When it comes to an ongoing series, there are two broad schools of thought. One (which I prefer, and I have used in my DCI Warren Jones series) sees characters evolve over the years. Secondary characters come and go, your protagonist perhaps has life-changing experiences that resonate in later books. Ideally, each book can still be read individually, in a different order to when they are published, but there is an ongoing narrative and readers gain additional insight if they read the books in order.
The other approach is to 'hit the big red reset button' at the end of the book. When you pick up the next in the series, the character is largely unchanged from where they started in the previous book. This can work extremely well. Jack Reacher is not a static character, in terms of development, but generally speaking you can pick up Reacher books in any order without really feeling you've missed something.
But for each of those approaches, there are still some limits to what you can do. Your police inspector can't do anything too outrageous or they will be sacked before the next book in the series. Your gun-toting hero can't die in a hail of bullets, unless book two is about zombies.
For a standalone, anything goes! You can kill off who you want. Your characters can finish the book in such a way that they could never realistically return. Your corrupt copper can be thrown in jail for twenty years and barred from ever serving again. You can also write stories that simply wouldn't fit into the universe that you have established for your series. I have a list of ideas for books that I simply couldn't shoehorn Warren Jones into.
Standalones also allow a writer to experiment with different writing styles. My Warren Jones novels follow a loose format. They are fairly accurate police procedurals, so operate within the 'rules' for UK policing. There is humour in the books, but it isn't overt or farcical. They are written in the third person and the narrator's voice doesn't use profanity (although characters do in dialogue). The worst violence typically takes place off the page, and they aren't especially gory. I don't resent these supposed constraints - in fact I regard them as a comfortable, established space where I am free to be creative. I would even argue that they force me to be more creative. Warren doesn't carry a gun, for example, so I can't solve a problem by having him run in, bullets spraying.
Furthermore, many authors who have taken time out from an established series to write something different, have spoken of how they return to their series with renewed vigour. Karin Slaughter has successfully published multiple standalone novels alongside her popular ongoing Will Trent/Grant County series and it is great to see her stretch her wings with something really different. Some of these standalones have been turned into limited-length TV series, whilst her Will Trent character has been developed as an ongoing series.


What are your thoughts on series authors writing standalones? Do you think it is a welcome change? Or would you rather they spent their energies and time writing more entries in their series? As always feel free feel to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.

I recently ran my latest work in progress past my beta readers. As always, they helpfully picked up typos, made insightful suggestions and spotted errors. One in particular was picked up by all of them. "Who on earth is Amelia?" they asked.
Quite right too. Amelia hasn't existed as a character in the book for weeks, ever since I decided she was more of a Doreen (*). I had duly gone through the manuscript and changed all instances of Amelia to Doreen - except for this one occasion, which I had managed to miss.
(*) names have been changed to protect innocent characters.

So today, I decided the TuesdayTip would look at the perils of and pitfalls of changing a character's name .
First of all, why change a character's name?
There are a lot of reasons why an author may change a character's moniker midway through writing.
First there are the global changes.

• Amelia now being known as Doreen, because the name suits her better, is one example.
• Replacing the placeholder name with a final name. I've already written about how using an underscore for a placeholder name can make it easy to find and replace Diligent_Mother with Billie and Deadbeat_dad with Laurence TuesdayTips#31.

Then there are specific changes to a scene or event.

• For example you may decide that actually, it was Mahendra who witnessed the stabbing, not Shirley. So you will need to rewrite not only that scene, but all other references to that scene later in the book.
• Another example is the need to 'balance' a scene. My DCI Warren Jones novels often have a briefing scene, where all the series' regular characters are discussing their progress so far and what is going to happen next. It's not uncommon to read back through a draft and realise that some characters are uncharacteristically quiet or others seem to be doing all the talking. Not only does this mean certain characters are too domineering or risk disappearing, it might not quite fit the team dynamics that have developed over the books. So, unlike in real-life, I have the power to take words out of one character's mouth, and place them in another's.

