DO I WRITE WHAT I KNOW?

 

That choice is personal to you, but I always say that you shouldn’t make it unnecessarily hard for yourself.

I did an event once with Anne Perry, who had written many historical novels, and someone asked the question about how we decided on our themes. I made some glib comment about writing what you know, and it was an easy answer for me, being a criminal lawyer writing crime fiction. Anne Perry snarled at me, told me I was being ridiculous, that you research, research, research (which I will deal with on the next page).

 

It was a brief snarl, because for the rest of the time she was quite bonkers and funny, but as she was a convicted murderer in real life, I took the snarl seriously (for those who don't know, in real life she was the person Kate Winslet played in Heavenly Creatures).

The point I was making, however, was that you might not have the luxury of being a full-time writer, who can spend days and days doing your research, so why make it hard for yourself?

Not just that, but you’ll get things wrong.

 

I have been a solicitor specialising in criminal law for thirty years, and I write legal thrillers, but there have still been some moments when I’ve thought I was right on a point of law, but not one hundred percent sure. The disadvantage you’ll have, however, is that I might get something obscure wrong, spotted only by a specialist in that field of criminal law, whereas you might get something very simple wrong.

This is how it works.

Let’s say you’re a bus driver and you want to write a thriller? If so, why write a legal thriller or a police procedural? You’ll spend more time researching than you will writing, and if you have a job, your time is precious. And despite the many hours of research, you’ll still get it wrong. I’ve seen so many of the so-called “British John Grisham” appear, including one who was actually billed as that, and realised pretty quickly that they didn’t know their subject.

If you’re a bus driver, why not write a story about a bus driver who sees a murder being committed, but no one will believe them because they’re just a bus driver, so they have to investigate it themselves? Your lack of knowledge can be your strength. And as a reader who isn't a bus driver, I'd be interested in knowing what it's like to be a bus driver.

The more obscure the subject, the easier it is to get away with errors, of course. My mantra is that the amount of research you should do is entirely proportionate to the amount of people who will know you have got it wrong, so focus on the big stuff.

If you want to write a novel set in Ancient Rome, for example, make sure the emperor matches the year, and that the buildings are in the right places, but don’t fret the small stuff. Provided you can tolerate the odd email from some professor in Roman history saying, “they didn’t put brass plates on the chariots until thirty years after the year your novel was set”, no one will know or care.

The big stuff though? Get it right. Don’t write a novel about a courtroom artist and have them sketching away in the courtroom, because they’re not allowed to do that. Don’t have your murder suspect listening to a tub-thumping application for bail in the magistrates court, because people charged with murder can't apply for bail in the magistrates court.

I don’t mean that you shouldn't try something that involves lots of research, because the research can also be fun. I was asked to take part in a short story compilation by Lancashire Libraries, and I set my story in Preston in 1842, because it’s the city in which I live, and it was fascinating to research how Preston was then compared to how it is today. Just be aware that the less the story is within your own field, the more likely it is you'll get it wrong. There is zero chance of me writing a medical thriller or a spy thriller, for that very reason.

Whatever your field is, or your interest or location, or whatever it is, use it to your advantage. Use your own knowledge.

It is tempting, though, to follow a trend. Well, read on and find out.