It's release day for DCI Warren Jones' eighth full-length outing! Time To Kill is available as an eBook today, and paperback and audio later in the summer.
​You can read more about it here, or download it here.
So I decided to celebrate by interviewing the star of the show, Detective Chief Inspector Warren Jones.
Enjoy.

PG: Welcome to this week's Heart of Herts podcast, in association with Middlesbury Gazette - your number one source for Hertfordshire news and views. I'm your presenter, Paul Gitsham, and today I am joined by Detective Chief Inspector Warren Jones. I'm sure listeners to the Heart of Herts podcast will be fascinated to hear from Middlesbury's most successful detective.
WJ: Um, thank you. That's very kind of you to say so.
PG: Now, just a little background. I can tell from your accent that you're from Birmingham, and I understand you started your career in the West Midlands Police?
WJ: Sorry, just to interrupt there, I'm from Coventry. The accents can sound similar to those not from the West Midlands.
PG: Oops, sorry about that. I guess my next question about whether you support Aston Villa or Birmingham City is a bit redundant! I imagine you follow Coventry City. The Sky Blues?
WJ: Erm, I don't really watch football...
PG: OK. Why don't we start that bit again? We can replace it in the edit.
[PG starts recording again.]
PG: You started your career with West Midlands Police, on the mean streets of Coventry. But you decided to transfer to our quiet corner of North Hertfordshire, back in 2011, I believe? Why the move?
WJ: That's correct. I did my training with the WMP, and worked in Coventry and the surrounding towns as a uniformed officer, before joining CID, where I was eventually promoted to detective inspector. Unfortunately, when it was time for me to progress further, there were no vacancies within West Mids, but a post had recently become available at Middlesbury CID, so I made the move down here.
PG: Ah yes, a vacancy became available after DCI Gavin Sheehy was sacked after allegations of corruption. Were you aware of the circumstances surrounding his removal before you moved down here?
WJ: I'm afraid, I can't really talk about that.
[PG sighs]
PG: OK, I'll cut that from the interview. Let's try something else.
I referred to Middlesbury as a 'quiet corner of North Hertfordshire'. And up until 2011, it certainly was. But since your arrival, it would seem that's no longer the case. How many murders have there been since you came here?
WJ: Um, I can't tell you off the top of my head ...
PG: At least one a year, often more. Some of our listeners feel that crime rates have soared recently. In fact, a few weeks ago, you investigated a serial killer. Can you tell us a bit about that?
WJ: Unfortunately, I can't comment directly on that investigation until the trial concludes.
[PG rubs eyes wearily]
PG: We're not having a lot of luck here, are we Warren?
WJ: Sorry.
PG: OK, let's try something more general.
Some of our listeners feel that crime rates have soared in recent years. What are you doing to try and bring the crime rate down?
WJ: That's not really the role of CID. Our job is to solve crimes that have already taken place. Hopefully, by locking up those responsible, we can prevent future offences. You really need to speak to the Community Policing Team about their initiatives to reduce crime. Why not contact the Media Relations Unit?
PG: I'm not sure our listeners are really interested in a press release, I think they'd rather hear it from you, Warren.
WJ: Sorry. It really isn't my department.
PG: In that case, let's start again and talk about how you go about solving a crime.
[PG clears throat and reactivates the microphone]
I believe that you are somewhat unusual in that despite your senior rank you still interview suspects and speak to witnesses. Why is that?
WJ: You are correct that most of my peers tend to have a more managerial role, however I've always enjoyed the hands-on side of policing. I am very fortunate that Middlesbury's unique role as a first-response CID unit allows me the freedom to pursue investigations in that way. It's one of the reasons I love my job.
PG: Some would say that it is a role better suited to a lower rank, such as a detective constable or perhaps a detective sergeant. And that with the ever-shrinking police budget, it would be better to close Middlesbury and absorb you and your officers into the combined major crime unit in Welwyn Garden City. How would you respond to that?
WJ: I can't really comment, it's a bit above my pay grade.
[PG stops the recording again]
PG: We're really struggling here, Warren.
[PG starts again]
PG: What are your views on the austerity cuts to the police under the Conservative government?
WJ: As a serving police officer, I'm afraid I have to remain politically neutral.
[PG sighs]
PG: What about the decision to close the Forensic Science Service in 2012? How badly has that impacted what you do?
WJ: Again, I can't ...
PG: Yeah, yeah, I get it.
[PG switches off the microphone]
PG: Warren, why exactly did you agree to this interview?
WJ: Off the record?
PG: If you must.
WJ: I lost a bet to DI Tony Sutton.
PG: Can I ask what about?
WJ: He said that I wouldn't be able to last a whole week without caffeine. If I managed it, I got to choose the music in the car for the next month. If I lost, I had to agree to do an interview with a journalist.
PG: How long did you manage?
WJ: Three days. Which is longer than my wife thought I would.
PG: Do you think DI Sutton would agree to an interview?
WJ: He'd be delighted. But he'd probably end up saying something that would get Hertfordshire Constabulary sued, so the Media Relations Unit have already banned him from speaking to the press.
PG: You know what? Maybe we should knock this on the head.
WJ: That's probably for the best.