What are the pitfalls?
There are a few things to look out for when changing the name.
Treat Find and Replace with great care. The temptation is to just change all instances of Sam to Alex in one go. There is a certain satisfaction to seeing Word report 'All done. We made 231 replacements.'.
But social media is full of hilarious mishaps from blindly trusting Word to do this.
For example changing Tom to Alex can mean a character's sAlexach suddenly rumbles…
Remember - verify all changes one at a time using Find Next. It won't take long.
Then there are possessive apostrophes.
Typically we add apostrophe s ('s) to the end of a name to denote the possessive.
Eg Warren's car. Or Warren's house.
But, in UK English, names ending with a letter S don't have 's added to the end, rather just an apostrophe.
For example, the possessive of Jones is Jones' not Jones's.
So it would be Warren Jones' car. Or Warren Jones' house.
In the US, they just add 's to everything. (Tip: If you are with a publisher, check their style guide to see what they prefer. See Tip#73 for more information Style Guides.)
One way to dodge this issue entirely is to only substitute names with a replacement with the same ending as the original eg Sam to Alex - neither ends in an S. Jones to Davies - both end in an S. This way, your original apostrophe usage will remain correct.
Finally, don't forget those pesky pronouns. When substituting a character, don't forget to take into account if the gender or preferred pronoun for the new character differs from that of the original. It is very easy to forget this. For example if I give one of Moray Ruskin's lines of dialogue (He/Him) to Karen Hardwick (She/Her), then I need to keep my 'she said/he said' etc consistent through the scene, otherwise it is jarring and confusing for the reader.
Can you think of any other issues that may arise from changing a character's name? Have you any amusing examples? As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.

For this week's #TuesdayTip, I thought it might be interesting to look at some of the language we use in crime fiction. Often these terms are bandied about with a somewhat sketchy understanding of their true meaning.
These terms below are typically used in English/Welsh law or are taken from various sources on the internet. I've done my best to distil them into an easy to use form, but I make no claims about the accuracy.
Enjoy!
Common terms for killers
Serial killer - 3 or more victims (some say 2), with a cooling off period between them.
Spree killer - 2 or more victims, perhaps in multiple locations, over a short period of time. There is debate over what constitutes a short period of time.
Mass killer - multiple victims, over a short period of time and in close proximity. Typically occurs in a single location.
The definition of a Spree killer vs a Mass killer can overlap, but as an example, a person who opens fire in a crowded space and kills multiple victims would be a Mass killer. One who kills people in several bouts as they escape police or go on a rampage might be a Spree Killer.


Offences in English/Welsh law
Murder - the act of unlawfully killing another person, with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, whilst of sound mind. (Note that as with any other crime, self-defence is a complete defence)
Manslaughter - a partial defence to a murder charge when all the elements of murder are present (sometimes including an intention to kill). There are several types of manslaughter.
Voluntary Manslaughter
The offence must fulfill one of the following criteria.

Diminished responsibility - an abnormality of mental functioning (at the time of the offence) or a recognised medical condition. In both cases, it must be determined if this substantially impaired the defendants judgement, understanding of their conduct or ability to exercise self-control.
Loss of control
Suicide Pact
Involuntary Manslaughter
Unlawful Act Manslaughter - an intentional unlawful act (not an omission) that a sober and reasonable person would believe subjects the victim to the risk of harm. Note: This does not include the supply of drugs or the helping preparation of drugs. The law assumes free will in this circumstance.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter - the breach of a general duty of care that could reasonably be conceived to result in a serious and obvious risk of death.
Corporate Manslaughter - a specialised form of Gross Negligence Manslaughter with separate guidance.
Honour-based killing - where a person is killed, sometimes by or on behalf of a family member/member of the community, because the victim is perceived to have brought shame on their family/community.
Euthanasia/Mercy Killing - the killing of a person who is suffering or in pain. Currently illegal in England/Wales.
Capital punishment - legalised use of the death penalty.

