Editing - you either love it, loathe it or just see it as part of the process.
I've looked at the issues surrounding editing before (eg #Tips48 for an outline of the basic process; #Tips72 for help chopping the wordcount), but for these posts, I want to share a few of the tips and tricks I've picked up over the years.
Mastering the structural edit.
If, like me, you write out of sequence, with only the most basic of plans to guide you, the structural edit is crucial. Even if you start writing on page one and continue until you type 'The End', adhering to a rigid outline, it is the first major revision that your editor is likely to send you.
In a nutshell, it may involve cutting or adding material to make the story flow better, changing its pace, removing unnecessary detail/adding more for clarification, or fixing any inconsistencies or contradictions. You may also find that you want to move chunks of text around.

And this is where it can be easy to make mistakes or lose track of what you are doing.

The first step is to save your file as a new document and work on that draft, so if the worst happens you can start again. It's also wise to do so every time you make a major revision. Unless you are writing on a Amstrad CPC464 with a limited supply of floppy disks, file sizes are so small these days that you can afford the space on your hard drive/cloud storage to save multiple copies of your work. I typically have over a dozen drafts by the time a manuscript is ready to be submitted.
This is how I work when writing in MS Word or another word processor package, but I also do so when using Scrivener.
If you do lose track of where you are, then Word has a nifty compare document feature that will highlight all the differences between two versions of the same document.
But that's fiddly and time consuming. Instead, make it easy for yourself.

Let's assume that you have decided your story might flow better if you move some paragraphs from chapter twenty to chapter ten. Simply cutting and pasting to the new location might require a bit of smoothing around the edges, and tweaking so it fits into its new location. The hole those paragraphs leave behind might also need some editing so there isn't a sudden gap.
​You will also want to pay particular attention to these two locations during the next round of edits to check for any errors. For example, the scene might originally have had three characters speaking, but one of those characters isn't present in the new location. You'll need to reassign dialogue, or bring in/remove the character from the original locations.
So to help keep track of these changes, use the following simple method.
(If you were expecting an explanation involving the actual 'track changes' function, stay tuned for a future blog post.) 

• Before you move your target text, highlight the previous paragraph and the paragraph after and change the font colour so it stands out.
• Then highlight the specific paragraphs that you are going to cut, and change the colour of these words to a different colour.
• Then cut this text and paste it to its new location.
• Leave these new font colours in place until the final draft.

You can now easily see where the text has moved to, and where it has come from.

If you are unsure about whether or not to move the text, and just want to see how it reads in its new location, then change the font colours as above, but instead of cutting it, copy it to the new location. You can even use the strike-through formatting option (horizontal line through the text) on the text in its original location, to remind you that it has been moved. If you decide that the text doesn't work in its new location, you can just delete the copied text and remove the strikethrough to restore everything.

​Have you any editing hacks you'd like to share?
As always, comment her or on social media, or email me if you want to contribute your own #TuesdayTip.
Until next time,
Paul

In the last #Tuesday Tip (Tip#119), I examined a debate regarding whether making your protagonist the target of a killer is an exciting plot device, or an over-used cliché. Today I want to look at another debate. The balance between backstory and plot.
This is probably more relevant to ongoing series than standalones, but it can apply to both.


A complaint that I've seen both in online discussion forums and reader reviews for particular books, is that readers felt there was too much of the characters' history and personal lives, and that they just wanted the detective to get on and catch the bad guy. They've picked up a mystery or thriller; they aren't interested in the lead detective's ongoing marital strife.
On the flipside, I've also seen readers enthusiastically talking about the characters' tangled private lives, and speculating about where things will go next. I have a few regular readers who are kind enough to message me about my books and ask for hints about what will happen to Warren and his wife Susan. Naturally, I politely thank them but keep my cards hidden.


Ordinarily, I usually suggest writers try and find a balance between the two - but really that advice is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Because where is that balance? Every series is different. At the two ends of the spectrum, there are series where readers come back each time to see how their favourite characters - who are now more like friends - are getting on. The grisly murder at the heart of the book is almost an afterthought. Then there is the opposite end of the spectrum, where it's all about the mystery. The characters' private lives are an unwelcome distraction, and they are emotionally constipated.
Then there is everything in between.


The simple fact of the matter, is that you are never going to please everyone. That's life. I have read reviews of award-winning authors, lauded by readers and their peers, where somebody has given the book 3 stars and grumbled that it could have been half the length if only a good editor had cut the fluff about the detective's dying wife. There are also highly-regarded writers that have stood the test of time, that are criticised for the lack of characterisation in their books.
So I am going to give you one bit of advice:
Write what feels right; write what you want to read. Find your own balance.
By all means listen to constructive criticism from those you respect (over the years, my editors have variously told me to cut paragraphs that don't add to the main plot, or expand upon aspects of a character that readers may find interesting.) But ultimately, the balance between the solving of the crimes at the centre of my books and the trials and tribulations of DCI Warren Jones and his team at Middlesbury CID is what I feel comfortable with.


What are your views on plot vs backstory? As always feel free to share your thoughts in the comments or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul

I was recently an interested observer of a debate on a Facebook group about the practise of writers placing the main character of a series at the very heart of the action. Specifically, making the detective that series revolves around the target of a serial killer.
The original poster stated that they were sick and tired of reading books where it transpires that the bad guy was targeting the lead detective personally. They felt that it was an overused trope. And that got me thinking.
In my DCI Warren Jones series, I have made Warren the target in a couple of books. Given that the series currently runs to 12 entries, I don't think I've done it too often, but it is argued by some that there are series where it is becoming a bit of a cliché. So I thought it would make an interesting discussion point


Now first of all, there are series where the central theme is the detective's ongoing involvement with organised crime, or their shadowy past. In that case, whatever else is happening in that book, readers are probably going to want that story arc to advance. It's a central pillar that the series rests upon.
I think the criticism is aimed more at 'episodic series'. Series where the primary storyline is a different case each book, like individual episodes of a TV series. In which case, how realistic is it that the motive for the killer is to make the lead detective suffer? How realistic is it that more than one book involves different, unrelated culprits gunning for our hero?
It's a valid question. Can it be overused?

I guess there are Pros and Cons.
In favour of the practise, ask why the writer is doing it.
There is no denying that it can really raise the stakes. If the reader feels that the detective is in mortal peril, because they are the specific target of the killer, that can make the audience feel the tension more than endangering a character that they have only just met. It's even better if the killer has the detectives' loved ones in their sights.
This is because the reader might feel that the detective the series is named after is 'protected' - especially if they are back in the next book. But what about their spouse, or their children? I can think of a couple of series where the author actually killed off the most significant person in the protagonist's life. It was shocking and unexpected and it completely upended the status quo. One famous writer actually used the acknowledgments to direct readers to a letter, hidden on their website, where they confirmed that it wasn't sleight of hand. Yes, they really had killed off that character, and no, they wouldn't be coming back. Absolutely magnificent!
I can also think of another writer that supposedly killed someone off, only to bring them back a few books later and reveal that it was all a ruse. I don't think that worked as well.

On the other hand, the original poster in the social media debate made a valid point. It can become a cliché. They asserted that it was a sign of desperation or lazy story-telling. I don't hold much sympathy for that argument. I think that a writer can become somewhat over-enamoured with the device, since they are incredibly fun stories to write, but I see little evidence that it has become a fall back position for a writer short of ideas. I guess the biggest argument against it is that it is a little far-fetched. How often in real life would even the most well-known detective become the target of nutters and killers, who want to either murder them, or prove that they can beat them? Sure, it's fiction, and the suspension of disbelief is part and parcel of the genre, but if it happens more than a couple of times, that seems to be stretching things a little.

My personal view is that it is a very strong story-telling device, but one that should be used sparingly. One way to dodge this might be to shift the killer's focus to somebody close to your detective. Because of that, they become more embroiled in the case than they might normally. For example, rather than having the detective in the sights of the killer, because of something murky that happened in the past, why not make their sibling the target? This also has the added advantage that you can string readers along - will the killer succeed, leaving our hero devastated at their failure, or will they save the day?

What do you think? Over-used cliché, or a heart-stopping narrative choice?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul.

A tautology is the saying of the same thing twice over in different words.
In this week's tip, I want to explore their use and a more general theme of redundant or repetititious information.
As a teacher, I instinctively use tautologies to increase students' understanding by using unfamiliar words and phrases alongside a more common usage, or to remind them of prior learning.
An example from a biology lesson might be to say:
Aerobic respiration, the release of energy through reaction with oxygen, takes place in the mitochondria.
Here I am subtly reminding learners that aerobic respiration uses oxygen, in contrast to anaerobic respiration which doesn't require oxygen. They have already been taught the difference between aerobic and anaerobic respiration lower down the school, but some may have forgotten.
Or I might say:
Wires with a high resistance decrease the electrical current and transfer the electrical energy to thermal energy. So the wires become hot as the rate of flow of electrons decreases.
This reminds learners that thermal energy means heat energy and that current is the rate of flow of electrons.


But as a writer, it's a habit that I have worked hard to break.
There are a number of reasons why the use of tautologies should be reduced.
Wordcount! The bane of many writers. Tautologies take up additional words - which is wasteful when you want to decrease the number of words.Take this example:
He was a six-foot-five-inch, giant of a man, who towered over normal folks.
In this sentence, we tell the reader that the character is bigger than normal in three different ways. It takes up 13 words (counting hyphenated phrases as one word). Do we need that level of redundancy?
How about:
At six-feet-five-inches he towered over everybody else. (7 words)
Or
He was a six-feet-five-inch giant of a man. (8 words)
Or even
He was a six-feet-five-inch giant. (5 words) - we've already told the reader he was a man by using 'he'.
It slows the pace. As explored previously (Tip #116), using fewer words means that text is read more quickly. This can help increase the pace of a scene. Avoiding tautologies can aid in this.

It's a waste of synonyms! As writers, we are taught from an early age to try and avoid repetition. Using the same word over and over in a couple of paragraphs can make prose look simplistic and childish. This is not always easy, and whilst a good thesaurus helps, you can find yourself using ever more obscure words since you've already used the most common ones. Tautologies, by definition, use twice as many adjectives to describe a scene as you need, thus reducing the number left.

Imagine trying to describe blood flowing out of a person. You might describe the blood as red. A synonym for red may be crimson. What then? Scarlet?
The red blood flowed out of the wound, turning the carpet crimson. At the sight of the scarlet liquid, Johnny felt light-headed. (22 words)
Ugh!
Well we know that human blood is red, so we don't need to tell the reader this. We also know what it is going to do to the carpet. That just leaves its affect on Johnny.
The blood flowed out of the wound, soaking the carpet. At the sight of the red liquid, Johnny felt light-headed. (20 words)
Why not go further?
The blood flowed out of the wound, soaking the carpet. The sight made Johnny feel light-headed. (16 words)
After all, we know that blood is a liquid, and even if the reader had forgotten we've reminded them by saying it flowed.


The counter argument:
The use of tautologies isn't always bad. For example, in the previous example, we are making the assumption that the reader knows that blood is red, and a liquid. That's not unreasonable. But how far can you take that? Do you need to subtly remind readers of the meaning of unfamiliar phrases, or of facts that they need to fully appreciate what is happening?
Remember, hopefully your books will be read by a wide range of people. Some will devour crime novels at a terrifying pace, and be fully immersed in the genre. Others might rarely pick up a crime novel, and so be new to the terminology. Not all of your readers may be from your country, so might not be familiar with policing structures or common terms. English might be an additional language.
Imagine trying to understand what this means if you aren't a native English speaker, or familiar with British policing.
"I think you're talking nonsense," said PC Smith.
"Well you're wrong," countered CI Jones, his knuckles whitening.
The rest of the room fell silent; nobody had ever seen such an exchange in public before.


This should be a tense scene, and readers should appreciate the risk that PC Smith is taking. But this assumes that your reader knows 1) That PC is the rank Police Constable, not the character's initials, and CI is Chief Inspector. 2) That the police is a hierarchical organisation where more senior officers are spoken to politely at the very least and 3) that a Chief Inspector significantly outranks a Constable.
This is where the judicious use of a tautology or two can make this explicit.
"I think you're talking nonsense, Chief Inspector," said PC Smith.
"Well you're wrong, Constable," countered CI Jones, his knuckles whitening.
The rest of the room fell silent; nobody had ever seen such an exchange in public before. A Constable  openly disagreeing with a senior officer was unheard of.


Although a little clunky (forgive me, it's late and I made this up on the fly!), this furnishes the facts necessary for readers to recognise the significance of this exchange.
Another exception. Description: Sometimes, it isn't all about the pace. Even the most thrilling of thrillers needs a little time to breathe, and certain scenes may benefit from richer description. Sometimes a beautiful description may involve tautologies. In my opinion, that's fine. As long as the tautologies are there to serve a purpose, rather than a lack of editing or out of habit, then I say use them.
​A final exception. Dialogue: Most people, especially when they are relaxed, aren't the most efficient of speakers. Natural speech is littered with repetition and tautologies. Allowing for the caveat that writers rarely render speech exactly, the use of tautologies to make speech sound authentic is OK in my book.


What do you think about tautologies and repetition? Should they be avoided at all costs, or can they be used sparingly, in a controlled manner (yes that is a tautology).
As always, feel free to share your thoughts here or on social media.
All the best,
Paul