An excerpt from “Mistaken Identity” – a work in progress

The odds of any one of us having a doppelganger are quite high. Whether or not you got to meet them or be confronted by them was significantly lower. Except, of course, unless you are a celebrity.

It was a phenomenon remarkable only for the fact that, at times, certain high-profile people, notorious or not, had doubles if only to put off enemies or the general public. Sometimes we see people in the street who look like someone we knew and make the mistake of approaching them like a long-lost friend, only to discover an embarrassed individual desperately trying to get away from what they perceive as a stalker, or worse.

And then sometimes it is a picture that looms up on a TV screen, an almost exact likeness of you. At first, you are fascinated, and then, according to the circumstances and narrative that is attached to that picture, either flattered or horrified.

For me, one turned to the other when I saw an almost likeness of me flash up on the screen when I turned the TV on in my room. What looked to be my photo, with only minor differences, was in the corner of the screen, the newsreader speaking in rapid Italian, so fast I could only translate every second or third word.

But the one word I did recognise was murder. The photo of the man on the screen was the subject of an extensive manhunt. The crime, the murder of a woman in the very same hotel I was staying, and it was being played out live several floors above me. The gist of the story, the woman had been seen with and staying with the man who was my double, and, less than an hour ago, the body had been discovered by a chambermaid.

The killer, the announcer said, was believed to be still in the hotel because the woman had died shortly before she had been discovered.

I watched, at first fascinated by what I was seeing. I guess I should have been horrified, but at that moment it didn’t register that I might be mistaken for that man.

Not until another five minutes had passed, and I was watching the police in full riot gear, with a camera crew following behind, coming up a passage towards a room. Live action of the arrest of the suspected killer, the breathless commentator said.

Then, suddenly, there was a pounding on the door. On the TV screen, plain to see, was the number of my room. I looked through the peephole and saw an army of police officers. It didn’t take much to realise what had happened. The hotel staff identified me as the man in the photograph on the TV and called the police.

Horrified wasn’t what I was feeling right then.

It was fear.

My last memory was the door crashing open, the wood splintering, and men rushing into the room, screaming at me, waving guns, and when I put my hands up to defend myself, I heard a gunshot.

And in one very confused and probably near-death experience, I thought I saw my mother and thought what was she doing in Rome?

…

I was the archetypal nobody.

I lived in a small flat, I drove a nondescript car, had an average job in a low-profile travel agency, was single, and currently not involved in a relationship, had no children, and, according to my workmates, no life.

They were wrong. I was one of those people who preferred their own company; I had a cat, and travelled whenever I could. And I did have a ‘thing’ for Rosalie, one of the reasons why I stayed at the travel agency. I didn’t expect anything to come of it, but one could always hope.

I was both pleased and excited to be going to the conference. It was my first, and the glimpse I had seen of it had whetted my appetite for more information about the nuances of my profession.

Some would say that a travel agent wasn’t much of a job, but to me, it was every bit as demanding as being an accountant or a lawyer. You were providing a customer with a service, and arguably, more people needed a travel agent than a lawyer. At least that was what I told myself as I watched more and more people start using the internet, and our relevance slowly dissipating.

This conference was about countering that trend.

The trip over had been uneventful. I was met at the airport and taken to the hotel where the conference was being held with several other delegates who had arrived on the same plane. I had mingled with several other delegates at the pre-conference get-together, including one whose name was Maryanne.

She was an unusual young woman, not the sort that I usually met, because she was the one who was usually surrounded by all the boys, the life of the party. In normal circumstances, I would not have introduced myself to her, but she had approached me. Why did I think that may have been significant? All of this ran through my mind, culminating in the last event on the highlight reel, the door bursting open, men rushing into my room, and then one of the policemen opened fire.

I replayed that last scene again, trying to see the face of my assailant, but it was just a sea of men in battle dress, bulletproof vests and helmets, accompanied by screaming and yelling, some of which I identified as “Get on the floor”.

Then came the shot.

Why ask me to get on the floor if all they were going to do was shoot me? I was putting my hands up at the time, in surrender, not reaching for a weapon.

Then I saw the face again, hovering in the background like a ghost. My mother. Only the hair was different, and her clothes, and then the image was going, perhaps a figment of my imagination brought on by pain-killing drugs. I tried to imagine the scene again, but this time it played out without the image of my mother.

I opened my eyes and took stock of my surroundings. What I felt in that exact moment couldn’t be described. I should most likely be dead, the result of a gunshot wound. I guess I should be thankful the shooter hadn’t aimed at anything vital, but that was the only item on the plus side.

I was in a hospital room with a policeman by the door. He was reading a newspaper and sitting uncomfortably on a small chair. He gave me a quick glance when he heard me move slightly, but didn’t acknowledge me with either a nod or a greeting, just went back to the paper.

If I still had a police guard, then I would still be considered a suspect. What was interesting was that I was not handcuffed to the bed. Perhaps that only happened in TV shows. Or maybe they knew I couldn’t run because my injuries were too serious. Or the guard would shoot me long before my feet hit the floor. I knew the police well enough now to know they would shoot first and ask questions later.

On the physical side, I had a large bandage over the top left corner of my chest, extending over my shoulder. A little poking and prodding determined the bullet had hit somewhere between the top of my rib cage and my shoulder. Nothing vital there, but my arm might be somewhat useless for a while, depending on what the bullet hit on the way in or through.

It didn’t feel like there were any broken or damaged bones.

That was the good news.

On the other side of the ledger, my mental state, there was only one word that could describe it. Terrified. I was looking at a murder charge and jail time, a lot of it. Murder usually had a long time in jail attached to it.

Whatever had happened, I didn’t do it. I know I didn’t do it, but I had to try to explain this to people who had already made up their minds. I searched my mind for evidence. It was there, but in the confused state brought on by the medication, all I could think about was jail, and the sort of company I was going to have.

I think death would have been preferable.

…

Half an hour later, maybe longer, I was drifting in and out of consciousness. A nurse, or what I thought was a nurse, came into the room. The guard stood, checked her ID card, and then stood by the door.

She came over and stood beside the bed. “How are you?” she asked, first in Italian, and when I pretended I didn’t understand, she asked the same question in accented English.

“Alive, I guess,” I said. “No one has come and told me what my condition is yet. You are my first visitor. Can you tell me?”

“Of course. You are very lucky to be alive. You will be fine and make a full recovery. The doctors here are excellent at their work.”

“What happens now?”

“I check you, and then you have another visitor. He is from the British Embassy, I think. But he will have to wait until I have finished my examination.”

