For readers of UK-based crime procedurals, 'Lawyering Up' is a somewhat irritating Americanism. But unfortunately, 'Duty Solicitoring Up' doesn't have quite the same ring. However, that isn't the only difference between US-based procedurals and UK.
My partner and I are big fans of true crime documentaries, and one of the most bizarre things when watching US documentaries is how many suspects - even those under arrest for very serious crimes such as murder - don't have a lawyer when being interviewed. Just as in the UK, arrested suspects are read their rights. In the UK, the correct term is 'cautioned'. In the US, these rights - enshrined in the Constitution - are often referred to as 'Miranda' rights after the legal precedent that established them (hence the verb 'Mirandized'.) But unlike in the UK, these rights are often 'waived'.
I have no idea what our poor neighbours must think, as we yell "Shut up! Stop talking! Where's your lawyer?" at the TV.
It seems to be absolute madness. Why on Earth would anyone in their right mind forgo the services (free if you can't afford it) of the only professional in the room looking out for your best interests? The police are trying to secure a conviction, and all too often it seems, anyone will do. They aren't your friend!
Because of this, it is not uncommon for US police to appraise a suspect of their rights (as they are legally obliged to do) and then seek to persuade them not to exercise them. Phrases such as, "we can deal with this quickly now" or "if you get a lawyer, I can't help you" even "why do you need a lawyer, are you guilty of something?" are common.
In one documentary we watched, a young woman was accused of murdering her lover. She asked repeatedly for a lawyer. Her interrogators deflected the request several times. Eventually, she folded her arms and simply kept on repeating "Lawyer. Now." Sensible woman. However the police in the interview room, the talking heads, and the documentary voiceover artist, all used this as proof of her lack of cooperation and criticised it.
From a writer's perspective, the attraction is obvious. The wily detective can run verbal rings around the suspect, teasing the truth out of them, until they finally confess or condemn themselves by their words. A lawyer would just tell them to button it and 'no comment'.
But if you want to write a procedurally accurate UK-based procedural, forget what you've seen on US TV. There are a plethora of true crime documentaries featuring actual recordings of interviews. I heartily recommend Channel 4's 24 Hours in Police Custody. But steer clear of doing your research using 'recreations', no matter how good they claim to be.
Some key differences with the US:
In the UK, 'lawyer' might be used colloquially by the suspects, but the correct term is 'solicitor'. The word attorney is rarely, if ever, uttered on these shores.
All suspects (including those who haven't been formally arrested) are interviewed under caution. (See TuesdayTip#63 for the rules regarding how long an arrested suspect can be detained.
Detainees are entitled to a solicitor. If you don't have one, all police stations have access to a pool of free, independent duty solicitors, that can be called upon night or day.
These days, police officers rarely try to encourage a suspect to waive their right to a solicitor. In fact, police officers have been known to plead with a suspect to take the offer of a solicitor. There are several reasons for this:
Interviews are recorded. If a suspect is ultimately charged and it comes to court, then the defence team may try to use this as evidence that the interview wasn't properly conducted, and so seek to have any testimony dismissed.
Solicitors keep everything on the straight and narrow. This protects not only the suspect, but the prosecution also. The rules surrounding interviews are strict and if the police break them, the interview can be deemed inadmissible in court. Even with the best will in the world, officers can and do make mistakes: in pointing them out to protect their client, the solicitor is also safe-guarding the prosecution.
No solicitor looks bad to the jury. The jury will expect there to be a solicitor and will want to know why there isn't one present. Anyone who has watched Making a Murderer will be familiar with the infamous Brendan Dacey interview. In it Dacey (who is a minor, with learning difficulties) is interviewed at school with no lawyer or responsible adult present. It is toe-curling and even heart-breaking. One can debate whether or not he is guilty of the crime; but one thing is certain - he didn't get a fair trial.
​But aren't No Comment interviews a bad thing?
The first thing that any good solicitor usually does is tell their client to sit tight and no comment. At first glance this can be seen as an impediment to justice. If you're not guilty, be as open as possible and let the police see they are barking up the wrong tree. If the suspect is guilty, then no commenting unquestionably makes it more difficult for the police to build their case, and draws out the whole process.
Nevertheless, the police are duty bound to ask the questions that they want answered. Even if the suspect starts an interview by stating that they will not be answering any questions, the police ask them anyway. Doubtless the repeated 'no comment' is frustrating for both parties. But by asking those questions, the police are fulfilling the essential principle that the accused must be given the chance to reply to any accusations. And of course the facial reactions and body language of the suspect can indicate if the detective is on the right track.
Is it good or bad for writers?
As with anything, it depends on your story. It could be argued that a US-based novel, where the writer has a narrative choice between their suspect having a lawyer or waiving their rights, is more flexible. But I have grown to love the constraints of UK procedure. In fact, a no comment interview can be very dramatic. Including a solicitor also introduces a third party into an interview scene, and whilst they generally don't interrupt proceedings, a couple of well-timed interjections can ramp up the dramatic tension.
What do you think of 'lawyering up'? Is it good or bad for a fictional story?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Paul

