Books for Young Offenders

Because of COVID-19 restrictions, young offenders (and adult prisoners) are having to spend increasing time in their cells, which is not the best scenario for their mental well-being.

Emily Thomas, Governor of HMP/YOI Isis, would welcome gifts of reading matter suitable for 18-25 year-olds, some of whose reading skills may be poor.

If you have books in any of the categories below – because you write, publish, sell or simply own them – that you can part with, it would be great if you could donate them.

General fiction (sci-fi, mystery, ghost stories)

Autobiographies (e.g. sports personalities: Lewis Hamilton, Eddie Jones, Peter Crouch; comedians: Lee Evans, Kevin Hart) 

Young adult fiction, including Harry Potter

Graphic novels (Marvel and DC)

Thrillers & crime novels

DVDs but not 18-rated

 Please avoid explicit material, strong or extremist material, and comic books (Beano type comics).

Please either send yourself, or have them sent direct from bookshops or other retailers, to HMP/YOI Isis, Western Way, Thamesmead, London SE28 0NZ for the attention of Emily Thomas, Governor.

Thank you.

True crime or crime fiction?

With the launch of the first series of Serial in 2014, the true-crime podcast became a recognised new genre – and a popular one: according to Serial’s producers, the first two seasons have been downloaded more than 250 million times. Across the world, further podcasts have re-investigated past crimes, their lure lying in the suggestion that the podcast itself might bring forward fresh witnesses or information that will solve the mystery. Indeed, some podcasts have resulted in new police enquiries, re-trials and even the overturning of a murder conviction.


And so, when my fictional detective DI Grace Fisher was poised to re-open a cold case in my latest novel Wrong Way Home, the temptation to pit her against a true-crime podcaster was irresistible. Freddie Craig and Stories from the Fire was born.


Freddie had to present himself as a reliable guide who will lead his audience on an investigative journey as it happens in real time. The genre demands that he not be fully in command of the cascade of incoming information.

After all, the disingenuous conceit of the true-crime podcast is that, because the narrative is presented as a genuine and subjective response to on-going events, it cannot also be artificially crafted or structured. The supposedly inevitable ambiguities, reversals and shifts in interpretation are assumed to signal an authenticity and immediacy lacking in crime novels, even though such elements serve precisely the same purpose as fictional hooks and twists.

What true-crime podcasts may deliberately conceal is when ‘sexy’ aspects are exaggerated or deliberately withheld for greater effect, and whether inconvenient facts are downplayed or even simply omitted.

Justice can indeed be enormously complex in real life, and the resolution of a true-crime podcast will often remain unpredictable and out of reach, but that won’t stop the audience longing for the best story to turn out to be the true one. Freddie Craig understood that, and exploited it, with fatal results.

A book-less life

I have just spent an inspiring couple of days at the St Hilda’s Crime Weekend. Listening to writers talking, among many other things, about the books they grew up with and that had influenced their own work made me wonder what my life would look like, and who I’d be, if I’d never read any books.

Newnham College

First of all, what else would I have done with all that time? I often had many solitary childhood hours to fill on holidays and weekends in a small village in the Eden Valley. I was happy to read any book that came to hand (I still have the compendium volumes of John Buchan and Leslie Charteris). Otherwise, in pursuit of the most obviously active element in the landscape, I went bird-watching. There wasn’t a lot else to do. I’m not musical and can’t draw. It was only on occasional sufferance that girls were allowed to join in the cricket played on the village green. I could have played more Patience, or sewed or cooked or picked and helped my mother bottle more soft fruit, or taken even longer walks on the fells, but where would I have gone in my mind?


My sense of who my parents and older brothers were was informed by picking up and reading the books they put down. If ever I whined that I was bored, I was told to read a book. Dad liked historical biography and crime fiction. The younger of my two brothers was into 1960s sci-fi and P.G. Wodehouse. While I was ten and eleven, my eldest brother was studying ‘A’ Level English. Desperate to impress him, I struggled to understand Gerard Manley Hopkins and D.H. Lawrence. Most of it went over my head, but the mystery and richness of their language made me long to understand what sort of thinking they were doing when they wrote like that. (My eldest brother remained unimpressed.)

My mother was only an occasional reader, but I first came across the word ‘homosexual’ on the back cover of a Muriel Spark novel she was reading in a hotel room on a trip to London. I was, again, probably aged about ten, so this was before decriminalisation in 1967 and I had to nag her a bit to explain what the word meant, which was itself unusual. I think I tried reading a chapter or two of the novel and didn’t find it terribly interesting, but, because my mother’s taste in fiction was influenced by literary reviews in Sunday newspapers (this was when colour supplements were still new and exciting), I grew up benignly associating the word ‘homosexual’ with a grown-up urban world that seemed chic and smart.