I realised then she was a doctor, not a nurse.

…

My second visitor was a man, dressed in a suit, the sort of which I associated with the British Civil Service.  He was not very old, which told me he was probably a recent graduate on his first posting, the junior officer who drew the short straw.

The guard checked his ID but again did not leave the room, sitting back down and going back to his newspaper.

My visitor introduced himself as Alex Jordan from the British Embassy in Rome, and he had been asked by the Ambassador to sort out what he labelled a tricky mess.

For starters, it was good to see that someone cared about what happened to me.  But, equally, I knew the mantra, get into trouble overseas, and there is not much we can do to help you.  So, after that lengthy introduction, I had to wonder why he was here.

I said, “They think I am an international criminal by the name of Jacob Westerbury, whose picture looks just like me, and apparently, for them, it is an open and shut case.”  I could still hear the fragments of the yelling as the police burst through the door, at the same time telling me to get on the floor with my hands over my head.

“It’s not.  They know they’ve got the wrong man, which is why I’m here.  There is the issue of what had been described as excessive force, and the fact that you were shot had made it an all-around embarrassment for them.”

“Then why are you here?  Shouldn’t they be here apologising?”

“That is why you have another visitor.  I only took precedence because I insisted on speaking with you first.  I have come, basically, to ask you for a favour.  This situation has afforded us an opportunity.  We would like you to sign the official document, which basically indemnifies them against any legal proceedings.”

Curious.  What sort of opportunity was he talking about?  Was this a matter that could get difficult and I could be charged by the Italian Government, even if I wasn’t guilty, or was it one of those hush-hush type deals, you do this for us, we’ll help you out with that?  “What sort of opportunity?”

“We want to get our hands on Jacob Westerbury as much as they do.  They’ve made a mistake, and we’d like to use that to get custody of him if or when he is arrested in this country.  I’m sure you would also like this man brought into custody as soon as possible, so you will stop being confused with him.  I can only imagine what it was like to be arrested in the manner you were.  And I would not blame you if you wanted to get some compensation for what they’ve done.  But.  There are bigger issues in play here, and you would be doing this for your country.”

I wondered what would happen if I didn’t agree to his proposal.  I had to ask, “What if I don’t?”

His expression didn’t change.  “I’m sure you are a sensible man, Mr Pargeter, who is more than willing to help his country whenever he can.  They have agreed to take care of all your hospital expenses, refund the cost of the Conference, and travel.  I’m sure I could also get them to pay for a few days at Capri or Sorrento, if you like, before you go home.  What do you say?”

There was only one thing I could say.  Wasn’t it treason if you went against your country’s wishes?

“I’m not an unreasonable man, Alex.  Go do your deal, and I’ll sign the papers.”

“Good man.”

…

After Alex left, the doctor came back to announce the arrival of a woman, who had announced herself as the publicity officer from the Italian police. When she came into the room, she was not dressed in a uniform.

The doctor left after giving a brief report to the civilian at the door. I understood the gist of it: “The patient has recovered excellently, and the wounds are healing as expected. There is no cause for concern.”

That was a relief.

While the doctor was speaking to the civilian, I speculated on who she might be. She was young, not more than thirty, conservatively dressed, so an official of some kind, but not necessarily with the police. Did they have prosecutors? I was unfamiliar with the Italian legal system.

She had long, wavy black hair and the sort of sultry looks of an Italian movie star, and her presence made me more curious than fearful, though I couldn’t say why.

The woman then spoke to the guard, and he reluctantly got up and left the room, closing the door behind him. She checked the door and then came back towards me, standing at the end of the bed. Now alone, she said, “A few questions before we begin.” Her English was only slightly accented. “Your name is Jack Pargeter?”

I nodded. “Yes.”

“You are in Rome to attend the Travel Agents Conference at the Hilton Hotel?”

“Yes.”

“You attended a preconference introduction on the evening of the 25th, after arriving from London at approximately 4:25 pm.”

“About that time, yes. I know it was about five when the bus came to collect me, and several others, to take us to the hotel.”

She smiled. It was then that I noticed she was reading from a small notepad.

“It was ten past five to be precise. The driver had been held up in traffic. We have several witnesses who saw you on the plane, on the bus, at the hotel, and with the aid of closed-circuit TV, we have established you are not the criminal Jacob Westerbury.”

She put her notebook back in her bag and then said, “My name is Vicenza Andretti, and I am with the prosecutor’s office. I am here to formally apologise for the situation that can only be described as a case of mistaken identity. I assure you, it is not the habit of our police officers to shoot people unless they have a very strong reason for doing so. I understand that in the confusion of the arrest, one of our officers accidentally discharged his weapon. We are undergoing a very thorough investigation into the circumstances of this event.”

I was not sure why, but between the time I had spoken to the embassy official and now, something about letting them off so easily was bugging me. I could see why they had sent her. It would be difficult to be angry or annoyed with her.

But I was annoyed.

“Do you often send a whole squad of trigger-happy riot police to arrest a single man?” It came out harsher than I intended.

“My men believed they were dealing with a dangerous criminal.”

“Do I look like a dangerous criminal?” And then I realised if it was mistaken identity, the answer would be yes.

She saw the look on my face and said quietly, “I think you know the answer to that question, Mr Pargeter.”

“Well, it was overkill.”

“As I said, we are very sorry for the circumstances you now find yourself in. You must understand that we honestly believed we were dealing with an armed and dangerous murderer, and we were acting within our mandate. My department will cover your medical expenses and any other amounts for the inconvenience this has caused you. I believe you were attending a conference at your hotel. I am very sorry, but given the medical circumstances you have, you will have to remain here for a few more days.”

“I guess, then, I should thank you for not killing me.”

Her expression told me that was not the best thing I could have said in the circumstances.

“I mean, I should thank you for the hospital and the care. But a question or two of my own. May I?”

She nodded.

“Did you catch this Jacob Westerbury character?”

“No. In the confusion created by your arrest, he escaped. Once we realised we had made a mistake and reviewed the closed-circuit TV, we tracked him leaving by a rear exit.”

“Are you sure it was one of your men who shot me?”

I watched as her expression changed to one of surprise.

“You don’t think it was one of my men?”

“Oddly enough, no. But don’t ask me why.”

“It is very interesting that you should say that, because in our initial investigation, it appeared none of our officers’ weapons had been discharged. A forensic investigation into the bullet tells us it was one that is used in our weapons, but…”

I could see their dilemma.

“Have you any enemies that would want to shoot you, Mr Pargeter?”

