Every so often, my parents like to surprise me by clearing out the loft and giving me a box of my old things. Buried within the largely forgotten detritus of my childhood are some of my earliest attempts at writing stories.
I'm not going to lie; reading back through them can be a painful and embarrassing experience. They tend to start with a germ of an idea, an enthusiastically drawn cover, absolutely no planning and eventually peter out before the end. This pretty much described my writing process until my mid-thirties (although I stopped illustrating my own covers).
Most noticeable though, is the childish writing style.
These stories were invariably action-packed, with car chases, gunfights, and in one Willard Price-inspired attempt, a shark attack. The reader (only ever me, alas) knew they were action scenes because the exclamation marks told them they were.
So many exclamation marks...
These days, it is common for writers to shun this loud and brash punctuation mark. It is a badge of honour to have no exclamation marks within a manuscript at all. The reasoning is that if you need to tell your reader a scene is dramatic or frightening or exciting, then you haven't written it in a dramatic, frightening or exciting way.
Unlike a lot of these so called 'rules of writing', it's one that I largely agree with, with one caveat. They are perfectly acceptable - even necessary - in dialogue.
I just counted the number of exclamation marks in my latest completed manuscript. I was surprised to see that I have used 28 in total. However, closer analysis reveals that with the exception of one, all of them occur in dialogue or a character's thoughts. I'm afraid "F*ck off!" just doesn't work as well on the page without the exclamation mark.


So, when you've finished writing a tense action scene, or an argument, use ctrl-F to search for exclamation marks, and ask yourself if you really need them. Can you rewrite that scene with stronger and more dramatic language?


Suddenly - the exclamation mark's less showy second cousin.
Another over-used convention is the word "suddenly" or "sudden". I tend to be less strict with this - the word has other uses beyond telling the reader they should be surprised. But again, searching your manuscript for uses of the word and deciding whether or not it can be omitted or replaced is a good exercise. I initially identified 42 uses. I typically left it in dialogue, as it reflects the way the characters speak, but I cut thirteen instances within the main prose, and I feel that the result is an improvement.


What do you think about exclamation marks, and the words "suddenly" or "sudden"? Are there better ways to tell a reader that a scene is dramatic, or something unexpected has happened? I look forward to your views in the comments or on social media.


Until next time!
Paul.

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.
Today's author is GB Williams. She specialises in complex, fast-paced crime novels, most recently, “Breaking Free”, but also the “Locked Trilogy”.  GB was shortlisted for the 2014 CWA Margery Allingham Short Story Competition with the story Last Shakes, now available in Last Cut Casebook. Crime novels are her stock in trade, but she has had success with short stories in other genres including steampunk, horror, and erotica, and has penned a successful steampunk series. She has a husband and two grown up children, not to mention the world’s most imperious demanding cat.  GB is such a cat slave, even the neighbourhood cats come demanding dinner. Now working as a fulltime writer and freelance structural editor. GB hates every photo ever taken of her.
She says, "I specialise in fast paced, contemporary crime that doesn’t hide from harsh reality (not too much gore). Nor do I hide from the fact that people have a heart, I will run through the gamut of emotion, and sometimes make the reader cry. There are many elements in my work, but it’s all about people and what they go through."

Today, she is interviewing Elaine Blake, star of Breaking Free.

GBW: Hello, Mrs Elaine Blake. How are you enjoying your travels?
Elaine: Much better than expected. I’ve barely travelled since meeting my husband 25 years ago, and he made me such a dreadful traveller, nervous, blundering. Mostly because he nagged, insulted, and stressed me out so I couldn’t relax or sleep. Now without him, even where I don’t understand the language, I’m calm. Mostly. My sense of direction has returned, and more importantly, I’m regaining a sense of self.
GBW: Talking of your husband, I’m sorry for your loss.
Elaine: I’m not. He was a controlling abuser who caged me up. I admit wanting to be a dull mouse but marrying him made me so much less than that. Worse. But now he’s gone, this mouse can roar across Europe.
GBW: Were there no good points to your marriage?
Elaine: Many. Twenty-one to be exact, all foster children. I couldn’t have kids, which, given what Jason was like, is probably a blessing, heavily disguised blessing, but we had twenty-one wonderful foster children.
GBW: Do you all stay in touch?
Elaine: Unfortunately, not. I’ve tried, but no. Still, there’s nothing I wouldn’t do for any of them, if asked.
GBW: Like travel overseas, evade secret agents, solve cyphers, face down gunmen?
Elaine: (Laughs self-deprecatingly) Well yes, though you make it sound so dangerous.
GBW: You don’t think this is dangerous?
Elaine: It’s such fun, why worry about the danger? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not stupid. I know this could cost me my life. I’m 42 but for the first time in my life, I feel alive. Not just existing for others, I’m finally living. Really living. For my family, however weirdly extended.
GBW: So, it’s all about relationships for you?
Elaine: Of course. Relationships are everything. Even lousy ones teach you something. My marriage taught me I can’t hide who I am, I don’t even want to try anymore. My foster-daughter, Madison, has taught me about the kind of strong, centred woman I want to be. 
GBW: What about your relationship with your foster-son, Lazlo?
Elaine: (Sighs) Yes, well, I’ll always love him. He’s why I’ve done all this. I came to help him. But things just aren’t that simple.
GBW: And your relationship with the secret agent?
Elaine: Relationship? That man threated to break my finger if I didn’t answer his questions. He tried to send me home to be a sitting duck. 
GBW: He saved your life.
Elaine: Well, yes, but… Look, I don’t even know his name. I admit, he’s kind of dishy though.
GBW: Indeed. So, now you’ve evaded duplicitous family, secret agents and gunmen. What’s next?
Elaine: Figure out the last cyphers and codes, see where they lead. I can’t go home. Not yet, if ever. But it’s a big old world. If I survive, I’ll end up where I belong. Somewhere I can be me.
GBW: And who are you?
Elaine: Damned if I know. (Laughs) Maybe I’ll find out if I just play the game.

To learn more about her and her writing, visit her website or her Facebook page.
Or you can follow her on Twitter @GailBWilliams or Instagram @gbwilliamsauthor.

For today's tip, I want to return to the subject of characterisation. Specifically that of the protagonist and the antagonist.
First of all, a quick reminder of which is which.
In its most basic terms, the protagonist is the character that the reader is supposed to be aligned with. That doesn't mean they are a good person, it just means that in that scene, this is the character whose intentions will drive the narrative forward. 
The antagonist is the person that is trying to prevent that. Again, that doesn't mean they are a bad person.

This definition means individuals can switch roles, depending on the stage of the story, the point of view of different characters, and what the writer wants the reader to feel at that time. 
For example, in Thomas Harris' The Silence of the Lambs, at the beginning of the book/film, when we first meet Dr Hannibal Lecter, the young FBI Agent Clarice Starling is the protagonist, as she attempts to catch the serial killer Buffalo Bill. Lecter is arguably just there to help her. 
As the story unfolds, and Lecter escapes, he becomes the antagonist - everyone is desperate to catch the deadly killer. Yet at times during the blood-soaked second half of the film, our view of Lecter switches between him as the protagonist and him as the antagonist. Lecter is NOT a good person, yet we clearly see his goals and desires, which makes him the protagonist in those scenes, with the FBI (the good guys) becoming the antagonists as they seek to stop him.

In another example, Darth Vader in Star Wars Episode IV (ignore his earlier incarnation as Anakin Skywalker for now) is clearly the villain of the film, whilst Luke Skywalker is the good guy.
So for much of the film, Skywalker is the protagonist - we see him trying to rescue the princess etc, whilst Vader seeks to stop him, and is therefore the antagonist. But at times during the film, we see Vader's goal - to get the death star up and running, whilst Skywalker seeks to thwart him. In those scenes, Vader is the protagonist driving the story, whilst Skywalker and friends are the antagonists.

The point I'm making, is that protagonists and antagonists are two sides of the same coin. Therefore, when drawing our characters, it makes sense to treat them the same, and ask the same questions of each. It doesn't matter if they are the villain or the hero, that's just detail. The process of planning them should be the same.

So to write a strong pro/antagonist, you need to answer the following questions. How much of this planning you eventually choose to share with the reader depends on the story you wish to tell.
Who are they?
To write them convincingly, you need to know them. You need to have thought about what sort of person they are, and ideally have an image of them in your mind's eye (note, I don't necessarily mean a physical representation, just that feeling you get towards a person when you've got know them).
What is their goal?
Everything we do leads to some sort of goal. That goal can be grand in scope (rescue the princess or prove to the emperor that you're the right person to get the death star up and running) or tiny and inconsequential (switching TV channels without waking the cat on your lap).
Why are they doing this?
What is their motivation? Again, this varies in scope. It could be large and complex (you want to rescue the galaxy from the clutches of evil or you believe that it is your destiny to rule the galaxy as you see fit) or simple (Hollyoaks has just come on the TV, but the remote is over the far side of the room.)

The answers to these three questions will help you craft your character and determine how they will do what they do, how determined they are, and how well they will deal with adversity. Whether they are the protagonist or antagonist at a particular point in time depends entirely on the situation in which you place them, and how you wish the reader to perceive them. 

