteen months if you go back to the early reports coming out of China in late 2019. It will be with us, in some shape or form, for probably the next twelve months at least, with a legacy that will stretch for decades.
By the summer of 2020, there were already readers complaining on Amazon that new releases set in July of that year were unrealistic because characters weren't socially distancing. Of course, this is absolutely bonkers; anyone with any understanding of the publishing industry knows that it typically takes many months to write a book, and further weeks or months for it to go through the editing process. For those who are released via big publishing houses, the book's release date will have been set months or even years in advance. I signed my latest contract in autumn 2019, with provisional release dates for June 2021, 2022 and 2023. I will submit the manuscript the preceding September, after six months or so of writing.
Last June's release, A Price to Pay, was written in 2018/19, submitted in September 2019, and had gone through the final editing stages a month before Covid kicked off in March 2020. The only change I was able (or wished) to make, was to the acknowledgements which referenced events that should have taken place in the May, but didn't.
Nevertheless, this does raise interesting questions about reader expectations and also reader desires. There are those who are adamant that they don't want to read anything about the pandemic. Reading is escapism and they don't want to be reminded of the wold outside. Equally vociferous are those who point out that a book set in 1940 that ignores WWII would seem very strange.
So what's the solution to this dilemma?
There are several potential things that a writer could do:
Skip 2020 entirely.
There will be a glut of books set in late 2019/early 2020. Unfortunately, with no end date in sight and rapidly changing circumstances, those hoping to set a book after the pandemic may find themselves waiting for quite some time before they can write it accurately.
Simply ignore Covid and carry on as usual.
Authors can avoid being too explicit about the date their book is set - unfortunately, if you write books set in contemporary times, it can be hard to entirely conceal when the book is supposed to happen, so some readers will doubtless complain. It also runs the risk of ageing poorly. You can always pretend it is in an alternate reality, where Covid never happened, but if your previous books are noted for referencing current events, that may be a hard sell.
Wait until it all blows over before tackling it.
There were plenty of books released between the wars and shortly after WWII that sought to avoid the topic. Similarly, 9/11 was a taboo subject for a few years. But, time can be a great healer and it delivers valuable perspective.
Embrace it and use it as a plot device.
There are already plenty of writers considering the use of Covid - and specifically the huge societal changes that have taken place - as an opportunity. A murder during lockdown presents interesting narrative opportunities. However, reports are mixed as to the appetite of the reading public and publishers for stories exploiting the pandemic, at least in the short term.
A light-touch compromise.
Acknowledge the pandemic, perhaps by referencing some of the social distancing requirements, but don't dwell on it too much and try not to let it unduly influence the story. The balancing act here will be making it seem natural, rather than feeling as if it was 'bolted on' to a first draft that was completed pre-pandemic.
Where does this leave DCI Warren Jones?
Unlike some of my peers, I am in a somewhat fortunate position. Although my series progresses a year or so each book - and so I can't ignore 2020/21 forever - they are also set three or four years before their publication date. Even allowing for the need to start writing the book eighteen months before it hits the shelves, I hope to have a couple of years of 20/20 hindsight (pardon the pun) before I need to tackle it in earnest.
I am likely to take the route of a light-touch compromise, with a book set in early 2020 containing a little light foreshadowing, then a book set eighteen months later (this coming summer), hopefully when the restrictions have eased somewhat. This book will have to reference Covid, but I'm hoping it is not a big thing. Perhaps I'll mention two-metre distancing in the office, some remote working and Warren grabbing a facemask and hand-sanitizer before going to interview someone, etc. I may even use it as a story device - for example facemasks making it impossible to positively identify a suspect on CCTV - but  I don't plan on writing a 'pandemic book'.


What are your thoughts on Covid in novels? Are you writing a book set in 2020/21 - how will you deal with it?
Feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time, keep safe.
Paul