For this week's #TuesdayTip, I've decided to tackle another thorny issue - cultural appropriation.
For those unfamiliar with this term, which has only really seeped into the public consciousness over the past few years, it is described by Oxford Dictionaries thus:
"The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society.”
As this is a writing blog, I will be steering clear of hot-button topics, such as white people wearing dreadlocks or sarees etc. Instead I will focus more on the stories that we tell. In this context, cultural appropriation is more about the issues surrounding writers telling stories about, or featuring, cultures other than their own.

First of all, I am a white, middle-aged, middle-class, heterosexual, cis male.
I have no first-hand experience of living life as a black man, or a person of Asian descent. Nor for that matter, have I had to live as a gay/bisexual/asexual/pansexual person in a society that still assumes, for the most part, that most people are heterosexual. I am also a cis male, and so haven't see the world through the eyes of a female, trans person or non-binary individual.
Now the immediate counterpoint to that argument is 'So what? You're a writer, make stuff up! Use your imagination. You're not a far-right extremist, but you've written a book about them.'

And of course this is true. If I were to write characters that solely reflected my personal experiences, then for a start I wouldn't be able to write detective stories. And my books would be entirely populated by lefty, white, cis males. I was once a young man and a child, so I could write about those characters (although I'd have to set them in the 80s and 90s - having never experienced life as a teenager in the social media era, I could hardly be considered an authority on many of the modern stresses experienced by today's young people).
Because of this, there are those who immediately dismiss the very notion of cultural appropriation in stories as nonsense. Just another reason for people to get upset.
But that kind of misses the point. It seems to me, that what people object to is telling someone else's story with authority and not acknowledging it. And what really upsets people is not putting the time in to do the research.

I will be the first to admit that in many ways, I have it easy. My central character, DCI Warren Jones, is a thinly-veiled version of myself. The stories that I tell are about Warren and the people he meets. These characters are basically seen through Warren's eyes (and thus, by extension my own). I only need a broad appreciation of the stories and lived-experiences of these people, as the book's perspective is from the outside looking in.
Where it gets tricky is when you start to write from the perspective of a character radically different to yourself, especially if that character is from a section of society less dominant to your own. For the purposes of clarity, I basically define that as they are less privileged than the writer in that situation. For example, that might be a white man trying to write from the perspective of a black female, when race or misogyny is an element of the story.

Of course, even in books written in my style, there are times when I need to look at the world through someone else's eyes. I might have a chapter following DC Moray Ruskin, a gay Scotsman. Or Karen Hardwick, a young, single mother. If I transcribe their thoughts, feelings and emotions, rather than just their actions, then I need to put myself in their shoes. How does Moray Ruskin feel and react when interviewing someone who is openly homophobic? In those cases, I have to rely on empathy - can I empathise with their situation?
I personally don't feel that I am able to sustain that level of empathy for an entire novel. Perhaps one day, but not yet.