Paul Gitsham is a former biologist, secondary school science teacher and tutor. Time To Kill is the 8th full-length DCI Warren Jones novel, with another four shorter novellas, plus short stories.
He currently lives in the east of England with his fiancee, in a house with more books than shelf space. 

Today's #TuesdayTip is another #ConversationsWithTheirCreations.
The premise is simple - an author conducts an interview with one of their characters. I leave it up to them how they wish to interpret that brief.
My guest author today is Jonathan Wilkins. A retired teacher, lapsed Waterstones bookseller and former basketball coach, he now takes notes for students with special needs at Leicester University.
He writes contemporary and historical crime thrillers.
Below, we meet the hero of his Poppy Knows Best series, set mostly in the 1920s, starting in 1917.

Could you introduce yourself?
It’s complicated I’m afraid. My mother always calls me Pandora, her family name. My father calls me Ophelia, which is his family name. My friends call me Poppy.
My full name is Lady Pandora Ophelia Penelope Loveday.
I live in Mountain Ash in Wales in Loveday Hall and at other times in Slough Square, London at Loveday House.
We first meet you in 1917?
Yes, I joined the VADs (that's the Voluntary Aid Detachment for our readers who aren't members of the British Empire) having lied about my age. My father or Dadda as I call him, worked at the War office and could have got me called back for being underage. He argued with mother about this a great deal. In the end it turns out he let me stay. Mother hated this and we were estranged for quite a while. It’s funny really as she was an active suffragette before the war. Even got arrested for assaulting a police officer!
Did she go to prison?
Much to her disgust, no. The policeman took her home to Dadda, he was really annoyed with her, but of course understood, he often commented on the issue in the House of Lords.
But he let you continue?
Yes, he knew it was something I had to do. Also I wanted to be closer to my brother Alfie who was fighting out there.
Did you ever see your brother?
Ironically no. We were never in the same area. It was difficult not seeing him. He is my best pal.
What did you do during the war?
I drove ambulances. Alfie had taught me to drive on tractors, so it was quite simple really and I knew how to maintain the engine so that went down well.
Was it an awful experience?
Yes and no. Taking the wounded to the Dressing Station was horrible. The screaming from the back of my ambulance, then the washing it out at the end of the day. Blood and all sorts in the back, it was quite revolting.
Was there anything good about it?
I met some lovely people. We stayed in an old barn, it was really cosy and waterproof thank goodness and I met the love of my life.
Can you tell us about him?
Well actually, I’m not sure. I fell in love with a woman. I know I oughtn’t, but it’s true.
How did this happen?
I was driving my ambulance past a bombed out dressing station and saw her in the mud. She was holding a Canadian soldier and was covered in blood and mud. I helped her out and took her to the barn.
Where she stayed?
Yes, amazingly with all the red tape we get sunk under she was allowed to stay and join our nurses. Her name is Elodie Proux. We have to keep or love secret so I’m not sure you should print this.
We can be discreet, don’t worry.
Especially as the Canadian soldier had tried to rape her and she thinks she killed him …

Jonathan Wilkins writes contemporary and historical crime thrillers.
His Poppy Knows Best series starts in 1917, with Poppy Flowers At The Front and he plans to move it through to 1968. The third in the series is Poppy Blossoms Amongst The Dead. 
He also writes a contemporary series based in Utrecht, following Detective Caes Heda and his daughter Truus. Utrecht Rain is available from Amazon, whilst Utrech Snow is available direct from his website www.jonathanwilkins.co.uk, along with all his books.
You can learn more about Jonathan and his writing by following him on Facebook, Twitter (@leicesterstorys) or Instagram (@jonwilkins55)