That was absurd because I had no enemies, at least none that I knew of, much less anyone who would want me dead.

“Not that I’m aware of.”

“Then it is strange, and will perhaps remain a mystery. I will let you know if anything more is revealed in our investigation.”

She took an envelope out of her briefcase and opened it, pulling out several sheets of paper.

I knew what it was. A verbal apology was one thing, but a signed waiver would cover them legally. They had sent a pretty girl to charm me. Perhaps using anyone else would not have worked. There was potential for a huge litigation payout here, and someone more ruthless would jump at the chance of making a few million out of the Italian Government.

“We need a signature on this document,” she said.

“Absolving you of any wrongdoing?”

“I have apologised. We will take whatever measures are required for your comfort after this event. We are accepting responsibility for our actions and are being reasonable.”

They were. I took the pen from her and signed the documents.

“You couldn’t add dinner with you on that list of benefits?” No harm in asking.

“I am unfortunately unavailable.”

I smiled. “It wasn’t a request for a date, just dinner. You can tell me about Rome, as only a resident can. Please.”

She looked me up and down, searching for the ulterior motive. When she couldn’t find one, she said, “We shall see once the hospital discharges you in a few days.”

“Then I’ll pencil you in?”

She looked at me quizzically. “What is this pencil me in?”

“It’s an English colloquialism. It means maybe. As when you write something in pencil, it is easy to erase it.”

A momentary frown, then recognition and a smile. “I shall remember that. Thank you for your time and cooperation, Mr Pargeter. Good morning.”

…

© Charles Heath 2015-2021

365 Days of writing, 2026 – 264

Day 264 – Writers have two choices

…

The Writer’s Crossroads: Embrace Reality & Complexity or Escape to Simplicity?


“The writer is often faced with two choices: turn away from reality and complexity, or conquer its mystery by battling with it.” – Chinua Achebe
— Your next breakthrough begins at this fork in the road.


Table of Contents

  1. Understanding the Dilemma
  2. Why Some Writers Choose Escape
  3. The Power of Grappling with Reality
  4. Real‑World Examples: From Hemingway to Margaret Atwood
  5. Practical Ways to Face Complexity Head‑On
  6. When Escapism Becomes a Tool, Not a Trap
  7. Balancing Both Worlds: A Hybrid Approach
  8. FAQ
  9. Take the Next Step

1. Understanding the Dilemma

Every writer—whether a novelist, journalist, poet, or copywriter—confronts the same universal crossroads:

ChoiceWhat It Looks LikeTypical ProsTypical Cons
Turn AwayWrite in a bubble of fantasy, avoid controversial topics, keep narratives “comfort‑zone” safe.Faster drafts, less self‑scrutiny, immediate emotional relief.Shallow worlds, missed audience connection, risk of stagnation.
Conquer MysteryDive into messy reality—politics, mental health, cultural nuance, technical detail.Depth, authenticity, lasting impact, critical acclaim.Exhaustion, writer’s block, fear of misrepresentation.

The decision isn’t binary; it’s a dynamic tension that fuels the creative engine. Recognizing when you’re leaning toward one pole helps you consciously choose the path that best serves your story and career.


2. Why Some Writers Choose Escape

2.1 Emotional Safety Net

Complex reality often surfaces uncomfortable truths—trauma, systemic injustice, personal failure. Escapism offers a safe distance, allowing the writer to stay emotionally intact while still creating.

2.2 Market Pressures

Publishers and platforms sometimes favor “feel‑good” content that sells quickly. The promise of a high conversion rate can tempt writers to produce formulaic pieces rather than nuanced explorations.

2.3 Cognitive Overload

The modern information age inundates us with data. Decision fatigue can make the simple, familiar narrative feel like a mental oasis.

SEO Tip: Use keywords like “writer’s block,” “creative burnout,” and “escapist writing” within this section to capture search traffic from writers seeking relief solutions.


3. The Power of Grappling with Reality

When you confront complexity, you unlock three core benefits:

  1. Authentic Voice – Readers sense sincerity. Authenticity drives dwell time and social shares.
  2. Narrative Authority – Grounding your story in researched reality builds credibility, which Google’s E‑E‑A‑T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) loves.
  3. Long‑Term Impact – Works that challenge norms (think 1984 or The Handmaid’s Tale) endure for decades, generating evergreen traffic and royalties.

3.1 The “Mystery‑Battle” Framework

  1. Identify the Core Mystery – What’s the unknown element that keeps you up at night? (e.g., “Why do people self‑sabotage?”)
  2. Gather Raw Data – Interviews, statistics, first‑hand observations.
  3. Map the Complexity – Use mind maps, storyboards, or spreadsheets to visualize relationships.
  4. Create a Narrative Mini‑Goal – Solve a piece of the puzzle each chapter/section.
  5. Iterate & Refine – Treat each draft as a battlefield report, not a final victory.

Keyword Spotlight: “how to write complex characters,” “research-driven storytelling,” “creative writing process.”


4. Real‑World Examples: From Hemingway to Margaret Atwood

AuthorEscape Route?Reality‑Based TriumphWhat Writers Can Learn
Ernest HemingwayMinimalist prose, “Iceberg Theory” → appears simple but hides depth.A Farewell to Arms – War’s brutal reality under a spare style.Use minimalism to mask complexity, not avoid it.
Margaret AtwoodFuturistic dystopia → escapist veneer.The Handmaid’s Tale – Direct commentary on gender politics.Blend speculative settings with current social issues.
Neil GaimanMythic fantasy worlds.American Gods – Contemporary America’s cultural melting pot.Anchor fantastical elements in real‑world research.
Ta-Nehisi CoatesNon‑fiction memoirs.Between the World and Me – Raw, unfiltered confession on race.Honesty about personal pain creates universal resonance.

SEO Insight: Including the names of popular authors boosts search relevance for writers researching literary strategies.


5. Practical Ways to Face Complexity Head‑On

5.1 Start With a “Reality Check” Prompt

Prompt: “If this story were a news article tomorrow, what facts would have to be accurate?”

Write a short paragraph that answers the prompt. It forces you to root the narrative in verifiable detail before you drift into abstraction.

5.2 Micro‑Research Sprints

  • Timebox: 30 minutes of focused research (no email, no social).
  • Tool: Use Google Scholar, JSTOR, or reputable podcasts.
  • Output: A bullet‑list of 5 concrete facts you can weave into your draft.