Choosing my own books either on fortnightly visits to the library with my Dad, or spending birthday and Christmas book tokens, became a way to strike out for independence, and so I would deliberately select books none of my family would be likely to read.

There are certain authors (Georgette Heyer!) I will forever associate with certain friends. It was a young man I rather liked at university who encouraged me to read widely across nineteenth-century Russian literature. Anything I have ever learnt since about Russian landscape, art or politics is inevitably coloured by that rather intense period of reading. During the Nixon era, thanks to another boyfriend, I discovered the long-gone Compendium Bookshop in Camden which offered a subversive range of contemporary American writing that has helped prepare me for the current administration.

The Compendium Bookshop

And on and on, until I cannot conceive of who I could possibly be without all the books I’ve read. And even if I could somehow subtract them from my head, I can’t imagine what would have taken their place, not only to fill the time but also to create an alternate understanding of the world and its history, geography, politics, people, relationships and emotions. I certainly can’t believe that I would ever have become a writer of fiction. I suspect I would have branched out from bird-watching and become a naturalist. And then written about that.


Tagged ,

It is a truth universally acknowledged …

My copy of Jane Austen’s Emma is the one I had for English A Level, complete with under-linings and notes scribbled in the margin. I thought then how cunning and ingenious the narrative was, yet, although I dreamt of becoming a novelist, I had no idea I would write crime fiction nor that I might come to see Emma as the first ever novel of psychological suspense.


It’s all about setting a trap for the reader. Once you have finished Emma, it is impossible to read it a second time in the same way. Neither Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca nor Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl can offer any tricks that Austen hadn’t already pulled.

Right on the first page Austen sets out a clear warning that Emma Woodhouse’s cleverness, combined with her sense of entitlement, is going to lead her into unperceived danger – a premise familiar to modern readers of domestic noir.

Of course in Emma’s world the dangers are not violent or criminal – although Frank Churchill’s charm and his fluent and conscience-less ability to lie come pretty close to sociopathic – but it’s clear that for the inhabitants of Highbury the stakes are high. And, as the tension and misery of the various social gatherings increase, there is a feeling that Emma is a young woman in jeopardy – although we fail to see the killer twist ahead.

This is because Austen has fooled us into us into thinking how clever we are to spot how wrong Emma is about what would make Harriet Smith happy, how wilfully blind she remains to Mr Elton’s interpretation of her encouragement; we congratulate ourselves on anticipating the painful lesson Emma inflicts on herself by her rudeness to the garrulous Miss Bates and await the consequences that must follow.

Thus Austen steers us into a complacency as blinkered as Emma’s about our own cleverness – before springing her trap. Once the reader learns (spoiler alert!) that Frank Churchill is secretly engaged to Jane Fairfax, everything changes. Like Emma, we look back and realise how blindly we missed what was hidden in plain sight.

Reading the novel a second time, it becomes deliciously clear just how astonishingly clever and original Austen’s writing is. I am no expert but I suspect this was the first time any novelist had crafted such a concealed narrative twist. The more crime novels I write, the more my admiration for Emma grows.

As it does also for ‘handsome, clever’ Emma Woodhouse. Indeed, I’d like to think that my DI Grace Fisher shares some of Emma’s spirit and enterprise, her ability to make and overcome mistakes. Equally, as happens in Shot Through The Heart, if someone – perhaps a disaffected soldier from the Napoleonic Wars – took his musket and shot five inhabitants of Highbury one Christmas Day, I wouldn’t be surprised if Emma and her investigative team of Mr Knightley and Mrs Weston turned detective and worked through the web of secrets and lies to uncover the truth.

If Jane Austen had lived on for another century or two until the genre flourished, I bet she would have adored crime fiction.

This post originally appeared in CrimeFiles

The Trolley Problem

A runaway streetcar is hurtling down a track and will kill a group of five unsuspecting people in its path. If you could pull a lever and divert the trolley onto a track where only one person will die, would you do that?

Or would you do nothing?


Alternatively, if your only other option was to push a very large man off a bridge into the path of the trolley, knowing that he would die but the trolley would stop, would you do that in order to save five people?

Most people say they’d pull the lever but not push the man off the bridge. But is that the right decision?

And what if the five people were children and the large man very old: would that make a difference?

The ‘Trolley Problem’ is a philosophical problem originally devised in 1967 by Oxford philosopher Philippa Foot and developed further by Judith Thomson at MIT. Among many questions it raises, it asks whether, if moral decisions are about outcomes, we need worry about the manner in which we achieve them; whether a passive decision is less culpable than one requiring action; and whether we take certain decisions because they are ‘right’ or only because then we feel better about ourselves.

The Trolley Problem is an excellent exercise for a crime writer, and expresses the kind of dilemma that DI Grace Fisher has to resolve in my new novel Shot Through The Heart.

