David Craig's Blog

Challenges of writing the sequel

Lord of the Hunt (Sooty Feathers #2), sequel to my debut novel, Resurrection Men, has just been released by Elsewhen Press.

As such, I thought I'd briefly talk about some of the challenges in writing a sequel.

Firstly, there's the question of how much to refer to the previous book's events. Even assuming most people have read the previous book(s), some time may have passed, and it's always good to refresh people's memories. Also, the previous book's events should have shaped the characters to some degree, so it is natural for them to reflect on those events.

But there's the risk of too much exposition at the start of the sequel. So it's best to be brief and drip-feed musings on the earlier book(s).

Another danger I found was that as I feature multiple point-of-view characters, the same events are recapped more than once, which risks irritating the reader. One way to minimise this is to show that the same events affected each character differently. Perhaps they have a different recollection of that event, or took a different meaning from it?

With the sequel, particularly if it's not the last book in the series, there's the risk of there being no beginning or end. I (hopefully) avoided this in Lord of the Hunt by having a self-contained plot in the book that builds on the larger story, but is also resolved to some degree. The Sooty Feathers series is intended to be a quartet, but I want each book to tell a distinct story rather than be just one big story chopped into four books.

I felt it important to wrap up Lord of the Hunt's story, and while it developed the 'hook' at the end of Resurrection Men, I also included a hook (but not a cliffhanger) to hopefully draw readers to book 3 when it's written and (I hope!) published.

When revisiting old characters, I was conscious of the potential for them to become two-dimensional, for them to face no further development than they experienced in the previous book. Or becoming a caricature of themselves. To avoid this, it's important to spend time on each character, even if in that particular book there's not a lot for them to do.

The friendship between Hunt and Foley is an important part of the overall story, but I want it to evolve over the books. Will it be tested, will it endure?

New novel release news

It's been a busy few (ten) months, what with the birth of my daughter and the publication of my debut novel, Resurrection Men .

My second novel, Thorns of a Black Rose , will be released on the 26th July, published by Elsewhen Press! As ebook, anyway. The paperback is scheduled for release in October, at FantasyCon in Glasgow, which I'll be attending.

Thorns of a Black Rose is an epic fantasy novel, following a mage (Shukara), a young thief (Tamira) and a desert ranger (Jassan) in a land inspired by north Africa. Their quest will take them from the intrigues of the ancient city of Mask to the perilous Kavari Desert, to a reckoning with the Black Rose assassins.

The publisher's press release: https://elsewhen.press/index.php/2019...

The ebook is now available for pre-order for anyone interested. As always, I'm happy to discuss or answer any questions.

Writing social values in historical fiction

One of the potential pitfalls of writing fiction in certain periods is how to acknowledge social values no longer compatible with contemporary values. With fiction set in the 19th century, there runs the risk of glorifying imperialism/colonialism. Does the writer give their protagonists modern social values with regards to issues like racism/sexism/feminism etc? To do so runs the risk of losing the reader's sense of immersion. To ignore these issues altogether risks 'whitewashing' history or hand-waving over certain demographics being second-class citizens. Homosexuality was a crime, and certain ethnic groups faced persecution and even genocide. But to give the protagonists period values risks alienating them from the reader. Or attracting an unsavoury reader-base.

These were concerns I had when writing Resurrection Men, a gothic/historical urban fantasy/supernatural mystery set in 1893 Glasgow. Glasgow's location on the west coast, served by a large river, led to it being heavily involved in trade (such as tobacco) with the American colonies pre-revolution. In the following century it was heavily involved in industries such as shipbuilding and the textile industry, and was known as the 2nd City of the British Empire. The Irish potato famine and the Highland Clearances led to a large influx of immigrants desperate for homes and work.

There are streets today still named after people involved in the slave trade, or plantation locations (Glassford Street, Jamaica Street, Virginia Street).
(On the flip side, in 1986 Glasgow demonstrated its support for ending South African apartheid by naming a street after then-imprisoned Nelson Mandela – ‘coincidently’ the same street the South African Consulate was located on, to their ire.)