But there are many exceptional writers who do manage it. There are many female writers who confidently write from the perspective of male characters and vice versa (although it should be pointed out that there are also some male writers who think that women spend hours in front of the mirror examining their body, and then relay their inner-monologue in the most toe-curling manner). For centuries, gay men have been forced to write about straight men, and I'll bet we were never any the wiser. A lot of authors choose to conceal their gender behind their pen name - you'd be surprised how many writers of 'chick lit' or steamy, female-orientated romances are actually middle-aged men. I know several... I can also think of several thriller writers, whose books largely appeal to a 'traditional male demographic' who use initials or gender-neutral first names; many of their readers wouldn't consider picking up a book by a woman, but will gravitate towards the guns and explosions on the cover and happily read them without ever realising who wrote it.
And let's not forget that many non-white writers have been forced to write for a white audience to stand any chance of being published. 
Many of these books haven't aged well.
But many are still perfectly good reads today.

So how do they do it?
In my inexpert view, to write and not be accused of cultural appropriation you need to consider several things.
Empathy:
You need to know how these characters would feel and react in situations. This is important for all writers, but especially when you are colouring outside the lines, so to speak. So read about these characters. Watch documentaries. If possible talk to people.
Consider Your Source Material:
There's little point trying to gain a perspective on inner-city black culture by watching films from a white director who grew up in leafy Surrey. Seek out independent directors from those communities. And read the reviews - what are people saying about the portrayal? Try YouTube as a source of independent films.
Know Which Lines You Shouldn't Cross:
Quentin Tarantino famously has lots of black characters using the N word regularly. If you are not black and aren't Tarantino, just don't! The chances are you'll fall flat on your face and offend. Just as it's no longer acceptable for white actors to wear dark makeup and portray people of colour, it's rarely acceptable to gleefully chuck around racial slurs with the excuse 'that's how they speak to each other'. Remember, your book will likely be hanging around in some form for years to come. There are already TV shows from the early 2000s that are awkward to watch.
Know Your Limits:
I don't mean in a censorious way, and I firmly believe that writers should stretch themselves. But also ask yourself if this is your story to tell - or more importantly, should you be telling it in this way? Do you have the skills to do so? 
To put it bluntly, if I want to tell the story of a 12-year-old Afro-Caribbean girl who is bullied every day at school because of her hairstyle, then that is my right. But it would be foolish of me to attempt to write a novel in the first-person from her perspective. But perhaps I could tell a story about this girl. I could have some short, first-person introspection - perhaps using my own experiences to describe universal human feelings, such as dreading going to school or the fear as the bullies approach - but some of the feelings unique to this specific set of circumstances are probably beyond me as a writer.
Try To Avoid Stereotypes:
This is a good rule to follow for any writer, regardless of whether they are writing outside their own experience or not. I started my career as a research scientist. In many ways I personally tick a lot of the 'traditional' characteristics of the public perception of a scientist. Yet I am bored of seeing these same old depictions, because actually, when I think back to the diverse and varied people that have populated the laboratories I've worked in over the years, there weren't actually that many folks that looked like me!
To show how easy it is to avoid these stereotypes, which range from the merely irritating, to the down-right harmful, I just Googled "what stereotypes about black people really annoy you?". There are a huge numbers of articles, ranging from the personal, to the academic. A bit more finesse with my search terms would focus this even more.
Keep It Universal.
Given all of the above, it can be tempting to think 'you know what? Writing characters from a different background is too dangerous - who wants to be this week's Twitter target for folks with nothing better to do'? 
And that's fair enough. But if the characters in your novel are a homogenous mass, then everyone loses out. So why not play it safe? Stick with universal themes that are separated from specific cultural themes. I am never going to know what a twelve-year-old black girl being bullied about her hair is going to feel about what it says about her personal identity. But I can describe the steady rise of dread as the bus draws closer to the school, and I start praying that the bullies are absent that day.
Get Feedback:
If you are writing about a culture radically different to your own, then perhaps seek out someone from that section of society to give you some honest feedback. If your circle of acquaintances doesn't include any suitable individuals, look online. There are plenty of internet and social media forums populated by folks who will be happy to read and critique and give advice.
Be Respectful.
To be told that what you have written is culturally-insensitive, offensive, or just plain wrong, is hard to hear. And unlike disagreements over style or plot, ignoring advice or concerns and 'going with your gut' can be fraught with danger. It may come back to bite you on the arse. In this case, it is better to engage constructively. The person objecting may have specific points that you can fix in the next draft. We all make mistakes when writing; the trick is to make sure they don't make it into the finished book. Nobody, other than my beta readers, will ever know some of the howlers that were in early drafts of my various novels. This is no different.
Develop A Thick Skin:
And finally, sometimes you have to accept that as a writer, you are going to get it wrong now and again. There are also those who simply won't accept that you should be writing such stories. Be humble, apologise where appropriate, and block where they are being unreasonable!