One final thought.
This is a very different question, but may overlap with this topic.
Will there be a big event that needs foreshadowing? Even for those of us who indulge in minimal planning, keeping an eye on the bigger picture and potential future events can help make certain that when those significant events occur, our characters have been written such that their behaviour is realistic.
Returning to Star Wars, George Lucas had the benefit of knowing the fate of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, from the original trilogy of films (episodes IV to VI) when, years later, he started writing the character arc for Anakin Skywalker in the prequel trilogy (episodes I to III). He was able to seed lots of little hints about future events in the prequels.
However, when he first conceived the idea of Star Wars in the mid-seventies, he didn't necessarily believe that it would become a smash hit and that he'd ever get the chance to film the vague ideas he had for sequels. Which is why there is an uncomfortable amount of sexual tension between Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia in the first film. The woman it is revealed in later films is his twin sister...  

What are your thoughts on the protagonists and antagonists? Are they two sides of the same coin? Should they be treated in the same way? Feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul

A few weeks ago, I suggested an activity that involved writing the same scene from different points of view. I promised a more detailed #TuesdayTip at a later date discussing the pros and cons of different points of view.
First of all a reminder of the basics.
There are three commonly described points of view (POV). First, Second and Third person.
First Person: The reader is the narrator.
I did this.
I thought this.
I said that.
Second Person: The narrator is describing what the reader is doing.
You did this.
You thought this.
You said that.
Third Person: The narrator is 'omnipotent'. They are describing what the character - or characters - are doing.
Kevin did this.
Claire thought this.
Sam said that.

Based purely on my own personal experience of reading, third person is the most commonly used POV, followed by first person, with second person  a very distant third. I mostly read crime and thriller, so it's possible that first person is the most popular in other genres. I'm willing to be corrected, but I don't think second person is especially popular in any genre.
So what should you consider when choosing your POV?
First of all, you can switch POV within a single story.
An example might be different chapters narrated in the first person by different characters. Another approach might be to tell the bulk of the story in third person, but have a specific character narrate particular sections in first person, or even pull the reader into the story and narrate that chapter in second person.
However, this comes with a big caveat - signpost these changes clearly, otherwise it can be confusing to readers. And subtly remind them periodically who's POV you are writing from.
You could start a chapter, or section, with a title page telling the reader who the narrator is, but you have to remember that readers sometimes have to put a book down mid-way through a chapter and might not recall who the current narrator is when they return.
You can do this by having another character address the narrator by their name or you can have the narrator think or do something that only they would do.
For example, imagine a book told in alternating chapters by a mother and daughter. 

"She's been like this since I was a kid, always smothering me and treating me like I'm about to break."
This shows you that the narrator is the daughter, without ever telling you directly.

"I wish she'd see that I just want to protect her, but she's growing up so fast, I feel I'm losing her."
This is clearly from the mother's POV.

Pros and Cons of each POV.
Third Person:
This is the omnipotent point of view. You are an outsider narrating the actions of one or more of your characters. The reason this is so popular is its flexibility.
You can choose to narrate one character or multiple characters, even in the same scene. You can also tell the reader about things that none of the main characters know. For example two people in a restaurant talking, completely unaware of a third person eavesdropping. 
You are also in control of how much you tell the reader. If there are three people in the room and one of them is guilty of killing someone, you can mask that from the reader by describing the scene as if you are a fourth person watching the other three interacting. You can choose how much or how little the reader 'notices', and easily time any revelations for dramatic effect. 
You can also decide how closely you wish to follow a character. In my DCI Warren Jones novels, Warren is the main protagonist. Most chapters follow him and his thoughts, and I do so in the third person. I sometimes joke that it is as if he has a body-worn camera, and I am describing the footage. Occasionally I will switch to another character, either in the same scene - for example, we might see what another officer is thinking in a conversation with Warren - or I might make that character the star of their own chapter.

There are few cons when using this POV, which is why it is often the 'default' POV. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best POV for your story.

First Person:
The advantage of this POV is its intimacy with the reader. By saying "I did this" and "I thought this", you suck the reader right into the story. A lot of psychological thrillers are written, at least in part, in this POV because it can really make the reader feel they are living the story, empathising with the central character (often the victim).
The key thing, is that the reader only ever knows what the character knows. This is both a powerful story writing tool - you can surprise your reader alongside your character - and a hindrance; some stories work better if you are able to 'zoom out' and foreshadow what happens next.

Here is an example of the same scene told in first and third person. I'd say that neither is better than the other, but they tell the story in different ways.