Deciding the icide.
We are all familiar with the most common words on this list, but here are a few more that you may not be familiar with. There are dozens out there!
Homicide - to kill a person
Suicide - to kill oneself
Matricide - to kill your mother
Patricide - to kill your father
Parricide/Parenticide - to kill your parents or a parent-like close relative
Fratricide - to kill your brother
Sororicide - to kill your sister
Siblicide - to kill a sibling/half-sibling
Infanticide - to kill an infant
Aborticide - to kill a foetus - more commonly known as an abortion
Foeticide - the killing of a foetus/embryo
Neonaticide - the killing of a newly-born baby. This can vary between one day and a month, depending on the jurisdiction
Uxoricide - killing of one's own wife
Mariticide - killing of one's own husband
Filicide - killing one's own children
Familicide - killing one's spouse and children - sometimes these people are colloquially known as a 'family annihilator'
Regicide - killing of a ruler (eg King or Queen)
Genocide - the systematic extermination of an entire national, racial, religious or ethnic group
Mad or Bad?
There are far better sources on the web than I can provide, but here is a simple primer to get you started.
Psychopath vs Sociopath - these common terms are not medical diagnoses. Instead they are regarded as traits that may be seen in those with AntiSocial Personality Disorder. They are often used interchangeably in popular fiction, but there are some differences. Generally speaking, sociopaths tend to act more impulsively and erratically. Sociopaths generally struggle to maintain a job or family life, unlike psychopaths who are more likely to be able to do so. Psychopaths generally struggle to form attachments, whilst sociopaths may, with a like-minded individual. Psychopaths may be better able to dissociate from their actions and feel less guilty than sociopaths.
In both cases (and commonly accepted in fiction), they are likely to disregard the law, act impulsively and deceitfully or irresponsibly. They can often be easily provoked or aggressive and fail to feel remorse.
Many psychopaths can act with a superficial charm and may be promiscuous. They can be manipulative, fail to accept personal responsibility and have a sense of grandiosity, yet lack (realistic) long-term goals.
Interestingly, it is believed that many long-running serial killers are not psycho/sociopaths, because the degree of organisation required to successfully keep ahead of the law is not common in those with Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Huge Caveat. Despite what some lazy journalists would have us believe, being a psycho/sociopath does not make one likely to be a violent offender. Studies have shown that many of these traits are found in successful business leaders and politicians (one in particular springs to mind!) who have never demonstrated violence. One can see how some of these characteristics might be beneficial in a competitive environment.
Narcissist - another commonly used term is narcissism. In its simplest terms, it is an excessive preoccupation with oneself and one's own needs, sometimes to the detriment of others. Most people are on a spectrum, but some are extreme and can be regarded as mentally ill (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). The same caveat as above applies.


Have I missed any words that you think should be here? Have I made any mistakes? As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.

Welcome to this week's Tuesday Tip. This time, I want to talk about seeking new audiences.
One of the pleasures of writing a long-running series is that you get to know what your readers want. Fans of my DCI Warren Jones series are looking for detailed police procedurals with lots of twists. My books have moderate profanity (exclusively in dialogue, not in the narration), not too much gore and much of the violence takes place off the page. There are limited references to sex and some dry humour.
But, the downside is that it can sometimes restrict the stories I tell. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many very successful series have avid followers who enjoy the fact that they know exactly what they are getting. That doesn't mean a lack of creativity, or a formulaic approach to writing - nobody could accuse authors such as Michael Connelly of such things. His two main series, Harry Bosch and Micky Haller, give readers exactly what they want, but each book goes from strength to strength, with inventive and innovative plot lines and stories.
But sometimes writers want to expand the scope of their writing and do something a bit different.
From a purely commercial point of view, writing new books in a different style can bring in different readers, who may then seek out the author's other work. Not all your current readers will find the new series to their taste, but done well it can be a tremendous benefit. I imagine that if one were to draw a Venn diagram of the readership of the Harry Bosch series and the Micky Haller series, there would be a significant overlap of readers who enjoy both (like me), some additional readers who adore legal thrillers and skip the Harry books, as well as some who stick with the police-based Harry books. Of course, Connelly has cleverly intertwined the two characters in recent years to capitalise on both readerships (and really delight fans of both series!).
The same arguments can be made for the decision to write standalone thrillers alongside series. An increasing number of authors of popular series are also stretching their wings with standalones. Steve Cavanagh, writer of the Eddie Flynn legal thrillers, is an excellent example. In addition to that ongoing series, he also has some very popular non-legal thrillers. I reviewed Kill For Me Kill For You in my #RecommendedRead blog.
So What Should You Consider?
A new series in a similar genre with different characters:
Liz Mistry has two series set in the police procedural genre. Her DI Gus McGuire series features a male protagonist, whilst her DS Nikki Parekh series features a female detective of Asian heritage. Both involve the structure of the police procedure, but have very different characters and a different 'feel' to them. I look forward to seeing what she does with her upcoming Solanki and McQueen series, the first of which, The Blood Promise, is due out in May.
Write in an entirely different sub-genre.
Leigh Russell writes the extremely popular Geraldine Steel series of police procedurals. Now numbering over 20 entries, plus related spin-offs from one of the secondary characters, the books are well-grounded, 'traditional' police series. However, she has also branched out into 'cosy crime' with her Poppy series, featuring Emily and her pet dog, Poppy. On the face of it, these target two very different sets of readers, but in practise crime readers are an open-minded bunch who are very loyal to authors and many existing fans of Russell will doubtless try the Poppy series, whilst fans of cosies (or dog-lovers) may try these and decide to give the Geraldine Steel series a go as well.
Use the opportunity to change your voice.
We are accustomed to writers having a particular 'voice'. But that voice, whilst reflective of the author's personality, is often only a glimpse of the person behind the words. Perhaps a new series or a standalone is an opportunity to write in a different way? Maybe you fancy exploring characters that are less serious, or want to inject more humour into the narrative? Or switch from dry humour to more overt or even farcical prose? I once had a review that complained that having laughed out loud at my acknowledgments, the reader was disappointed that my DCI Warren Jones books weren't a laugh-a-page comedies. A harsh criticism perhaps, but I know that when I write short stories as an exercise, they almost always end with a punchline and a gag. Two sides of my personality, I guess.
Similarly, you may have an urge to write books that are more/less violent. Perhaps you have an idea for a character that demonstrates a creative and innovative use of profanity that would shock your usual readership? And then there's sex. Feedback on a draft of one of my earliest Warren Jones novels included the suggestion that I cut a sexually explicit scene. It wasn't titillating (quite the opposite) but it felt out of place and may even offend some of my existing readers. It was a good suggestion, and I duly removed it. Perhaps different books might explore sexuality differently?
What do you think about writers seeking new readers through doing something a bit different? Have you any recommendations for authors that have reinvented themselves?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.

This week's #TuesdayTip is a TV Review for Forensics: The Real CSI, available on BBC iPlayer (https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0004p7f/forensics-the-real-csi).
Now in its fourth season, the documentary focuses on West Midlands Police's Forensic Science Service. Each episode focuses on a single investigation, with footage following the technicians around the scene, body-worn camera footage from officers, and shots of the scientists in their paper suits in the laboratory.
The detectives are featured, with video of them interviewing suspects etc
But the thrust of the show focuses on the Crime Scene Investigators and technicians, with face-to-face interviews with various forensic experts, some of whom are in most episodes.
The series features a wide-range of different crimes, not just murders. Highlights of the current series have involved episode two, Time of Death, which utilised phone analysis, DNA evidence and witness testimony to close the net on the murderer of a young woman. Episode 4,  Confession of a Killer, opens with a man phoning the police to admit to killing his flatmate. He subsequently claims self-defence and the police use blood spatter analysis, retrieved data from phone handsets and CCTV to probe his claim.
Probably the most unusual - and frankly scary - episode is episode three, Untraceable Guns, which involves the retrieval of a haul of illegal weapons, including versions of the assault weapons commonly used in US mass shootings. The investigation takes a frightening turn when it emerges that the guns are homemade, using a commercially bought 3D printer and widely available plans from the internet. This episode gives a fascinating insight into the work of NABIS, the National Ballistics Intelligence Service. The experienced officers and technicians are visibly shaken by the potential ease with which these untraceable weapons can be manufactured.
Episodes from previous series include online grooming by paedophiles, indecent exposure, armed robberies, arson attacks and rapists.
The programme is a goldmine for writers of crime fiction and a fascinating watch for anyone interested in how modern UK police forces use cutting-edge techniques to solve a wide variety of crimes.
I highly recommend it.
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time, all the best,
Paul.
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.

