Agent insights

This morning, I was lucky enough to spend forty minutes picking the brains of a leading U.K. literary agent about what's right and wrong with the current manuscript of my crime novel. Absolutely invaluable, not least because she said many positive things about my writing while being brutally (her word) candid about the problems with plot and structure. She was keen to stress that this was a subjective, personal response to the ms, but honestly? Everything she said resonated with me. And a lot of it fell under the general heading of Gems for the Aspiring (Crime) Writer. So I'm going to share an edited version of her insights, in the hope it will be of value to others. Indulge me as I record the good stuff, personal to me, by way of an investment in my self-confidence. And bear in mind that some of the negative stuff may be things with which another writer is lucky enough never to struggle.

Keys to good crime writing

“Crime is a brutally rational genre with an almost Puritanical discipline in terms of plot, motivation, evidence, reasoning and conclusion. At the same time, it has the potential for the most gothic exploration of the inner reaches of the soul.

“What makes a good crime novel is the contrast, and the tension, between the creepy and the mundane.

“Narrative tension is crucial but good plot is more important than too much plot – lose the codes and complications.

“Settle on a single strand of story and go deep – dig down into the psychology.

“The more gothic the ingredients (and gothic is good – we all love gothic), the greater the need for logic and resolution. The premise, the core of the story, has to work in these terms.

“You need to plot out a very very tight story. Take away all the trappings and work out which story makes psychological sense – focus on that story.”

Specific problems with the ms

“It was as if you’d thought what are the ingredients for a crime novel? A bit of Da Vinci Code, a bit of police procedural, a bit of Michael Connelly? Then you put them all in. There was no air to breathe.

Note: Interestingly, I didn't think this; I've never read the Da Vinci Code, or any Michael Connelly, but I will confess readily to trying too hard to deliver what I thought crime readers wanted to read, rather than focusing on the story I had to tell

“There were too many strands and every strand was twisted – I stopped believing it because of this 'clottedness'. There was too much plot and drama; just as we were settling into one strand, there are questions raised about another.

“Your mistake in trying to make it plot-driven was to introduce more plot when what you need is less but better plot. You need to slim down the many elements, tease out a simpler but deeper story.”

The bright side

“You write really really well, with genuine wit, originality and charm. Straightaway there is the sense of feeling relaxed with the text that comes with confidence in the author.

“You have the potential to write with real depth, no doubt about it – you have created great characters and dynamics between them.

“With your ability to write, and the ideas here, you have the makings of a really really impressive novel.”

Last but not least

“Revision can be harder than starting over. If you do decide to rework this story, it might be best to show the revision to someone who hasn't seen the original, but I’d be very pleased to see a new story from you.”