Including active, interesting female characters in a time and place where women had little agency was challenging, but doable. A powerful undead female character isn’t an issue, as giving her disrespect is pretty much suicide-by-vampire. My solution for mortal female characters not capable of separating a misogynist’s head from his shoulders with their bare hands was Lady Delaney. Independently wealthy, she has spent a couple of decades quietly fighting the undead and their servants, driven by vengeance. In part sexism aids her, as a woman would not be thought a likely insurgent in the eyes of the (mostly male) secret society running the city on behalf of the undead. Indeed, she takes a leadership role later in the novel, overriding her male companions’ objections by pointing out she’s the most experienced, and the one with the resources to carry out their mission; if they don’t like it, they can walk to their destination.

A minor female protagonist (Kerry) is introduced to the supernatural world and plays a much larger role in the in-progress sequel. In Resurrection Men she’s forbidden to take part in a mission due to her inexperience, but the reader should be able to discern the double-standards in that a male protagonist takes part despite having little fighting experience either.

The protagonist's Hunt's mother is what I would regard as strong, running her family shipping business while her husband focuses on his own career. She's certainly determined and strong-willed, not that Those traits are necessarily easy for her son.

Which takes us to toxic masculinity. I didn’t consciously set out to address this but found myself indirectly referencing it. As a man, the above mentioned inexperienced male protagonist (Hunt) is expected to fight, despite being untrained. Several times in the novel I use this character to highlight that people new to dangerous situations are typically not clear-headed; fear and adrenalin can affect the mind and decision-making. But he’s a man, so he’s expected to fight and would lose face in declining.

Male toxicity is further explored in the friendship between the above protagonist, Hunt, and his friend Foley. Hunt knows Foley has issues (what we would recognise now as depression, including suicidal thoughts) but they never discuss it. Foley self-medicates with alcohol and laudanum, which Hunt knows but again lets continue unremarked. Later, Hunt suffers through traumatic events, but this is never addressed by the characters. Again, alcohol is seen as the cure. Both Hunt and Foley are aware of the other’s issues, but the notion that men should be strong and not discuss their problems is prevalent, leading to substance misuse.

Homosexuality. Sexuality isn’t explored to any great extent in the novel, but homosexuality is slightly referenced through two characters. The first is a fairly minor character, rumoured to prefer men, largely due to being unmarried, active and owning a big house. He’s quite big in the social scene, sociable, assumed to be very wealthy, so the natural assumption at that time would be that if he’s not married then he doesn’t like women. The character’s sexuality is never confirmed; he may or may not be gay, but regardless, there are a couple of explanations for him being unmarried (except spoilers). A secondary protagonist is also indirectly inferred to be gay (or perhaps bisexual), but this is not explored or confirmed in Resurrection Men. It is something that may resurface in the sequels, if it serves the plot or character development.

Prejudice. At that time there was a lot of prejudice against Irish immigrants and Catholicism (a sectarian divide which still troubles the west of Scotland today). These prejudices are mentioned in the book, and if not challenged by any of the characters, the reader can make their own judgements. A character displays prejudice towards ‘gypsies’ (Irish travellers) which while not directly challenged, leads to this character being blinded to the real threat.

While many of the characters live a relatively comfortable life, others enjoying a very privileged life, I made sure to highlight the vast divide between the rich and poor of Glasgow, describing in some detail the awful conditions endured by most of the people at that time. The minor female protagonist (Kerry) referenced above is from a poor background, and in the sequel we see the social inequality through her eyes. The sequel also explores the exploitation of child labour that was endemic in Victorian Glasgow. A consequence of the failed 18th century Jacobite uprisings was the persecution/destruction of Highland communities, and this is also explored in the sequel. How successful I’ve been is for each reader to decide.

For the writers reading this, did you find yourself with a similar problem writing characters in a time with different values, wanting to keep them true to the time but still sympathetic? For the readers, what books do you feel did this well, or perhaps not so well?

Books you know the author loved writing

You can tell, can't you, those books the author in question just loved writing, the enthusiasm jumping off the page. Especially when you read their later works that may be more technically proficient, better structured, but just lack that special something.

Off the top of my head I can think of three books that fall into this category:

Magician, by Raymond E Feist. His first novel, and you can tell he enjoyed writing it, especially compared to later novels in the series that felt more by the numbers.


The Sword of Shannara, by Terry Brooks. This novel is rather infamous in fantasy circles, written in the late '70s, selling a lot of copies, and bearing certain similarities to The Lord of the Rings.

