TuesdayTips103

Size Matters
Big vs Small Stories.

Where do you go next when your last book had half a dozen victims?

As writers, we always want to improve our craft. We want our next book to be better than the last. We owe it to our readers, and we owe it to ourselves.

But as in so much of life, there can be a perception that better means bigger.
So, to repeat the question, where do you go next, when your last book had half a dozen victims? Do you kill seven this time? Eight?
Clearly that would soon get ridiculous. Lee Child's Jack Reacher series numbers over twenty entries, and whilst Reacher can be a one-man wrecking crew at times, the body count is rarely that high!

Over the course of my DCI Warren Jones series, I have resisted the urge to try and make the next story "bigger". In fact I have deliberately switched between "big" stories and "smaller" stories.
But what does that mean? First of all, it has nothing to do with wordcount. Each of my full-length novels is the same length, plus or minus about 10%.

Rather, I define a story as Big or Small based on the impact that the central murder or murders have on wider society.

Murder invariably has an impact beyond the immediate victim. Like throwing a stone into a pond, the ripples extend to effect the all those around them. Friends, family and loved ones of the deceased are affected, for good or bad. The same can be said for the killer - murder is not an act to be undertaken lightly, and the consequences of a life sentence can also be felt by those associated with them. And, whilst every death is a catastrophe in its own way, some leave a bigger impression on society than others.

Yet a Small story should be no less compelling than a Big story. A meaty thriller with a serial killer who kills multiple victims is by definition a Big Story. That story is composed of many individual tragedies and the ripples can be felt far and wide. A Small story allows for greater study of an individual tragedy. The ripples might not travel as far, but the author can spend more time with those affected. The investigation at the heart of the novel can still be as complex and twisty, but there is no need for a escalating body count to satisfy readers.

I like to write a mix of stories whose impact is either big or small. The first in the Warren Jones series, The Last Straw, concerns the murder of a university professor. And whilst we meet an ever-widening pool of suspects, with multiple motives, the ripples are largely contained within that pool. On the other hand, book 2, No Smoke Without Fire, is about a serial rapist and murderer. There are multiple victims. Each is its own tragedy, and we spend time with their loved ones, but there is understandably a wider effect on the wider community. Who will be next? Should those in the surrounding area be concerned about their own and loved one's safety?

The ripples can be felt in other ways. The central murder in The Common Enemy is that of a far-right extremist. The consequences here would seem to be contained to his loved ones (and whilst he was a deeply unpleasant character, few people travel through life without at least someone who cares for them and will miss them). However, Middlesbury is a powder keg of racial tension at this time, and the death of this one man has the potential to spill over into far greater conflict, so I would class this as a Big story.

The latest two entries in the series, Out of Sight, and this summer's Time To Kill are an example of each type of story. Out of Sight deals with the killing of a lonely man with a secret life. He's ostracised by his family, but as we find out, he still had many who cared for him, however the ripples are largely contained within his circle. Time To Kill has Warren and his team uncover unexpected links between seemingly unrelated deaths. Once it becomes apparent that anyone could be next, the ripples are more akin to those caused by throwing a large rock into a pond, rather than a pebble.

The take home message here, is that a better story doesn't have to be a Bigger story. It isn't necessary to raise the body count or even raise the stakes to keep a series improving. A small intimate study of a single death can be just as good as a wide-ranging investigation into a bloodbath. The next book in a series can still be better than the previous without needing to throw a larger stone into the pond.

What are your thoughts? Do you feel that once an author has "gone large" they need to continue with those Big books whose ripples extend far and wide, or can they dial it back in the next book and focus on a single death that is important to those in the victim's immediate circle but of limited concern to the rest of the society?

As always, feel free to share your thoughts her or on social media.

Until next time,
best wishes,
Paul.