5.3 The “Complexity Calendar”

DayTask
MonIdentify one confusing aspect of your story’s world.
TueDraft a scene where a character confronts it.
WedPeer‑review for clarity (ask a non‑expert friend).
ThuRevise using feedback.
FriReflect: Did the scene deepen the story’s truth?

5.4 Dialogue as Investigation

Treat every conversation as an interview. Let your characters ask probing questions that mirror the writer’s own curiosity.

5.5 Use Data Visualization

If your story involves statistics (e.g., climate change), create an infographic for yourself. Seeing numbers visually helps you internalize the data and embed it fluidly.


6. When Escapism Becomes a Tool, Not a Trap

Escapism isn’t inherently lazy—it can be a strategic way to:

  • Recharge mental batteries (take a creative “vacation”).
  • Explore alternative perspectives through genre (e.g., magical realism to discuss migration).
  • Simplify a tangled concept for a broader audience (think children’s picture books).

Guideline: Escapism must be intentional. Set a timer. If a week passes without integrating any real‑world insight, revisit your outline.

Keyword Cluster: “benefits of creative writing,” “using fiction for social commentary,” “how to write fantasy with purpose.”


7. Balancing Both Worlds: A Hybrid Approach

7.1 The “Layered Narrative” Model

LayerGoalExample
Surface (Escapist)Hook the reader with compelling plot & vivid setting.A space‑opera chase scene.
Mid‑Layer (Analytical)Introduce data, history, or philosophical debate.A politician’s speech referencing real‑world policy.
Core (Mystery‑Battle)Resolve the central philosophical question.The protagonist confronting their own moral ambiguity.

7.2 The “Two‑Draft Rule”

  1. First Draft (Escape Mode): Write fluidly, ignore facts.
  2. Second Draft (Conquer Mode): Fact‑check, tighten, embed research.

7.3 The “Reader Test”

  • Ask: “If I read this tomorrow, would I feel enlightened, entertained, or both?”
  • Metric: Aim for ≥70% of readers reporting both in post‑launch surveys (use tools like Google Forms or Typeform).

8. Frequently Asked Questions

QuestionShort Answer
Is it okay to write purely escapist fiction?Absolutely—if it’s your artistic intent. However, give it some grounding (e.g., emotional truth) to avoid feeling hollow.
How much research is “enough” for a novel?There’s no one-size‑fits‑all, but a research‑to‑writing ratio of 1:3 (1 hour research per 3 hours writing) works for many authors.
Can I use my own life’s complexity without over‑exposing?Yes. Use fictionalization techniques—change names, amalgamate characters, shift timelines—to protect privacy while preserving truth.
What if I feel overwhelmed by the “mystery” of reality?Break it down into bite‑size questions. Tackle one per writing session; celebrate each micro‑victory.
Do search engines reward complexity?Google favors depth and authoritativeness. Well‑researched, detailed content ranks higher than shallow filler.

9. Take the Next Step: Turn Complexity into Your Creative Superpower

Ready to stop choosing between flight and fight? Use the “Mystery‑Battle Checklist” below and download our free Writer’s Reality‑Toolkit (PDF) to keep your research, outlines, and drafts organised.

📋 Mystery‑Battle Checklist

  •  Identify the central mystery of my story.
  •  Collect at least 3 credible sources for each major fact.
  •  Write a “reality‑check” paragraph for every chapter.
  •  Schedule a research sprint weekly (30‑45 minutes).
  •  Conduct a peer‑review focused on clarity & authenticity.

🔗 Download the Writer’s Reality‑Toolkit (PDF)

Join our community of 12,000+ writers who’ve turned complexity into bestseller material. Subscribe for weekly tips, prompts, and SEO‑friendly writing hacks.


Final Thought

Every writer stands on the same precipice—turn away into comforting simplicity, or conquer the complex mystery that reality offers. The choice isn’t a sacrifice; it’s a strategic decision that defines your voice, your impact, and ultimately, your legacy. Embrace the battle, wield your research like a sword, and watch your stories resonate far beyond the page.

Happy writing—may your pen never shy away from the beautiful, messy truth.

…

The story behind the story – Echoes from the Past

The novel ‘Echoes from the Past’ started out as a short story I wrote about 30 years ago, titled ‘The Birthday’.

My idea was to take a normal person out of their comfort zone and led on a short but very frightening journey to a place where a surprise birthday party had been arranged.

Thus, the very large man with a scar and a red tie was created.

So was the friend with the limousine who worked as a pilot.

So were the two women, Wendy and Angelina, who were Flight Attendants that the pilot friend asked to join the conspiracy.

I was going to rework the short story, then about ten pages long, into something a little more.

And like all rewrites, especially those I have anything to do with, it turned into a novel.

There was motivation.  I had told some colleagues at the place where I worked at the time that I liked writing, and they wanted a sample.  I was going to give them the re-worked short story.  Instead, I gave them ‘Echoes from the past’

Originally, it was not set anywhere in particular.

But when considering a location, I had, at the time, recently been to New York in December, and visited Brooklyn and Queens, as well as a lot of New York itself.  We were there for New Year’s, and it was an experience I’ll never forget.

One evening, we were out late and finished up in Brooklyn Heights, near the waterfront, and there was rain and snow; it was cold and wet, and apartment buildings were shimmering in the street light, and I thought, “This is the place where my main character will live”.

It had a very spooky atmosphere, the sort where ghosts would not be unexpected.  I felt more than one shiver go up and down my spine in the few minutes I was there.

I had taken notes, as I always do, of everywhere we went, so I had a ready supply of locations I could use, changing the names in some cases.

Fifth Avenue near the Rockefeller Centre is amazing at first light, and late at night with the Seasonal decorations and lights.

The original main character was a shy man with few friends, hence not expecting the surprise party.  I enhanced that shyness into purposely lonely because of an issue from his past that leaves him always looking over his shoulder and ready to move on at the slightest hint of trouble.  No friends, no relationships, just a very low profile.

Then I thought, what if he breaks the cardinal rule and begins a relationship?

But it is also as much an exploration of a damaged soul as it is the search for a normal life, without having any idea what normal was, and how the understanding of one person can sometimes make all the difference in what we may think or feel.

And, of course, I wanted a happy ending.

Except for the bad guys.

…

Get it here:  https://amzn.to/2CYKxu4

newechocover5rs

365 Days of Writing, 2026 – 262/263

Days 262/263 – Writing Exercise

…

The sun shone down brightly, although the air was cool.  A gentle breeze rustled through the trees, reminding me that autumn was disappearing and winter was about to set in. 