Today's Tip is a writing exercise. It can be used to Bust the (writing) Block, as a practise exercise, or even as a way of crafting a difficult scene.
This is one of the most enjoyable exercises I have ever taken part in. It was an activity suggested by someone in Royston Writer's Circle, which I was a member of briefly about 10 years ago.
The goal of the activity is to practise describing a scene using all of your senses.
The activity works by rewriting the same scene repeatedly, using a different sense each time.
First, choose a scenario.
If you don't already have one in mind, you can use a random scene generator. There are loads on the internet, but this one is quite nice.
https://randomwordgenerator.com/writing-prompt.php

For most writers, the easiest and most natural sense to work with is sight. So we'll do that first.
Describe the scene visually.
What does it look like? If you are writing from the point of view of a character, what do they see?
I'm going to have a go at this (genuinely, I am doing it from scratch).
 
My character has entered a building where a murder has taken place.
 
Warren pushed open the door. The room beyond was dim, poorly lit, the only illumination a streetlight. He paused on the threshold, allowing his eyes time to adjust. The details of the room came slowly into focus. Before him was a double bed, covered in tangled white sheets. At first, it appeared empty, but as the shadows and shapes coalesced, the lump underneath the duvet resolved into a small, person-shaped form. What he'd thought was a shadow in the centre of the lump became a dark stain.
 
The next easiest sense to describe is hearing. What does the character hear? Rewrite the scene focusing solely on the sound.
 
Warren pushed open the door. The hinges squeaked and the bottom of the door made a sliding noise against the thick carpet. What struck him first was the stillness. The electricity had been disconnected days ago and no appliances hummed; it was as if the house was holding its breath. As he waited for his eyes to adjust, he became aware of the shuck of distant vehicles on the wet tarmac of the nearby road. Somewhere a tap dripped, the only sign of life in the whole building. That and the faint rustle of his breath in his surgical mask.
 
The remaining three senses are trickier to describe, and might not be relevant to the scene you are writing. But you'd be surprised what you can come up with.
 
First, touch.
 
Warren pushed open the door. He felt the slight resistance as the bottom of the door pushed against the carpet. His hands were sweaty inside his latex gloves, and he was uncomfortably aware of his warm breath, trapped within his face mask. The bedroom window had been left ajar, and the cool night breeze ruffled his hair.
 
Taste and smell are very similar senses that often overlap. For obvious reasons, Warren won't be licking anything he comes in contact with, but I can still find something.
 
Warren pushed open the door. He licked his top lip, coated in the salty tang of his sweat. From the moment he'd entered the house, his nose had hinted at what he would find. Now, standing on the threshold of the room, the smells familiar to every homicide detective filled his senses. The heavy metallic odour told him what had caused the dark stain in the centre of the duvet, and the sweet cloying stench informed him that whatever horrors had occurred here had taken place a couple of days previously.
 
The final step in this exercise is to take the best bits of each paragraph and blend them into a single passage. Be ruthless, and don't feel you have to shoehorn something from each of the senses into the final product. If you don't think taste adds anything, leave it out. If the house is silent, just say so, don't scrabble around for extra detail or torturous metaphors. Try and keep it short, you want to transport your reader, not bore them! Once you've done that, edit the hell out of it!
 
Warren pushed open the door. Without electricity, the house remained eerily still, the only sound the rustling of his warm breath beneath his mask. The smells familiar to every homicide detective already told him what to expect, as his eyes adjusted to the unlit room. The bump beneath the sheets coalesced into a small, human-shaped form; what appeared to be a shadow in the centre of the duvet resolved into the source of the heavy, metallic odour.
The sweet, cloying stench that had alerted the neighbours as it drifted through the open window, told him that whatever horrors had occurred here had taken place days previously.
 
Remember the rules:

• Set yourself a time limit.
• Write without stopping, editing or overthinking.
• Write whatever comes to mind and don't worry if it doesn't make sense.
• It doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with the scene that you are stuck on.

 
Do you have any suggestions for exercises to practise writing about the senses?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Happy writing,
Paul. 