I mistakenly read the prequel novel, First King of Shannara first, written years after Sword and its early sequels. First King was nothing special, certainly was readable, but when I then read Sword of Shannara, I immediately felt the reader's love for the book. Brooks clearly enjoyed writing it, and that enthusiasm allowed me to forgive the similarities to LOTR.


Star Wars: Heir to the Empire, by Timothy Zahn. This book is largely cherished by Star Wars fans, and in my opinion slightly more than it deserves, given some of its flaws. Namely the author's own characters tend to overshadow the main SW characters such as Luke, Leia and Han somewhat. But what is undeniable is that you can almost sense the author thinking, "I'm writing Star Wars!!!" That enthusiasm for the work is evident throughout the book.

What books have you read that you just felt captured the author's enthusiasm?

Writing a novel - Gardener or Architect

There are essentially two types of writer - the gardener and the architect.

The architect plans out the novel, working out what happens prior to writing it. The gardener mostly wings it, starting with some ideas and seeing how the story goes as they write it.

At its extreme, an architect will structure the story and plot out every detail, essentially like a real architect painstakingly planning a house. A gardener will do minimal planning, making it up as they go along.

Both approaches have their pros and cons.

The advantage of the architect approach is that the writer knows every detail of the story before they even begin, and can ensure the pace of the story isn't too fast or too slow. The writer remains in control of the story.

A disadvantage is that there is the risk of the story feeling sterile, almost paint by numbers. The characters can feel like their being directed by the plot rather than the other way round. Instead of helping the story, the plan can restrict it from growing.

An advantage of the gardener approach is that the story can feel more natural, more fluid. The writer can almost let the characters decide the plot, can get in their heads and let them direct it. It can feel more organic.

Disadvantages of the gardener approach is that the writer can lose control of the story, can find plot strands that lead nowhere, and the story can very quickly grow out of control. The pacing can suffer as here's no real structure to the story, and the plot may play second fiddle to subplots springing out of nowhere.

There's no real right or wrong way, everyone writes differently. In my opinion it's probably best to strike a balance between the two.

I'm more of an architect, but I don't nail down every detail. I start off writing down some basic details as they come to me, and then do a basic chapter map, roughly summarising the events of that chapter. Sometimes it's only a couple of lines, other times it can be a couple of paragraphs. I try to only nail down what I need to happen in the chapter, so when I write that chapter there is still freedom for it to grow organically. Sometimes what I think will be half a chapter can grow to two chapters.

When writing, what are you?

The Problem with Big Fantasy Epics

Are fans of massive fantasy epics losing patience with the delays between books? And are the resolutions of those actually finished poorly received?

Delays between volumes of fantasy epics are nothing new. The first volume in Stephen King's Dark Tower series, The Gunslinger, was released in 1982, the final volume of the main series was released in 2004. King's near-brush with death was the catalyst for him quickly finishing the final three volumes. Certain elements weren't well received, such as King including himself in the final two volumes, and the ending was greeted with a certain amount of dissatisfaction by a lot of fans.

With large multi-book epics, there are generally two ways of doing it. They can either be one massive tale told over multiple books like Jordan's The Wheel of Time and Martin's A Song of Ice & Fire, or be broken down into smaller sub-series, such as Feist's Riftwar Cycle and Abercrombie's First Law universe. Lynch's Gentlemen Bastards sequence is a series of generally standalone books that tell a larger tale, and Gemmell's Drenai books are a series of standalone novels that were written out of chronological order, and are generally standalone, but are linked.

The problem with the sprawling epic is that the books can take a long time to write. The Wheel of Time's first book of 14 (excluding prequel A New Spring) came out in 1990, and author's death meant that another author had the largely thankless task of writing what became the final three books which came out in 2013. The books initially came out every year, but this later became every two years, and fan frustration mounted with the growing number of point of views slowing the pace, and the perception that less was happening in each book. This peaked with Crossroads of Twilight, a complaint being that very little happened despite the length of the book. The following volume was better received, the last one fully written by Jordan.

A Song of Ice & Fire has drawn ire from fans due to not only the long wait between books (three published since 2000 and no date yet for the penultimate volume). And again, some readers felt the previous two books weren't as good as the initial three volumes.

The final Wheel of Time volume met with a mixed reception, some feeling a lot happened that Jordan wouldn't have written, and that the ending was quite abrupt, with little learned about the post-battle fates of the survivors, or even an emotional pay-off.
A Song of Ice & Fire is still two volumes away from ending (though at least the TV series ends next year) so we've no way of knowing if the ending will be worth the decades-long duration of the series.