I’d promised myself I was not going to last another winter in England and had all but made up my mind to move to a small cottage I had bought in the Provence area of France about 10 years before.

IT was where Evelyn and I were going to retire until she got cancer, and despite every effort, the remissions and the hopes, she finally succumbed a few months before.

I was reassessing my life and decided it was time to retire.  Policing was no longer the way it used to be, and criminals were getting away with more, and our powers were getting less.

I was not the only one disenchanted.

My cell phone rang, and I half decided not to answer it, but it was a call I could not put off any longer.

My superior, Chief Superintendent Jamieson.  He was calling to get my decision.  Staying or going.  Not only had Evelyn’s death affected me, but my last case had also been harrowing, and almost the cause of my death.  I was still recovering from that, not physically, but mentally.

“Sir.”

“Rogers, how are you?”

“Well enough.  I know I’ve been tardy…”

“That’s not why I’m calling.  I have a job for you.  One you’re not going to like, but it will not have any life-threatening element.  Call it a swansong.”

Interesting lead-in.  Had he guessed I was about to pack it in?  I had intimated it to a few of the others at the station a few weeks back.

“Do I have a choice?”  He wouldn’t be calling me if I did.  He was that sort of person.

“Call in tomorrow at nine, and we’ll talk about it.”

“Yes, sir.”

I knew him well enough to know that he would give me the details straight, without embellishment, and without a sales pitch.  He was the first of my bosses who was.  And he had been very accommodating with my personal issues.

I owed him an audience.

…

I’d been summoned to his office three times since I joined the station.  My first day, the day he told me I was seconded to a task force, the one that nearly got me killed, and the last, the day my wife had died, to break the news.

His office wasn’t the biggest, not the smallest.  He didn’t like the accoutrements of his rank, except for the personal assistant, Marianne, who guarded his door like a Grenadier Guard/

She smiled when I turned up at her desk, asked me the usual questions, then told me to go straight in.

He was looking out the window, not that there was anything particular to look at; it was basically the carpark and a small garden with a fountain which didn’t work.  Marianne had complained to the council a dozen times, and still nothing had been done about it.

He heard me come in but didn’t turn straight away.  He would have seen me come up the side street and enter by the side entrance.  Time to think about what he was going to say.

Three minutes later he turned but didn’t sit.  He motioned for me to take the chair opposite his desk, and I did.

“Have you decided?”

“Yes.”

“And?”

“It’s time.  With one thing or another, I don’t feel I could put everything that’s needed into the job.  IT’s not a matter of losing interest; it’s just the job is not the same anymore.”

“For some, yes.  But I understand.  With Evelyn, and the last assignment.  Hell of a mess, I’m afraid, still trying to find out exactly what happened.”

I could tell him if he wanted to listen, but he would not.  One of his personally selected officers wasn’t quite up to the mark and crumbled under pressure.  Trouble was, he died in the crossfire, and I wasn’t going to throw him under the bus now that he was dead.

The review would find that out soon enough, if they did a thorough job.  If….

“It was a difficult situation that no training could prepare anyone for, sir.”

He shrugged.  “Perhaps.  We’ll find out in due course, I expect.”

He sat.

I waited.

“There’s one last job I would like you to do.  We’ve had a request for an officer of your rank to go to the Met and run an investigation.  It’s one of the own Inspectors.  Bad situation, one where his fellow officers are judged to be too close to the case, and it needs an outsider’s perspective.”

“Not an internal review, sir.  I don’t think it’s a job any officer would want to conduct on a fellow officer, our office or theirs.”

“It’s a delicate situation, and needs care and understanding, the sort you have brought to this division.  And you have experience.”

I sighed inwardly.  There’s only one case that fit that category.  It didn’t end well for anyone.

I didn’t say anything, so he continued, “The Met have a case involving a Detective Inspector who has been shot by his wife.  You might have heard about it in the media; unfortunately, they like to make mountains out of molehills, and it’s blown up.”

“Three days ago?  DI Chalmers?” 

The Detective credited with bringing down a crime family responsible for killing half a dozen rivals over the last few years.  Undercover for the last three years, celebrated after the convictions, award ceremonies, media interviews- a hero.

Now a dead hero.

Day one, she was arrested.

Day two, ugly rumours started surfacing.

Day three, I was about to be sent into the fires of hell.

He slid a file across the desk towards me.  “If anyone can work out what the hell is going on, it’s you.  The Chief Super there wants this sorted as soon as possible.  Someone over there leaked confidential details, so finding out what happened and who the leak is are your first two priorities.”

“If I take the job.”

“You do, and I’ll personally shake your hand on the way out the door.”

“If I don’t?”

“That’s not a question, Rogers.  You have to give notice, and you’ve been cleared by the doctors to come back to work.  I’m sure you would want to be doing something proactive rather than shuffling paper clips down in the basement.”

He was probably right.

…

Chief Superintendent Graham was completely different to my Chief Super.  Big office, big personality, and what I would call a persuader, oozing all the charm of a snake oil salesman.  He shook my hand, gave me the glowing report he had received on me and said it was an open-and-shut case.

As far as he was concerned, the wife was guilty, and all I had to get was her confession.  Anything I had read in the media about the case was a load of bollocks, and that was the end of it.

This had all the hallmarks of a set-up.  If I succeeded, everything would be fine; if I dragged my feet, or found a different outcome, then I would become a scapegoat.

That feeling was confirmed after my first question, “I understand that Mrs Chalmers refuses to speak to anyone from this division.  Why?”

“Her lawyer.  Says we are biased.  We’re the goddamn police, for Christ’s sake.  We are supposed to be impartial.  We could have handled the case, but upstairs got involved after someone leaked case details to the media.  I want to know who.”

“And if she won’t speak to me?”

“She will.  She has to speak to someone, eventually; otherwise, it will seal her guilt.  She did it, there’s no doubt.  The forensics have her dead to rights.  The case files are on your desk, and your first interview is set for 11 am.”

He picked up the phone, then snapped, “Send Cartright in.”

A minute later, a female detective came in.  I had expected a male assistant.

“Ah, Cartright.  This is Detective Chief Inspector Rogers for the Thames Valley police.  It was agreed we get an outside officer to investigate, so we’re not accused of bias.”

“Yes, sir.”

“You belong to him for the duration of the investigation.  Anything he needs, make it happen.”

“Yes, sir.”

A wave of the hand and we were dismissed.

…

She took me downstairs to a separate office with two desks, filing cabinets, computers, printers, a large white board already covered in photos, papers and writing, and a door that closed out the rest of the office.