Today's #TuesdayTip is another Block Buster - a short exercise to either bust your writer's block, or just a fun writing challenge to practise your skills.
Last year, I set an exercise where you found a news story, extracted the key details, then wrote a fictionalised account of what happened. #Tip136 Getting To The Meat Of It.
Today's tip is going to take that principle and strip it back even further.
Go to your favourite news source and pick a headline.
That's it. Don't even read the story.
Now use that headline to write your own news story.
The fun thing about this activity is that there are loads of ways to approach it.
For example:

• Take a headline that features names. Tabloids assume that their readers know who 'Kate' is. Will your story feature the Kate they are referencing, or are you going to feature a different Kate?
• Take a headline that doesn't feature names. This frees you up to be as inventive as you like.
• Take a headline that just sounds quirky. Man finds Taylor Swift's face in Greggs pasty is replete with possibilities.
• Take a headline that is banal and desperately dull. Planning committee to meet Tuesday. What are they planning? Why Tuesday?

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.

If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.


Have fun,
Paul

Welcome to this week's Tuesday Tip.
When does precision tip over into needless pedantry?
It's a vexed question that I find myself wrestling with periodically. Recently (Tip180) I talked about how one of the hallmarks of an inexperienced, or under-edited, writer is too much information, incorrectly placed. Hand-in-hand with that can be a tendency towards unnecessary attention to detail, at the expense of pace, flow and story-telling. This is a separate issue to the balance needed between authenticity and realism (Tip149).
I pondered this question most recently when editing the first complete draft of a novel. As I've mentioned before, I have a tendency to write out of sequence, with minimal planning. I also typically leave my timeline and internal chronology until late in the process. Therefore, in order not to be caught out by errors in timing, I usually avoid specifying dates and times as I go along. For example, I might write 'It had been XXXX days since the woman was murdered', replacing the XXXX with a more precise timing once I have a structured timeline in place and there are unlikely to be any major changes to the order of the narrative.
But how necessary is that precision, and can it even be detrimental to the style and flow?
In a recent case, my timeline told me that it had been six days since a couple had met in a bar for a drink. But when I wrote that, it seemed out of keeping with the fairly casual nature of the surrounding prose. In the end, saying that it had been several days since they had last met just looked, and sounded, better.
English is a language that serves us well, whether we are scientists for whom accuracy and precision are essential, or poets for whom style is more important. Prose, especially fiction, requires both.
We can say 'it was six days' or 'a few days'.
'The car was parked 150 metres from the junction' or 'the car was parked a couple of hundred yards from the junction'.
'It was a balmy twenty-one degrees Celsius' or 'a warm and pleasant day'.
So ask yourself the following questions.

• How necessary is precision? A forensic scientist delivering their findings may give exact measurements, whilst an eyewitness would likely give an approximation.
• Is the degree of precision in keeping with the character?
• Is it in casual dialogue or more formal dialogue?
• Will the degree of precision (or lack of) be important later in the story?
• How does it sound? When you read it aloud, does the prose flow correctly?

One final point: a lack of precision can also allow for some wriggle room. By keeping things approximate, we can avoid the eagle-eyed reader spotting that our character's kids are going to school on a weekend …

What are your thoughts on precision? When does precision become needless pedantry?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.

