A lot of readers have dreams of writing their own novel some day. Writing a book is one thing, but getting a manuscript published is a whole new ball game. On many occiassions I have been asked “How did you get published?”, so I thought I’d put some thoughts into this blog…

Unless you’re a famous footballer or disgraced cricketer, or unless you’ve sailed solo around the world in a rubber boat, you will need something other than a great manuscript to attract the major publishers to you….  While every published writer has their own story about that illustrious “first time”, for me – a complete nobody – there were four critical steps that helped get the attention of publishers…

First, I studied the craft of fiction – not via formal courses, but by reading dozens of similar style novels. I learnt the conventions and the rules, and I obeyed them.

Second, I had my manuscript assessed – several times. It cost more than I’ve made back in royalties thus far, but I was never in it for the money. I knew there was a brilliant story in me, and I was prepared to do whatever it took to dig it out.

Third, I did my research and learnt everything I could about the mountain into which I was trying to dig. Most publishers don’t like to see the same manuscript more than once, so I made sure each approach was thoroughly planned. But of course, this isn’t what did it. I still got rejections - lots of them - and I finally realised that in the age of Big Brother and Australian Idol, there was only one other way… And no, it didn’t involve having sex on camera or belting out a tune!

In 2004 I entered my manuscript in the Victorian Premier’s Literary Awards and was lucky enough to be short listed. From there Thompson-Walker contacted me and asked if I was interested in singing up. We then spent twelve months developing Head Shot into what it is today.

And you know what, I’m glad it took so long because if at any time during those five years somebody offered to publish my manuscript, I would have signed up. Like most emerging writers, I was desperate to be published. Sure, my book might have been in print much sooner, but the final product would have been sloppy. In the end, going through what seemed like endless revision, and spending my hard earned cash on manuscript assessments, achieved far more than I would have on my own.

With Blood Sunset it was a similar story. I put the manuscript through three rounds of professional assessment and revision, then entered it in the Australian/Vogel Awards, and was lucky enough to achieve a short listing. That put me in touch with Allen & Unwin, who said they were interested in the book, but only if I reworked it further… Remember, this was after it had already received a short list. At this stage there was no committment, no contract… But i was as close as I’d ever been, so I reworked the story, then went back to them with a very polished manuscript….

And the rest, as they say, is history….  Good luck everyone!

To help keep Blood Sunset on the shelves, and if you want to see more of Detective Rubens McCauley, please SMS “BLOOD” to 13 46 88.

 Good morning readers and writers!

As a crime writer I’m always interested in how other authors portary crime scene in their work… I’m interested in hearing what you think about the depiction of crime scenes and in particular, forensic detail…

Sometimes it seems writers appear hell bent on dazzling us with every last detail, as if that in itself makes us compelled to continue reading, whereas others avoid crime scenes all together. For me, both miss the mark in equal measures. Crime scenes offer an excellent opportunity to develop and introduce characters, plant and find evidence, set up plot and establish mood. As for procedure and authenticity, I am a fan of getting it right, but I also prefer quality over quantity.

In my humble opinion, forensic science is an important element in crime fiction, but it should always keep a story moving. It should never slow it down. Unless the plot points in a story rest solely on specific forensic detail, which can often occur in real life crime, I think it’s far better in fiction to include a few carefully placed details here and there than to lay the technical jargon on thick and fast. Readers are more likely to enjoy (and remember) a crime scene that is alive with emotion, dialogue and character interaction than one which is clogged with excessive detail.

Of course, we do need to have a thorough understanding of who attends a crime scene and what their respective functions are, but we don’t need to put all of this into our writing. The same applies to post-crime scene depictions, such as those in the autopsy suite. If you don’t work in forensics or law enforcement, this must be learned by researching your subject matter, which is the easy part. Applying it to your writing… that’s the hard part.

So how do you get the balance right? This is a question I often get asked in my workshops… The answer isn’t easy, but then again, nothing about writing is easy! Here’s a hint… Try a variant on the classic “rule of three”. Pick three key elements in the scene you want to portray, and do your best to describe them in a few short sentences. For most readers, this will be enough to create a mental image. Then, focus on one particular element and let your characters show the reader what is happening. Use dialogue and monologue, internal and external conflict, and top it all off with carefully placed points of forensic detail.

Not only will this demonstrate the authenticity of your writing, but it shows that you know how to use science to its best potential, allowing it to advance your story, build up characterisation and enhance mood, all without bombarding the reader with needless forensic detail.

So there you have it. The low down on forensic detail. What do you guys think?

www.jaradhenry.com.au