Tagged , ,

On the naming of names

Beginning a new novel means dreaming up new characters. Some will play very minor roles, others may evolve to carry the heart of the story, but they all need names.

This will be the third book in a series featuring Detective Inspector Grace Fisher, following on from Good Girls Don’t Die and Shot Through the Heart (published March 2016). When a name for a new character popped easily into my head, but then felt rather too familiar, I realised that I needed to make a list of all the character names I’ve already used – and was amazed to find there are already well over fifty on the list just for these three books.

If I look back over five novels and almost fifty screenplays for film and TV drama, that’s a lot of people I’ve dreamed up. Enough to populate a small village.


Some I can barely remember. Others still feel as vivid as friends or colleagues I’ve lost touch with but who nevertheless remain a part of my life, of me.

Naming characters is an odd business. Often a name just doesn’t sit right, which seems to prevent the character quite coming into focus. When that happens, finally hitting upon the right one feels satisfying and important.

When the police have to name an operation, they apparently consult a list compiled from dog breeds, American rivers, English coastal towns or exotic birds. I have used names connected with Shakespeare’s Globe or Victorian watercolourists, and also, when setting something in Manchester, pulled out a class list for a long-ago school reunion. Once, when requested, I named a character in memory of a friend’s mother: it took a while to find a minor character whom I felt really deserved her name.

Quite often I’ll look at lists of pop, movie or sports stars who were in the news the year a character would have been born – the kind of associations meaningful to my character’s parents – and choose something that helps me to keep in mind the world they were born into, the style and aspirations they were brought up with.

As Alfred Hitchcock is said to have remarked, you have to know what your characters keep in their cupboards (dead bodies, skeletons and all). Their name is what has to be written on the door.


Lies, damned lies and data

At the Theakstons Old Peculier Crime Writing Festival in Harrogate last weekend, I gleaned two very interesting and significant insights into two of my earlier posts –  Which novels ought we to like? and Cooking with data.

The first concerns the data released by Kobo that seems to suggest that the winner of the 2015 Bailey’s Prize, How To Be Both by Ali Smith, was only finished by 34% of readers. However, in print, readers would purchase one of two versions of the novel, each with the book’s two parts in alternate order. Yet someone from Apple told me that digital platforms include both versions, in which case the figure of 34% is highly misleading – and very unfair.


The second insight came from the Harrogate Festival’s amazing interview with screenwriter Paul Abbott. Asked how subscription channels such as HBO or Netflix affected the way he works, he said that Netflix’s policy was to commission work (presumably on the basis of their viewing data), hand over the money, and then not interfere until the drama or series was delivered. Get it wrong, and they’ll never use you again – fair enough. But presumably Netflix are confident enough of the winning combination of their data and the experience and track record of the talent they commission to stand back and not second-guess the creative process. Which supplies one possible answer to the question of what kind of expectations will be placed upon writers by the growing influence of data.

Screenwriter William Goldman is famous for saying of Hollywood that nobody knows anything. But that was before this kind of data meant that subscription channels do know certain kinds of things. If the Netflix approach becomes the working model for commissioning – in film, TV or fiction – then bring it on.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Why is crime fiction addictive?

All sorts of ‘rules’ can be bent or broken when writing genre fiction except one: that the story must confront the genre’s greatest fear. In romantic fiction, for example, it is that love cannot prevail. In crime fiction, it is that the riddle may go unsolved.

All sorts of novels can encompass murder, or be about unlocking the past, confronting secrets, pursuing justice, righting a wrong, revenge, investigating current social and moral concerns, but a crime novel must also solve a puzzle. ‘Perhaps,’ wrote Kate Summerscale in The Suspicions of Mr Whicher, ‘this is the purpose of detective investigations … to transform sensation, horror and grief into a puzzle, and then to solve the puzzle, to make it go away.’

Certainly two other great crime writers would agree. Raymond Chandler described the detective story as a tragedy with a happy ending, while P.D. James spoke of the detective taming the outrageous breach of nature that is crime and restoring society to order and stability by unraveling complexity and containing irrationality. Sometimes the pattern is reversed, and we identify with the perpetrator and wait to see whether we will get away with it. Either way, in choosing crime as a favourite genre, we seek the frisson of risk that the breach will not be resolved, that evil will escape unpunished and we will not be safe.

Our anxiety is pleasurably channeled into how we as readers collude in arriving at the solution to the puzzle. It’s vital that we actively experience that heady mix of transgression, anxiety and satisfaction that makes crime so popular, whether in books, film or television: the question ‘How will all this turn out?’ has to be made to matter to us. The settings, characters, social issues and means of detection will always change, but what must remain is the addictive gratification of teasing out the riddle in tandem with the teller of the story.


