Just been interviewed by Phil Trow and Michelle Adamson on the Breakfast Show on Radio Manchester about writing and specifically about ‘Line of Duty’ concluding on Sunday.
Now, I’m not a crime writer, but I am riveted to this series (the first of these I have watched by the way!)
Endings. Does a Writer always have the ending in place? For me, yes, but I know others who don’t. I map the story out, but I am also flexible about it. For Crime, I’d say it’s pretty imperative.
If you know the ending, you can lay the clues on the way to it. If you know the ending, you can flow towards it. If you know the ending, it keeps you, the writer, focused. It’s like ‘All roads lead to Rome.’ It helps to know the ending.
The ending mustn’t be by chance. It must make sense. The reader/viewer/listener must feel satisfied. The right end for the characters and the crime. This is what is important, what is right for the characters. And it’s great if people go away and discuss and talk about it.
In a long running series, story lines will overlap. I haven’t seen previous series of Line of Duty and I feel that murder cases are going to link up in the final episode. Is this fair? Should a series be complete in itself?
Maybe because I am more interested in Roz Huntley than who is Balaclava Man, and the crimes and characters have on going lives, then I find this gives added depth. Great plotting.
What do you think?