In my opinion, the problem with one big story being told across so many volumes is that the transition from the "2nd act" to the "3rd and final act" is that there's usually a bit of a slowdown as the plotlines manoeuvre the characters towards the climax. When this transition lasts a two or three large novels, there can be a feeling that 'nothing's happening' or that the author has lost control of the story.

Increasingly, fantasy fans are expressing wariness towards starting a series that is not finished or nearing completion. A selling point of Rothfuss' Kingkiller Chronicles was that the trilogy was essentially a very large novel, that it was pretty much done (barring editing) and that fans burned by other series not finishing or not nearing completion could start book one in the knowledge that books two and three would be out a year apart.
That didn't quite work out, the claim that volumes two and three were pretty much done and would be out a year apart was 'optimistic' to say the least. Book two came out four years after book one, and book three's completion and release is looking uncertain.

Lynch's Gentlemen Bastard series has also seen a lengthy delay between releases, but the generally standalone nature of the books in addition to the author's publicly announced personal problems has garnered him more support and understanding.

Another way of structuring fantasy series is to break the story into smaller series, that tell a complete story but can also build up towards a greater whole.

An example is Fiest's Riftwar books. Leaving aside the perceived decline in quality later in the series, the mini-arcs work quite well. The series is comprised of a number of trilogies, duologies and a quartet that largely tell their own story over many decades while still telling one big story. The final volume also shows an improvement in quality over many of its preceding volumes, and succeeds in wrapping the story up. An advantage of this piecemeal approach is that readers don't have to wait decades for resolution. His first book came out in 1982, the final book came out thirty-one years later; had the series been one big long story rather than multiple smaller arcs, the expectations for the finale would have been too high to meet. As it is, one can read the first trilogy and still get closure.

Abercrombie's First Law universe is broken down into a trilogy, three standalones (and a volume of short stories), with another trilogy due out soon. An advantage of this approach is fans aren't waiting decades for a story to be finished.

In years past, fans may have been willing to wait years or never for a story to end, but now there's more of a feeling of impatience, of discontent with large delays, especially if they prove indefinite.

But what can authors do? Many authors have full-time jobs and so are limited. Should authors finish the series before releasing the first volume? But who will write a multi-book volume, taking the chance it may never find a publisher?

Should writers temper their ambitions and stick to shorter series' that won't take as long to write? It should be noted the Wheel of Time was originally meant to be six volumes, and likewise Martin underestimated the length of A Song of Ice & Fire. And if the books sell well (which these books have), publishers will be happy to keep them going.

My own preference as a writer is to break my plots down into smaller arcs, so I can give resolutions either in the same book or after a couple of books, telling a larger story over multiple trilogies etc. That way, if I never finish the whole big plot, readers are still getting closure.

Was The Wickerman's Sgt Howie a rubbish policeman, and other randomness

The Wickerman: Occurred to me the other day that the West Highland Constabulary's Police Sergeant Howie's police work needs some improvement. The plot involves a policeman searching the Pagan isle of Summerisle for a missing girl whom he suspects will be sacrificed to the old gods to ensure a good harvest.

So our intrepid lawman searches high and low for the missing girl - but fails to notice a giant wickerman built on a hill just along the road from the village?

Jurassic Park films: So they built a very expensive dinsosaur theme park on an island (twice) but no one thought to check the volcano for activity first? Even had the events of the fourth film not happened, the park would still have had to shut down.

Indiana Jones: The world's most pointless hero? In both Raiders and the Last Crusade, Indy might as well have gone on vacation. As has been pointed out before, he had no impact on the plot of Raiders; had he not been involved, the Nazis would have still found the Ark and still died on opening it. In the Last Crusade, even if the (again) Nazis found the Grail and even managed to choose the correct cup, they couldn't remove it from the temple, and so would have either lived forever trapped, or been forced to leave and eventually die.
Okay, in Temple of Doom Indy prevents the bad guys from gaining ultimate power with the stones. I can't remember if Indy made any difference in the fourth film, and I'm not up for re-watching it to find out!

Blade Runner 2049: A good film, albeit too long, but we're supposed to buy that the resistance managed to wipe out all data everywhere? Every backup, every memory stick, every hard drive?

Skyfall (spoilers): The one Bond film where the bad guy completes his victory conditions, and wins.

Writing a sequel, and its problems

After years of writing, redrafting, and submitting my debut novel, Resurrection Men
, to publishers and agents, I finally found someone (Elsewhen Press) willing to publish my book. Which came out this year in ebook and paperback.

That done, I turned to the sequel.

One issue with writing a sequel is how often should I reference events in the previous book. This is necessary to some extent, to refresh those who've not read the original in a while, or to inform those who skipped book 1 altogether.

But the events of book 1 were a big deal for all the characters, and it's natural for them to dwell on those events to some degree. Unfortunately, I've found several characters reflect on the same events and worry I may have overdone it. When it's time to do the 2nd draft, I can cull those reminiscences that are surplus to requirement.

A second problem is that the first book has been well received by those who've read it so far, and the sequel has a lot to live up to. Will it be as good as the original? Unfortunately I won't know that until it's finished!

Already I'm getting to planned chapters and deciding "Dull ... cut", which can be a good thing. If I'm bored writing it, people will be bored reading it.

Unlike Resurrection Men, at least half of this book is set outside of Glasgow, in a real, remote area of Glasgow that I've fictionalised where necessary. Sketching a map has helped plan the chapters set here.

At time of writing, I'm just over a quarter through the first draft of the sequel (working title Ashwood). All going well, it should be 'finished' by the end of next year.

Sci-fi and Horror - two sides of the same coin?

It occurred to me recently that while films like Alien are a blend of horror and sci-fi, many of the classic horror stories shared this trait.

Frankenstein is the story of a man using science to try and cheat death, not that his creation has any reason to thank him. It's a cautionary tale about scientific advancements without considering moral and ethical issues. Frankenstein succeeds in bringing a man back from the dead, but doesn't stop to consider whether he should, or what the consequences will be.

While some of the stories are cautionary tales about scientific advancement, Dracula is the opposite. On one hand there is Dracula, coming to the (then) modern world of Victorian London from Transylvania, a land portrayed as shrouded in superstition. On the other there is Van Helsing and the others, using science to survive and fight back.

The heroes try to save Lucy using blood transfusions, albeit the author doesn't seem to know about blood groups, as several men donate blood to try and keep Lucy alive. Which makes me wonder if she died from Dracula's repeated feeding, or from receiving incompatible blood!

Early on, the protagonists are at a disadvantage as they know nothing of supernatural beings such as Dracula, but later on it is Dracula who is disadvantaged by the modern world, the protagonists using Lloyds of London to track Dracula's flight back to Transylvania.

In the end, Dracula is killed by Quincy, an American who represents the new world of America as opposed to the old Europe.

Some modern sci-fi horror stories also portray science as either the saviour or villain. I'd consider the film Alien a horror despite its sci-fi trappings. The prospect of studying the alien blinds the android to the risks, and the crew pays the price. This is a common theme throughout the franchise, with the highers-up willing to sacrifice lives to get their hands on the 'ultimate weapon'.

Blade Runner in many ways is a thematic follow-up to Frankenstein (albeit with few horror elements), depicting the reckless creation of life while not taking true responsibility for it. And like Frankenstein's monster, the replicants aren't willing to take their abandonment lying down.

Grounding a fantasy in reality

My first novel, Resurrection Men, is set in Glasgow 1893, and is an urban fantasy/supernatural thriller.

To keep Resurrection Men grounded despite the supernatural elements, I tried to make my depiction of 19th century Glasgow as authentic, using real places wherever possible.

Firstly, the St Mungo Cathedral. It was built in the late 12th century and was the only Scottish mainland medieval cathedral to survive the Reformation intact. Lead bullets can be seen in the old oak doors leading to the vestibule.

It is still in use as a church by the Church of Scotland. It's open to the public.

At its back sits the (northern) Necropolis, which also features in the novel. Opened in 1833, this gothic cemetery has seen approx. 50,000 burials and has about 3500 tombs. Many of Glasgow's wealthy citizens were buried here.

The Southern Necropolis, located in the Gorbals, features at the start of the novel. It opened in 1840 due to lack of space in the parish churchyards. I chose this cemetery for the locale of Chapter One's bodysnatching due to an urban myth that the Gorbals Vampire dwelled inside in 1954, which saw local children turning up at the cemetery to hunt it.

To be continued...