It’s clear from the long and distinguished tradition of series protagonists – Holmes, Marlowe, Marple, Warshawski, Rebus, Salander – that readers also desire the satisfaction of repetition. Freud thought that we enjoy the compulsion, conscious or unconscious, to re-live events that were traumatic because, in doing so, we can gain mastery over them. As readers, we have the reassurance of knowing that a familiar central character will crack the riddle while simultaneously we can believe that we’re working it out for ourselves – and maintain the illusion that we might fail.

The crime writer’s ability to never quite let us in on the secret, to create suspense, anxiety or dread by crafting hooks, twists and unexpected reversals or by scattering false leads and withholding information, and in the end to allow us to feel as if we have uncovered the truth for ourselves, is not a matter of superficial puzzle-solving cleverness but of truly understanding the primal pleasure of reading crime fiction.

For, after all, the riddle to be solved is not only ‘outside’: it is also within ourselves. Our greatest fear – glimpsed through the flaws of the greatest detective protagonists – is that we ourselves might not be either safe or good. As in the classic whodunit, we’re all guilty until the killer is unmasked.

This post was originally written for the Crime Readers Association National Crime Reading Month, June 2015.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Which novels ‘ought’ we to like?

Does it matter if a majority of readers give up before they get to the end of a novel that wins a prestigious literary prize? It’s a pretty harsh question, but one raised by the data collected by Kobo and – I can only assume – other ebook retailers.

shortlist Last month I took part in a debate on Amazon and the Civil War for Books with Ellah Wakatama Allfrey, Erica Wagner and Andrew O’Hagan as part the National Conversation, a series of events organised by the Writers’ Centre Norwich.

We all agreed that telling and hearing stories – regardless of the form in which they are told – is intrinsic to human nature, and that perhaps the most pressing current concern is to ensure that everyone, especially new readers, has access to the widest possible range of stories.

I’m particularly interested in how the stories we tell – and how we tell them – will come to be influenced by the data gathered from digital platforms – the Writers’ Centre Norwich invited me to blog about it here. Amazon is reticent about sharing the data they glean from how people use their Kindles, but today’s Guardian carries fascinating data from Kobo about how readers are getting on with the Baileys Prize shortlist (the winner will be announced tonight).

The data shows not merely which of the six novels was the most purchased, but also how some failed to hold their readers’ attention to the end, while others proved un-put-downable. The Bees, a debut novel by Laline Paull, proved the “most gripping”.

I know from many walks on Hampstead Heath with Laline that it was always her intention to write a thriller set in a beehive, and she must be delighted that not only book sales but also the data analytics demonstrate the success of her literary instincts.

Kobo’s data on these six particular novels show that the number of sessions it took to finish reading varied from 17 to 36. This in itself doesn’t matter – whether I want a slow or a fast read is a combination of taste, reading environment and my desire for variety – but data on why (and at which point in the story) readers might abandon a book altogether must surely be of huge interest to publishers and authors. It certainly would be to me.

The publicity given to literary prizes plays a vital role not only in marketing books but also in telling us what books we ‘ought’ to like. Once the cascade of this kind of data really gets underway, should those who award literary prizes start to pay attention to how readers do actually read? It’ll be an interesting, scary and brave debate.

Tagged , , , ,

On being a door-to-door salesman

On Saturday I took part in the awesome KillerReads CrimeFest15 organised by Sam Missingham, Head of Audience Development at HarperCollins. Bloggers, former cops, ex-offenders and dozens of crime and thriller authors – including such legendary names as Ian Rankin, Ann Cleeves and Val McDermid – all took part in online events on Twitter and Facebook and also in store at Waterstones.


My Q&A with Sarah Hilary centred on writing for TV versus writing fiction. The pace on Twitter was fast and furious, and got me thinking about what the most fundamental difference actually is between the two.


And I reckon it’s this: before a script gets anywhere near production, it has to be a sales document in a way that a proposal or first draft of a novel very seldom is. Between a first verbal pitch and the first day of principal photography a screenwriter is grilled many times by different people on what the story is, who the characters are, why they do the things they do, why an audience will engage, etc etc. In other words, a script is a strategic document designed to convince other people it’s a good idea to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds – if not millions – making it, and then to motivate a small village of other highly skilled people to devote months of their time, often far away from home, to bring it to life.


The process has its drawbacks: way too many cooks … As much can go wrong as can go right, but when it all comes together, it’s magic.

And, by the time I deliver a final shooting script, every single line, scene and end-of-part hook has been tested to destruction. As have I as a writer.

In contrast, the freedom and autonomy of fiction, feels – to quote the actress Mrs Patrick Campbell – like the deep, deep peace of the double-bed after the hurly-burly of the chaise-longue. I’m loving it.

And am now working on the follow-up to Good Girls Don’t Die featuring detective Grace Fisher.

Tagged , , , , ,