Murder mystery news: A Contrite Heart published

I'm a big fan of murder mysteries, and write them when I'm not working on my popular science titles. The latest (book eight!) in the series of Stephen Capel mysteries is now out, called A Contrite Heart.

In it, the election of a new MP for Bath disturbs the village of Thornton Down where two of the candidates have recently moved in. Vicar Stephen Capel struggles with a moral dilemma when his best friend asks him to place listening devices in the candidates' homes for the security service - and things spiral out of control when a would-be MP is killed.

What begins as a murder investigation involving Capel's newly promoted wife, Detective Sergeant Vicky Denning, becomes a race against time to save a woman's life.

Writing fiction is a very different experience from writing popular science - I enjoy it just as much and hope that you will find the book interesting too.

What fascinates me about the fiction process is the way that characters evolve as the book is written. In this case, what started out as a minor character, introduced to fill in while another was out of action, expanded to become a significant player. Not only that, this character's development brought almost fully formed the plot of the next book in the series into my mind: I'm having to fight myself not to start on this already.

With a non-fiction title, the main contents are mostly plotted out ahead of time, where fiction seems to evolve far more organically. Admittedly, when writing popular science, there can be developments in the science itself that take a book in a new direction. And even when writing about the past, it's not uncommon to uncover new material while the book is being written that can change the shape of the writing. But because it's not possible to think of characters in fiction without endowing them to some extent with personalities that can drive a storyline, there is a different kind of evolutionary process in action.

Take a look on my website for more details on the book and the chance to buy a copy.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog