...It isn’t real.
Yeah, I know that’s kinda obvious, but
some of the people who have read Gray Justice don’t seem to realise this.
Let’s start at the
beginning.
In July 2010 I had the seed of
an idea and an empty Word document, and the first thing I needed was a main
character.
Male or female? Hmm, good
question. I thought about it for a while and decided that as the
protagonist would have an SAS background, I would go with male.
Next, a name. How about
Clint Power? Max Thrust? Trenton Steele? Actually, why not go
with a normal name? Okay, Dave…Sid…Tom… yeah, Tom. Tom what?
Tom Savage!! No, something run of the mill that doesn’t build the guy up
as a super hero. Something bland, something…Gray!
Tom Gray!
Okay, so I have the seed of an
idea, which is that someone loses a loved one to a repeat offender and sees the
punishment handed down by the court as derisory. What should he do?
I know! He starts a
petition to demand tougher sentencing guidelines. He goes on Facebook and
Twitter and amasses a million followers and they all sign the petition and it
goes before parliament and he’s standing outside Number Ten waving a placard
and…
No. Where’s the
story? Where’s the action, the intrigue? He could trip over a
couple of times because he made the placard too big, or…
Stop! That isn’t going to
work. He has to do something unique. This is supposed to be a story
that grabs readers and takes them somewhere they’ve never been. It
shouldn’t read like a few column inches in The Guardian. He could mow
down the killer, or kidnap and torture him, or…
Right, that’s enough,
Alan! Here’s a hundred bucks, go buy yourself a proper imagination!
What would Stephen King do in
this situation? I read Misery, and that was a good book. A woman
finds an injured author, her favourite author, and takes him back to her
home. Okay, that’s the first couple of chapters. What happens
next? Does she call an ambulance and have him taken to hospital? If
she’d done that, it would have been King’s shortest and worst story EVER!
Instead, she breaks his ankles to stop him escaping and makes him write a novel
about her favourite character, one that doesn’t see the heroine die.
Possibility of that
happening? Slim to none is my guess, but it made for great
entertainment. I was reading it and wondering “How is he going to get out
of this?”
Okay, another few light years
and I’ll still be a million miles from Stephen King, but that’s the kind of
thing you need to give an audience. Put the protagonist in an unheard of
situation and have the reader wonder how they could possibly come through the
other end.
Okay, got it. He kidnaps
not just the killer, but four other repeat offenders and holds them in a
disused warehouse. He tells the government that he wants tougher
sentencing or his hostages die.
Hmm, it’s missing
something. The authorities would soon locate him, if they even gave a
shit about the criminals in the first place. So we need a
deterrent. What could possibly stop the police wanting to rush the
place? Think! Think! I know, he’s planted a bomb somewhere,
and if they kill him, the bomb will go off!
Now we’re getting somewhere.
Yeah, a standoff. He’s got
the hostages, and the police won’t make a move. So now what? What has Tom
achieved? Nothing. The news channels will report about a hostage
situation, but Tom’s grievances are falling on deaf ears. The police and
politicians might sympathise after what he’s been through, but it all boils down
to him committing a criminal act.
Tom needs to reach the people,
but how? He builds a website and streams video of the hostages, and tells
the government that they mustn’t interfere with it, otherwise…What? And
how long is this going to go on for?
Let’s go back to the start.
We need to make Tom a man with nothing left to lose. Okay, his wife,
overcome with grief at the loss of their son, takes her own life. We
still have the problem of a timescale, though. Is this going to go on
forever? And where’s the government’s incentive to play ball?
Got it! Tom will reveal
the location of the device on Friday, then take his own life! He now has
nothing to lose, so why not? But what will he have achieved by
then? Think, Alan!
I know! He wants to change
the sentencing guidelines, but he thinks the government won’t listen. Why
not let the people of Britain vote on the changes? They can ignore one
lunatic, but not the entire population! Let the people speak!
All we need now is a set of
changes he wants to make, but we have to bear in mind who is creating
them. This is a simple ex-soldier, not a politician. Successive
governments have had numerous experts working on the perfect judicial system
and it still isn’t quite there, so it would be crazy to have Tom come up with
the perfect solution. It wouldn’t be in keeping with the character I’m
trying to create. Instead, I’ll just have to give him a bunch of
unworkable ideas and throw in some counter arguments to balance things
out.
Should I mention rehabilitation
and crime prevention as possible solutions, or attacking the root of the
problem at an early stage through school workshops and the like? Would
anyone in Tom’s situation think like that, or would they just be damn angry and
want to see the criminals punished? I’ll err on the side of the latter.
So, that’s the process. I
think of situations for my characters, I give them the appropriate
personalities and opinions, and let them get on with it.
Anyway, back to the purpose of
this post: Some people seem to think that Tom’s thoughts and ideals are
actually a reflection of MY feelings towards the British judicial system (here's a classic example).
If you’re among that number, then you must also assume that Stephen King condones
the kidnapping and hobbling of injured authors! Is that what you really
think?
So please, when you read this
book, just remember it’s a work of FICTION! Whether you agree or disagree
with Tom’s ideals or methods is entirely up to you, but your argument will be
with a fictional character.