Today's #TuesdayTip is a TV review. Catching A Killer: A Diary From The Grave, shown recently on Channel 4 and available on My4, is actually a repeat of an episode first shown in 2020, but it is worth a watch.
My wife and I were already familiar with the sad and twisted tale of the murder of Peter Farquhar and the alleged attempted murder of his neighbour Ann Moore-Martin by the trainee vicar Ben Fields. It has featured in other true crime series, and was made into a superb BBC TV miniseries, The Sixth Commandment, starring Timothy Spall and Anne Reid.
However, this episode includes Fly-On-The-Wall documentary techniques and takes us into the police investigation. It's worth watching because of the insight it gives into a complex investigation. It's also chilling, because of the significant amount of footage of the killer Ben Fields in interviews and also his interactions with police officers within the station. What struck me most was the scary politeness and indifference of Fields. Fictional serial killers are often portrayed as charming individuals and it has become a clichéd hallmark of psychopaths. Here we see it in action. Fields is unfailingly pleasant and polite to all he meets, acting exactly as one would expect of a trainee vicar seen as the bedrock of the church. Rarely, if ever, does that mask (if it is one) ever drop.
Most poignantly, the title for the episode comes from use of Peter Farquhar's own diaries, read aloud by a very good voice actor. In them Farquhar, a closeted homosexual who struggled with the conflict between his sexuality and his faith, records his growing love for Fields, along with the decline in his faculties as Fields slowly poisons him. The callous betrayal of this much-loved man is truly heart-breaking. Judicious use of interviews by Farquhar's friends - many of whom were former pupils that kept in touch with their influential teacher - shows that he truly was deeply loved by all who knew him.
Interestingly, the documentary camera crews accompanied the police as they interviewed witnesses, and supplied a fascinating insight into how these things work. After one such interview, the interviewee innocently asks if Fields has done something wrong. The police decline to answer that question, and it becomes apparent that the witness has not been told why they are interested in Fields. This is something we rarely see. I watch a lot of these programmes and had somewhat naively assumed that many of the interviews are either restaged later, or the person being interviewed actually knew why the police were there. To see the police carefully juggling the need to interview someone without giving away too much information was really interesting.
Even if you feel you are familiar with this particular story, I heartily recommend seeking out this documentary.
What did you think of this documentary? Did it add something to a story already familiar to you? As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.