A half dozen detectives whom I had no doubt were best friends with the deceased, and looking for answers and someone to blame.

“You drew the short straw,” I said.

“No.  I volunteered.  They had me doing administrative work, nothing like what I signed up for.  None of the others wanted to work with you, so I stepped forward.”

“Why none of the others?”

“They think they should run the investigation, not someone from outside.”

“And what do you think?”

“It has to be someone from outside.  They aren’t prepared to believe that he was at fault, just in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

At least she hadn’t tried to condemn me; I was sure by the end of the day there would be an approach by one, or a group.

I had read the case notes in the file that my Chief Super had given me, but they were written up with exactly the sort of bias that wasn’t going to help anyone.  It would be interesting to get her view.  And I wondered if it was not a mistake on the part of this station’s Chief Super to allow her to work with me.  I’d know in a few minutes.

“And what are the facts, as you understand them?”

“Not what this board has on it.  First, Mrs Chalmers was home after accompanying her husband to a gathering where her husband, Detective Inspector Chalmers, was the guest of honour.  It started at six.  By ten, according to several witnesses, there was a heated argument, apparently about his excessive drinking, and she left. 

“Chalmers remained and continued drinking.  She went home and arrived there about Eleven.  The gathering ended about twelve-forty-five, and those remaining got cabs home.  One of the Detective Sergeants put Chalmers in a cab.  He said he was quite intoxicated, but still coherent.  Apparently, he is a functioning alcoholic, whatever that means. 

“Next report: a call from a neighbour next door about loud shouting, and then a scream.  Seconds later, there was a shot fired.  The first responders found Mrs Chalmers with a gun in her hand, and her husband dead on the floor near the door. 

“Her only statement so far: she was defending herself from a raving, drunken lunatic who was trying to kill her.  There was no one else in the apartment; the gun had just been fired, one round, the bullet that killed him came from the gun in her hand.”

“Has there been any previous arguments, similar behaviour?”

“No.”

“They questioned the same neighbours?”

“They said that night was the first time anything had happened.  She had not presented herself as a killer, but several people in the building said she was ‘strange’.”

“Strange?”

“Odd behaviour.”

“These interviews were conducted by detectives and officers from this station?”

“Yes.”

“They are here?”

She picked up a folder and handed it to me.  “A dozen or so, right after the first responders and forensics got there.  Questioned everyone in the vicinity.  Some heard shouting, some didn’t. Most heard the shot, thought it was a backfiring car.”

“How long was he undercover?”

“Two years.”

“Report?”

She handed me another file.  It was quite thin.  Three pages.  I guess there was little need be said about an operation that ended with such success.

“We have an interview at 11.”

“She won’t talk.  Doesn’t trust any of us.”

“You too?”

“I work here.  I guess I’m one of ‘them’.”

“We’ll soon see.  You can sit in.  How much do you know about the case?”

“As much as I just told you, sir.  I probably know slightly more than you.”

“Mrs Chalmers?  You have half an hour to tell me as much as you can.”

…

My first question at the end of that briefing was why?  Why would she shoot her husband?  My knowledge of people who shoot other people wasn’t extensive, but those reasons I understood to be: if they were threatened to the point where there was no other choice, the trigger was exceptionally light, and it was an accident; that they had always intended to shoot the person in front of them because that person had driven them to it; they were a soldier shooting at the enemy in a war zone.  That was it.  The next question was how she came to have a gun.  Perhaps that was because it was not hers.  A quick look at the forensic report showed it to be her husband’s spare gun, usually locked away in the gun cabinet, at the bottom of the closet in the main bedroom.

It didn’t help her case, because she must have got it out between the time she got home and the time he got home, which meant she knew she might have to use it, or she intended to use it.

Why?

There was a debriefing report for Chalmers, and a psychological report after two years undercover.  I’d been there myself, though not in such an evil environment, so it had to have played havoc with his view of normal life.  The report said he had readjusted well, and that he had conducted himself in such a manner that the courts were impressed with his ability to factually and clearly report the facts for the prosecution.  A man on the edge after a two-year trip to hell and back might not have been as coherent and clear-minded.

It was a pity I could not talk to him and get a clear idea of his state of mind, irrespective of the words on the paper.

There was no psychiatric report on Mrs Chalmers yet.  It would be in her best interests if there was.  Perhaps I could persuade her.

We’d soon find out.

Cartright took me downstairs to the interview room where Mrs Chalmers was waiting.  She had been brought, under guard, from the holding cell.  She was, as I understood it, being held until after the initial investigation was finished, determining when she would come before a magistrate.  Someone had determined her to be a flight risk if she was bailed.

Outside the room, a man was waiting; I suspect one of Chalmer’s fellow officers, and one of two who had conducted the first interviews with his wife and witnesses.  The result of his initial interview was that she would not talk to any of the station staff, or anyone connected to her husband.  The transcript of what little had been exchanged told me everything I needed to know.

“Are you in charge of the Chalmers investigation?”

His tone was belligerent, and if strict protocol was being followed, he should not be here, or anywhere near the investigation.

“Who wants to know?”

“Detective Sergeant Blake, Detective Inspector Chalmers partner.  I would like to sit in on the interview.”

“You have the explicit permission of the Chief Superintendent?  I can call him if you like?”

“As a matter of courtesy.”

I looked at him and gauged the level of hatred he was feeling towards my presence.  I was sure there were three others just like him who would like to be here also.

He was here for a reason.

“What is it you don’t want me to find out?”

He looked at me with all the venom he could muster.

“You don’t know anything about the man or the case.”

“Which is exactly why I’m here.  I’m not too close to the subject, and I certainly have no biases one way or the other.  Fresh eyes, neutral attitude.  Your first interview with the subject will be a separate report from me.  You cannot be here, or anywhere near Mrs Chalmers, or for that matter, any of the witnesses already interviewed.  That includes all the Detective staff in this station, and former colleagues of Detective Inspector Chalmers.”

“A good man died, and we want to know why.”

“That’s why I’m here.  Let me do my job, and I’ll get the answers.”

I could see that was the last thing he wanted me to do, which told me one very important fact: there was more to this death than just a wife killing her husband after a violent argument.

He had more to say but decided not to.  “This isn’t right.”  He glared at Cartwright, which was much the same as intimidation, then left.

I saw her shiver.  Fear.  He had that ability, which to me was a sign.

“You may wish you didn’t volunteer.”

“No.  They’re all like that, looking down on the junior staff, and women in particular.  I was hoping it was better here than my last station.

I shook my head.  Despite all the programs, there were still pockets of bad behaviour.