How do you feel about cultural appropriation or writing about other cultures? Do you have any recommendations for writers to avoid the pitfalls?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
All the best,
Paul

Buy from Amazon.
Buy from Bookshop.org and support independent sellers.

First of all, I have to start this book review with a bit of confession - I don't read Stephen King!
The reason is quite simple, I'm not a fan of the horror genre. I have nothing against it; I'm not squeamish. I'm certainly not a snob. It just doesn't do anything for me. 
Yet I have the utmost respect for Stephen King, and his peers, such as Dean Koontz; craftsmen who can hook readers into their novels and leave them begging for more. King is an acknowledged master of the genre - but more importantly, he is a master of writing. Full stop. We can all learn something from him.
And so I dove into this book keen to learn more about this fascinating man and his remarkable talent.

The book is a hybrid - part memoir, part tutorial.
The first half of the book is autobiographical.
King grew up in small-town America in the fifties and sixties; the story of his early life and burgeoning love of writing - any writing - is a candid and insightful view of what made him the man he is today. That tale alone is worth reading. Unfortunately, despite what it says on the cover image at the top of this page, the edition I have is the original from 2000, rather than the newly updated 20th anniversary edition, so only provides a snapshot of the first twenty-odd years of his career.

The second part - on writing - is why this is a #TuesdayTip, rather than a #RecommendedRead.
King is a leader in the field and this book is his own unique perspective on how to go about writing. It's told as a narrative, with an almost folksy approach. Rather than a text book (although it is used in degree courses all over the world), it is as if King is sitting down chatting to you about what he's learned over the years. King taught high school English, and so even the most technical discussions about grammar, pace and structure are explained clearly for the non-specialist. The only assumption he makes is that you want to be a better writer.
The chances are that you won't agree with everything in this book. I certainly didn't. Some of the rules that he has found work for him, won't work for you. But that's OK. In fact it's a good thing. Every writer is different - do what works for you. But exposure to diverse ideas is essential when honing your craft. I know that there are things that I have subconsciously absorbed when reading this book that will help me in the future.
An interesting and controversial view, that King states forcefully, is that too much plotting makes for a bad book. Many of his peers would vehemently disagree, and have produced masterful examples that disprove this theory. Yet it gives hope to those of us for whom plotting is a chore. But don't let that put you off if your outline runs to hundreds of pages. There is still much to be valued in here, and reading about different approaches can help you hone your own method.

Perhaps one of the nicest things about this book is the way that King's love for his wife Tabitha - Tabby - runs throughout it. They met at college, and she has been his cheerleader, sounding-board, and fiercest critic throughout his career. In 2021, they celebrated their fiftieth wedding anniversary and it's heart-warming when reading a book set twenty years ago to know that they are still going strong today. 

The book finishes in 1999, a significant year in King's life, after a careless driver nearly killed him. The final chapters describe the horrifying accident and its aftermath in a frank and detailed manner that befits a man who has made a career of torturing imaginary characters. Because of the endpoint, we don't get to hear his views on eBooks, the rise of Amazon, self-publishing or the ubiquity of social media.

For that reason, I will endeavour to read the twentieth anniversary edition at some point, and continue the story of Tabitha and Stephen.