One of the signs that can differentiate between a book from an experienced writer that has been professionally edited (either independently or via traditional publishing routes), and a less experienced writer who hasn't had any professional input, is the volume and placement of detail.
Some months ago, I came across a short story. The author is an imaginative and enthusiastic amateur writing in the speculative fiction genre(*). The premise of the story was enjoyable and original, but the problem was that the author got rather too carried away with the world-building. The first part of the story was almost exclusively a description of the  galactic federation in which the tale was set. It lasted several paragraphs, and included a potted backstory of how this organisation came about. It killed the momentum and pace, and I was getting bored by the time the actual story started.
Now this is not something limited to speculative fiction. Far from it, 'world-building' applies to all genres and is essentially the process of establishing where and when a story takes place, and the types of characters within it. It's a form of backstory. The problem, is that after spending significant amounts of time imagining where our story is set, there is a real temptation to show the readers what we've been up to, at the expense of an actual story!
And this is where a good editor comes in.
Description is good. Description is essential. Even the most action-packed novel, that leaps straight into the story, will eventually have to start filling in some blanks for the reader. The question is how much and when?
So, to take our original example (and again, I'm changing details to avoid identifying the writer), we needed to know that the action takes place in the distant future, between alien species, who are part of a galactic federation. Somehow, that information needs to be passed on to the reader within the first paragraph or two. But what we didn't need to know was when the federation was founded and by who, or precisely what the main protagonist's species looks like and how it differs from others. Unless any of those details specifically impact the story being told at that precise moment, ditch them or delay their reveal until later.
One of the best world-builders in fiction was the late, great Terry Pratchett. His Discworld novels sprawled across a humungous, imaginative realm that grew bigger and bigger as the series progressed. Avid fans of the series (who have read and reread each book multiple times) are intimately familiar with this world, and so wouldn't thank Sir Terry if the first few chapters were a potted re-telling of the entire history of the Discworld. By the same token, readers new to the series need to be able to pick up one of his books at random and dive straight into the story, with enough backstory to ensure they don't put it back down in complete bewilderment.
So, after building your world, then starting your story, ask yourself the following questions.
1) Does the reader really need to know that detail?
Is it essential to the plot, the understanding of the wider context, an essential piece of character development (or in the case of comedic books, necessary in the lead up to a really good knob gag)?
If the answer to the question is no - cut it. Don't be afraid to "kill your darlings" (Tips 27, 28, 29 & 30)
If the answer is yes, then ask yourself these questions.
2) Does the reader need to know this yet?
Can it be held back until later? As discussed previously, (Tips 64 & 68) you should try to avoid data dumps. They can be overwhelming to the reader. Trickle the information out slowly - it's a novel, not a textbook.
3) Is this the right place for this detail?
As discussed numerous times in this blog, detail typically conflicts with pace. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Each novel has its own rhythm and there will be slower sections and faster sections. The placement of detail can help you dictate that pace.
And this is why an editor is essential. You are too close to your work to make that judgement, you need an impartial pair of eyes to help decide if information needs to be cut, pared back or moved.
(*) I am being as circumspect as possible here, since I would be mortified if the author in question thought I was using their work as an example on my blog. I have changed a few minor details, so there is hopefully no way to attribute this to them.
What are your thoughts on world-building? Is it better to let your reader know everything up front, or should you hold some back and trickle it out more gradually?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time, all the best,
Paul.
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.

Welcome to the #TuesdayTip. This week, I am celebrating when a minor character unexpectedly takes over the reins.
We writers love a good cliché. Not in our prose, obviously - we and our editors strive to cut them wherever we see them - but when asked to describe the process of writing, hell yeah, bring them on! One of those clichés is that sometimes a 'character takes over' the writing. For the logically-minded non-writer, this is patently nonsense. You are the writer, everything comes from your mind. The character is a fictional construct from your mind. Ergo, you are still in control. Well, duh, obviously.
Yet sometimes it feels as if you aren't in control of the process.
A related phenomenon is when a relatively minor character suddenly becomes more important. Like a character actor stealing all the attention from the A list celebrities.
I LOVE this!
When writing my third DCI Warren Jones novel, Silent As The Grave, I happened to be taking a creative writing class. Our homework was to write a short scene with two characters. Deciding to kill two birds with one stone, I chose to introduce the main antagonist's henchman, Bixby. A minor character that was little more than hired muscle (he didn't even have a first name). Over the course of those 300 words, the book was turned upside down. Bixby became one of the most intriguing characters I've ever met. By the end of the book, he was the most important and complex person in the story, other than my hero, DCI Jones.
More recently, in my current work in process, I introduced a female character who, whilst integral to the story, was little more than 'utility character' - a person that exists solely to help move everything along. Well, she wasn't having any of that! Within a couple of paragraphs of me first meeting her, the entire focus of the book changed. It is now her story. Everything takes place because of her actions and it is her we are rooting for. And I am loving every second of writing her. And the amazing thing? The underlying premise hasn't changed! My original two line idea is still there, in its entirety.
So, my advice? Take a leaf from my years of teaching. If a pupil is elbowing their way to the front of the class, don't slap them down and make them return to their seat. Don't stick to the original plan. Let them take over for a bit. If it doesn't work, never mind, you can always return to the original idea. You can even cut them out and use them in a different book (the character, not the pupil!). Because, sometimes the end result is far better than it would have been originally.
What are your thoughts on this? Should characters stay in their lane? Would you rather stick with the original plan, or are you willing to take a risk and give them a bigger voice to see what happens?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time, all the best,
Paul.
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.