“Ready?”

“As I’ll ever be, I guess.”

I nodded to the officer in charge of the section, and he came over and showed us into the interview room.

I never got over that first look from the suspect, the one that either held fear or contempt, though of late it had been more of the latter.  The new criminal class were bolder, meaner, and more contemptuous of the police, and tended to hide behind very expensive lawyers.

Mrs Chalmers lawyer looked positively sedate.  That meant perhaps I should be careful.

Mrs Chalmers did not speak.  I was guessing she had been advised to speak only when spoken to.

Cartright and I sat, and Cartright switched on the recording device and made the introduction.

Then she spoke.  “I don’t remember seeing you before at this station.  Are you new?”

“No.  I usually work at Thames Valley and have been seconded to this investigation to keep it impartial.  It has been decided that no one from this station, or anyone who worked with your husband, can investigate his death.  It would be a conflict of interest, as well as make it impossible to secure a conviction, if, and not when, you were found guilty.  My attitude is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  I understand you have refused to talk to any of the detectives in this location.”

“They are all Rodney’s mates.  None of them ever liked me, not one of the girls.”

I had some appreciation of what she was talking about.  Evelyn had a hard time getting along with some of the other wives, women who had a more, as she called it, ‘devil-may-care’ attitude.  These officers were crude and unruly for want of a better description, and sometimes a little too free with women other than their wives or girlfriends.  They called it ‘letting off steam’

“Evely had that problem too.” She gave me a strange look.  “My wife.  She didn’t fit in, but then, neither did I.  I was reminded by colleagues that it was part of the job, the dangers, the hours, what we had to put up with, but I didn’t quite see how overindulgence in alcohol and drugs, and having affairs, compensated.  Did your husband have problems?  I understand he was undercover for two years, often in bad situations, maintaining his position.”

“He never spoke about it.  Just seemed to be angry all the time.  I realised, after the first year, that he was drinking more, and I suspect part of that cover included being ‘one of the boys’.  I wasn’t that naïve as to know he was less than faithful, although when I asked him, he wouldn’t talk about it.  I know he was seeing someone else.”

“You know who it was?”

“Just a first name. She would call him at odd hours, and he would go off, saying it was a call he had to answer for work.”

“That makes you angry?”

“Disappointed.  I don’t think he realised how much he would have to change to do the job, or that he would like it so much.  He said that a few months ago, I was boring.  I offered to leave, let him have the file he wanted.  I don’t think he liked the idea of me leaving him.”

“So, was life for you worse after he went undercover, or had it started earlier, with the feeling you didn’t quite measure up to his and other officers’ expectations of a policeman’s wife or girlfriend?”

“Only after he joined the task force.  The officers were a different breed, as he called them.  They seemed to take more risks.  Worked hard, played hard, he said.  I didn’t like it.”

“Did you argue over it??

“Not at first.  He was on the fringe, trying to prove himself.  He was different, but the sort of different I liked, what attracted me to him.  Over time, he changed.  He couldn’t see it.  I and others outside the force could see it and tried to tell him.  That’s when things changed.  About a year ago.  I only recently found out there had been several people killed, and he blamed himself for not preventing it.”

A flare-up in the turf war.  A death on either side.  It could have escalated, but it didn’t.  I knew a little about taking the blame for something I could have prevented.  Not that I could have, but it doesn’t stop you.  It changed me until I got help.  Evelyn had insisted.

…

She took a drink of water, then exchanged a meaningful look with her lawyer.  Perhaps she suspected I was going to start asking the difficult questions.

I was.

“Let’s move forward to three days ago.  Tell me what happened before and during the party.”

I expected silence, because any questions prior to this regarding that night went unanswered.

“Perhaps you would be better asking me about the month or the week before.”

“After he came back from the undercover assignment, and working with the prosecution lawyers over the evidence he had gathered, and the arrests?”

“That was work.  He was a different person at work than at home.  He found it very difficult to settle back into a normal life.  He was, what I would call, a different set of withdrawal symptoms.  At first he wouldn’t tell me that he was going, what’s the expression someone used, cold turkey, after years of boozing and drugs.  He should have taken the offer of spending time in a facility to wind down, but he didn’t.  He spent more time with his fellow officers than he did with me; we never talked, and when I wanted to, he would get angry and walk out, coming back later drunk or high on drugs, and abusive.  Then he started spending days away, not telling me where he was or what he was doing.  I endured this for several months until that party, the one celebrating the end of the evidence-gathering and laying of charges phase.  I told him before we left that it was all but over now; we could go back to our life.  He basically said whatever we had was over, and he had moved on.  It was not unexpected.  I asked him if he didn’t want me to go, and he said we could discuss it more after the party, that he hadn’t told any of the others yet, and we had to show unity.”

“You could have stayed home.”

“No.  There was an edge to his tone that told me that if I didn’t do as he asked, there might be trouble.  Appearances were important, even if our marriage had gone to hell in a handbasket.  For the sake of appearances, I went.  Then he treated me like I wasn’t there.  As the evening wore on, I was speaking with the other wives, and one in particular asked if everything was alright.  She and the others were completely unaware of our situation.  I said it was not, and she mentioned that Gerry, her husband, had said he was seeing another woman.  I felt stupid being there, everyone knowing, but it always is a case of the wife being the last to know.  I told him I wanted to leave, and he basically told me to go, with a few extra expletives.  I’m sure you have a pieced-together version of the words spoken.”

“We have a phone video, perhaps to paint you in a particular light. You were, if I may say, remarkably calm.”

“I wasn’t.  It was probably the worst few minutes of my life.  I had no real friends there.  As you are aware, I left alone and went home.”

“And when he came home?”

“When he decided to come home and proceed to abuse me because I had to go digging into stuff that didn’t concern me.  Of course, I had no idea what he was talking about.  All I did was mind my own business; it was the other ladies that picked and probed and told me what was going on, trying, I believe, to make me look like a fool.”

Mad enough to shoot him?  “You had a few hours to stew over the news.”

“No.  I packed a bag and left it by the front door.  I was going to say I’d had enough and leave.”

“There was an argument?”

“He was screaming at me, calling me names I dare not repeat, and then threatened me.”

“Where did the gun come from?”

“The gun safe.  It was his spare weapon.  I went to get it, and it wasn’t in there.  It was in the drawer of his bedside table next to the bed.”

“Was he expecting trouble from those he was testifying against?”

“He never said, but he knew I hated the sight of it, and insisted he never get it out where I could see it.”