Certain topics seem destined to divide readers. One such issue is whether a book, especially a crime novel, must have a concrete resolution, or can be deliberately left open to the reader's own interpretation.
Note: I'm not  talking about cliff hangers here. The purpose of a cliff hanger is to leave the reader waiting for the next instalment. This is an equally divisive topic, but not one I intend to look at here.
Most crime novels provide some sort of clear resolution at the end. Indeed, it is the certainty that, unlike in real-life, the villain will usually get their comeuppance that makes the genre so popular. In an uncertain world, it's good to know that in fiction at least, crimes will be punished and the perpetrator face justice.
Of course, that isn't a hard and fast rule. The culprit might actually get away with it, but the writer will usually tell the reader who did it, again providing resolution. The villain might escape justice, or go free to continue their crimes in later stories, but at least we the readers have the satisfaction of knowing if we were right or wrong.
But occasionally, writers buck that trend. Unfortunately, by its very nature, I can't give specific examples here - they would be huge spoilers and I'm not going to disrespect the writers or future readers by giving away any endings. However, there are some very good recent examples where resolution isn't given. In fact the reader is left to make up their own mind at the end.


I'm going to lay my cards on the table and say that I don't mind the occasional open-ending. In fact, there are certain books in which I believe that is the only ending which serves the story. These are the stories that make you think. That make you wonder what you might do in that solution, or decide who the culprit was.
But a lack of a clear answer seems to really upset some readers. Comments in a recent Facebook thread stated that if a reader wanted to write their own ending, they'd be a writer. Another poster suggested that it was a sign of lazy writing. Still others felt that it seemed as though the author had run out of ideas and just stopped writing.
Each to their own opinion, but I strongly disagree with the last two statements. In fact, I feel they are needlessly offensive, and I suspect that the posters would probably shy away from saying such a thing to an author's face. The anonymity of social media makes us all braver than we really are.


The fact is that everything in a book is a choice. And it is usually a choice that has been vetted by editors and beta-readers before the book is published. The likelihood is that author either knew when they started what the ending would be,  or, as the book unfolded, they saw that was the best and only ending that would satisfy them.
I would even go as far as to say that a deliberately ambiguous ending is more difficult to pull off effectively. Tipping the scales in favour of suspect A rather than suspect B is relatively easy. And as resolution is typically expected, the reader will usually accept your decision. On the other hand, crafting the book so that decision is up in the air, so that your readers are divided over the culprit or what happens next, is a real skill.
But, as the heated debates show, making such a decision can be fraught with danger.
So what should you consider if you feel that your book should be left unresolved?
Give enough clues that the readers can decide for themselves.
The best thing about an open-ending done properly is that the book lingers with the readers, rather than closing with, 'and the suspect was arrested, and they all lived happily ever after. The End', leaving the reader free to pick up another book immediately. What you want is for the reader to stop and think. For them to find themselves trying to work out who did it, or what they think will happen next.
Ensure that there are compelling reasons for either interpretation of the ending.
To pull this off, it is vital that either interpretation is plausible. If 99% of your readers are convinced it was suspect A, or that the victim was murdered, rather than dying as a result of an accident or suicide, then the chances are that they are just going to be left wondering why you didn't say that at the end.
Never use it as an excuse to avoid making difficult decisions.
We all write ourselves into corners occasionally (see TuesdayTip98), but as a writer it is part of our job to figure a way out of that dead end. If you decide the best way to solve this problem is to just leave it up to the reader, it will probably backfire. You need to decide whether you should work harder to make that decision, or if you should go back and make sure that an open-ending is fair on the reader (see above) and a genuine creative choice.
Decide if this is genuinely an open-ending or a cliff-hanger.
When writing a series, it is tempting to try and hook the reader into feeling compelled to buy the next in the series. One way to do this would be to have the investigator come close to solving the mystery, then as the culprit is about to be revealed, basically tell the reader to read the next in the series to receive that answer.
DON'T!!! This is a very manipulative and dishonest way of getting people to buy your next book, and you will quite rightly be hammered in the reviews for it. That's a cliff-hanger, not an open-ending. It belongs at the end of a chapter not the end of a book. You have cheated the reader.
It's fine to have an ongoing investigation spread over several books, but you still have to reward the reader at the end of each book with something. Perhaps have a person arrested for the crime, but have your investigator realise that they are just part of a bigger plot? That way the reader feels satisfied, but is now excited to read what happens next.
Maintain an air of mystery.
Something you need to be prepared for is for readers to ask you 'so who actually did it'? My advice is to not commit to an answer. It's fine to have your own theory. And that might even change over time. But I think it's better to state that you have your own thoughts on the matter, but that you are more interested to hear what they think.