First Person:
I walked around the corner, deep in thought. Which is why I didn't notice the speeding car. A squeal of brakes, a bone-crushing impact, and that's the last thing I remember.

Third Person:
Dan walked around the corner, deep in thought. The driver of the speeding car had just enough time to hit the brakes before he struck the tall man in the trench coat. He caught a brief glimpse of the man's startled face before the windscreen shattered. The body briefly remained perched on the bonnet of the car, before finally being thrown clear as the vehicle ground to a halt. 
It was as if the whole world held its breath, waiting in silence to see what would happen, before someone screamed and the noise and panic came crashing back in. 
"Oh, Christ," he thought. "Have I killed him?"  

One of the strange things about this POV is the extreme reactions that it can provoke in certain readers. Some people really dislike it, to the point they will stop reading. I've never really understood why. When asked to explain their aversion, they rarely give an answer beyond 'it's just a gimmick'.
To be honest, I wouldn't worry about it. The vocal minority that claim they won't read anything in first person are probably about as significant in number as those who claim they never read a prologue. Ignore them. Even if you lose a couple of readers through an inexplicable prejudice, if your story works better in first person, then you will gain more readers through positive word of mouth.

Second Person:
This is really tricky to pull off, I don't think I've ever seen it outside of choose-your-own-adventure novels. At least not for more than a brief section. Theoretically, it has many of the same advantages as first person, but it's more restrictive. With first person, you can still withhold information from the reader in first person, as you are still narrating the story to the reader. With second person, the reader and the narrator are one and the same, so one would assume that in most cases you would know if you were the killer!

POV can be a hotly debated topic. What are your thoughts? Do you have any good examples where a writer has successfully written in second person for extended periods?

As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.

Best wishes,
Paul

Some months ago, I was perusing one of the various Facebook writing groups that I frequent. This particular group is a resource for crime and thriller writers that provides assistance in getting the details correct when writing about the police. Writers post questions or ask for specific advice from law enforcement officers, or others with experience. Sometimes, fellow writers make suggestions for how to fix a particular plot problem.
One participant was asking for specific details about how an FBI field office would be laid out. This is what this group excels at; those small, tiny details that add realism or stop authors making basic errors that can come back and bite them later. I've used the group  a couple of times to ask questions about firearms - after all, I'm a Brit, what the hell do I know about guns? However, the group is full of US police officers and what can be politely described as 'gun enthusiasts'. They answered my question in detail within hours.
Unfortunately for the thriller writer interested in the FBI, the post resulted in an avalanche of replies, many from serving police officers who claim to have worked alongside the FBI, or even FBI special agents - and they all contradicted each other! Because, it seems that individual field offices vary enormously. Which kind of makes sense really; imagine if someone wrote a post asking for a description for 'how a school is laid out'. You'd get thousands of answers, each one different.
The original poster was clearly getting flustered. They were desperate to get the details right, but there was too much information overload.
So my advice - just make it up!
When struggling to research a topic, consider how likely it is that members of your audience will be knowledgeable enough about that topic that your ignorance will be obvious enough for it to matter.
Plenty of people (even in the UK) know enough about guns that if I didn't get those details correct, plenty of them would be happy to correct my ignorance publicly in my Amazon reviews (and you just know that my faux pas would be conclusive evidence that I am such a blithering idiot that my book is only worthy of 1 star).
On the other hand, ask yourself how many of your readers will actually have been to an FBI field office?
I'd suggest spending time getting the gun details correct, but spending next to no time finding out how a field office is laid out. It's unlikely that anyone in a position to know for certain is going to award you 1 star, or castigate you on social media.


Just use your common-sense, and write with authority.
The field office is an office. It's unlikely to be very much different to any other type of office. Filing cabinets, office chairs, a communal coffee area, desks of computers and photocopiers. The aircon probably rattles, one of your co-workers pinches your milk all the time, and somebody is in charge of the Secret Santa and the sweepstake for the World Cup.
But that's not FBI enough. So how about the seal of the Department Of Justice on the wall, alongside a print of the official portrait for the current president?
FBI agents tend to strut about with their guns on their belts all the time, but if they also have Tasers, they are probably in a charging rack. Lots of FBI stuff is very secretive, so there is probably a sound-proof office somewhere. Terrorism is a constant threat, so there is probably a metal detector, maybe even sniffer dogs and visitors will wear big, distinctive lanyards. Everyone else will probably be encouraged to wear their ID badge at all times.


I have no idea if any of the above is true, but I'd wager that if I wrote it with enough confidence, few of my readers would ever question it.
And that's why they call it fiction...
What are your thoughts? Can we sometimes 'just make it up', or is absolute accuracy a must?
As always, feel free to comment here, or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul