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.