​So, where do you stand on open-endings? Should a book always have a firm resolution, or do you enjoy being left to make up your own mind?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time, all the best.
Paul.

Where do you go next when your last book had half a dozen victims?

As writers, we always want to improve our craft. We want our next book to be better than the last. We owe it to our readers, and we owe it to ourselves.

But as in so much of life, there can be a perception that better means bigger.
So, to repeat the question, where do you go next, when your last book had half a dozen victims? Do you kill seven this time? Eight?
Clearly that would soon get ridiculous. Lee Child's Jack Reacher series numbers over twenty entries, and whilst Reacher can be a one-man wrecking crew at times, the body count is rarely that high!

Over the course of my DCI Warren Jones series, I have resisted the urge to try and make the next story "bigger". In fact I have deliberately switched between "big" stories and "smaller" stories.
But what does that mean? First of all, it has nothing to do with wordcount. Each of my full-length novels is the same length, plus or minus about 10%.

Rather, I define a story as Big or Small based on the impact that the central murder or murders have on wider society.

Murder invariably has an impact beyond the immediate victim. Like throwing a stone into a pond, the ripples extend to effect the all those around them. Friends, family and loved ones of the deceased are affected, for good or bad. The same can be said for the killer - murder is not an act to be undertaken lightly, and the consequences of a life sentence can also be felt by those associated with them. And, whilst every death is a catastrophe in its own way, some leave a bigger impression on society than others.

Yet a Small story should be no less compelling than a Big story. A meaty thriller with a serial killer who kills multiple victims is by definition a Big Story. That story is composed of many individual tragedies and the ripples can be felt far and wide. A Small story allows for greater study of an individual tragedy. The ripples might not travel as far, but the author can spend more time with those affected. The investigation at the heart of the novel can still be as complex and twisty, but there is no need for a escalating body count to satisfy readers.

I like to write a mix of stories whose impact is either big or small. The first in the Warren Jones series, The Last Straw, concerns the murder of a university professor. And whilst we meet an ever-widening pool of suspects, with multiple motives, the ripples are largely contained within that pool. On the other hand, book 2, No Smoke Without Fire, is about a serial rapist and murderer. There are multiple victims. Each is its own tragedy, and we spend time with their loved ones, but there is understandably a wider effect on the wider community. Who will be next? Should those in the surrounding area be concerned about their own and loved one's safety?

The ripples can be felt in other ways. The central murder in The Common Enemy is that of a far-right extremist. The consequences here would seem to be contained to his loved ones (and whilst he was a deeply unpleasant character, few people travel through life without at least someone who cares for them and will miss them). However, Middlesbury is a powder keg of racial tension at this time, and the death of this one man has the potential to spill over into far greater conflict, so I would class this as a Big story.

The latest two entries in the series, Out of Sight, and this summer's Time To Kill are an example of each type of story. Out of Sight deals with the killing of a lonely man with a secret life. He's ostracised by his family, but as we find out, he still had many who cared for him, however the ripples are largely contained within his circle. Time To Kill has Warren and his team uncover unexpected links between seemingly unrelated deaths. Once it becomes apparent that anyone could be next, the ripples are more akin to those caused by throwing a large rock into a pond, rather than a pebble.

The take home message here, is that a better story doesn't have to be a Bigger story. It isn't necessary to raise the body count or even raise the stakes to keep a series improving. A small intimate study of a single death can be just as good as a wide-ranging investigation into a bloodbath. The next book in a series can still be better than the previous without needing to throw a larger stone into the pond.

What are your thoughts? Do you feel that once an author has "gone large" they need to continue with those Big books whose ripples extend far and wide, or can they dial it back in the next book and focus on a single death that is important to those in the victim's immediate circle but of limited concern to the rest of the society?

As always, feel free to share your thoughts her or on social media.

Until next time,
best wishes,
Paul.