“Have you used it before?”

“No.  I knew it was there; I believed that when he came home he would be belligerent, and I would have it near me just in case.  I had no intention of using it.”

“Have you used any sort of gun before?”

“No.”

“So, you had the gun and didn’t know how to use it.  Was the safety off?”

“I didn’t know anything about a safety.  I assumed he had it stored in a safe mode.”

“And you were going to use it, how?”

“Aim it, tell him I was going and to keep his distance.”

“He would know the safety was engaged and simply take it off you.  So, it got to the point where you aimed it at him.  How far away was he when you did?”

“About 6 feet at most.  Just out of his reach.  When he saw it, he grinned.  He put his hands up and said, ‘Just pull the trigger and get it over with’.  He would have known the safety was set.  I didn’t.  By that time my hands were shaking, and I was losing resolve.  He knew that.  He took a step, and I pulled the trigger, and the gun went off.  The next thing, he was on the ground, and there was blood everywhere.  I fainted and was roused when the first police arrived on the scene.  I had no intention of using the gun.  Pulling the trigger was purely reflexive when he advanced on me, and I did not expect it would fire.”

I could see she was exhausted.  It hadn’t been a long interview, but it was difficult.  Perhaps she trusted me, but it was more than I could have hoped for.  At the very least, there was a basis for manslaughter, but there was something else that was off.  Not in her testimony but in the documentation, and I had to go back to the files.

“Thank you for your time, and for giving me as full an account of the events from your perspective.”

“You should discuss that with your legal representative.”

That was as much as I could tell her.

…

When we got back to the office, I closed the door.  I could feel the heat of the stares from the other detectives there.  They knew where I had been and who I had interviewed.  I expected a call from the Chief Superintendent.

“What are your first thoughts?”  I had cautioned her not to speak of anything we had just heard until back in the office.  I had no doubt the walls had ears.  There would be a queue a mile long to hear what was on that tape.

Cartright went to her desk and picked up the rushed forensics.  It had arrived just before I did that morning, and I hadn’t got to read it.  She had.

“The bullet had been fired from a distance between ten and twelve feet.  She could not have shot him, not on her evidence.”

“Would she lie about that distance, make a mistake? She was in fear of him.”

“Possibly.”

She turned the page and read.  “There’s a question mark, not a serious problem, but while the striation marks were a match, there was an anomaly, but not enough to discount the fact the gun was fired from the gun she was holding.”

I shrugged.  We should go to the scene and have a look.”

“For what?”

“Whatever it is we are missing.”

…

It took another three days and a lot of pressure from above not to have her arrested for the murder of Detective Inspector Chalmers.  When the Chief Superintendent received a copy of the interview, he summoned me to his office.

He held up the document.  “A confession.  Well done.  Have her charged.”

“She fired the gun.  It was just not the one that killed her husband.”

“The forensic evidence says otherwise.  This is as open and shut a case as you will get.”

“In that I will disagree.  It’s far more complicated than that.”

“Then if it was not her, who was it?”

“One of his colleagues’ wives, the one he was having an affair with.  I thought it was the husband, but he has an alibi.”

“What are you talking about?”  I could see the frustration and rage building.  I had to be clear in my facts before I could definitively say who it was.

“As I said, it was complicated.  There was a second bullet; it took a while to find it, but where it landed made sense given that Mrs Chalmers had never used a gun before, and as you are aware, ever gun kicks, and if you aren’t prepared, the bullet could go anywhere.  Certainly not where you aim it, and definitely if you have the shakes.”

“I read the interview.  She could be lying.  There’s been a distinct lack of emotion after his killing.”

“I believe she was a victim of domestic violence, particularly after the undercover role.  Indications are that he immersed himself too deeply in the role, taking on aspects of the character that changed his personality and attitude.  It’s a shame he did not accept counselling when it was offered.”

There was a knock on the door.  His personal assistant put her head in nd said, “Sergeant Cartwright, sir.”

“Send her in.”

She came in, closed the door, and gave me a sheet of paper.

“What is it?”

“Second bullet, sir.  Perfectly matches the gun Mrs Rogerson used.”

“So did the other bullet.”

“It seemed to, but it didn’t.  It came from a similar gun.  It was one of two that Chalmers and a fellow detective inspector, Rogerson, bought from a gun dealer as backup weapons, and as it happens, were consecutive serial numbers.”

“That’s impossible.”

“I thought so too, but the forensics team are writing it up.  It’s one of those very strange anomalies.”

“That means Mrs Rogerson was having an affair with Chalmers.  She used to work in forensics and knew about the striation factors for consecutive guns because it was one of her cases; she got his gun and sneaked into the Chalmers residence and waited.  She had fuelled the rumours of an affair and probably hoped more than she knew she would confront him and had left his gun where she could see it, with the safety off.  It was risky, ill-thought-out, but in the end nearly worked.  That will be the basis of the report.”

“Both the Rogersons are in custody and awaiting interview.  Both are waiting for legal representation.”

“Good work.” He shook his head and sat down.  The interview was over.

Now the real work began.

…

©  Charles Heath  2026

365 Days of Writing, 2026 – 262/263

Days 262/263 – Writing Exercise

…

The sun shone down brightly, although the air was cool.  A gentle breeze rustled through the trees, reminding me that autumn was disappearing and winter was about to set in. 

I’d promised myself I was not going to last another winter in England and had all but made up my mind to move to a small cottage I had bought in the Provence area of France about 10 years before.

IT was where Evelyn and I were going to retire until she got cancer, and despite every effort, the remissions and the hopes, she finally succumbed a few months before.

I was reassessing my life and decided it was time to retire.  Policing was no longer the way it used to be, and criminals were getting away with more, and our powers were getting less.

I was not the only one disenchanted.

My cell phone rang, and I half decided not to answer it, but it was a call I could not put off any longer.

My superior, Chief Superintendent Jamieson.  He was calling to get my decision.  Staying or going.  Not only had Evelyn’s death affected me, but my last case had also been harrowing, and almost the cause of my death.  I was still recovering from that, not physically, but mentally.

“Sir.”

“Rogers, how are you?”

“Well enough.  I know I’ve been tardy…”

“That’s not why I’m calling.  I have a job for you.  One you’re not going to like, but it will not have any life-threatening element.  Call it a swansong.”

Interesting lead-in.  Had he guessed I was about to pack it in?  I had intimated it to a few of the others at the station a few weeks back.

“Do I have a choice?”  He wouldn’t be calling me if I did.  He was that sort of person.

“Call in tomorrow at nine, and we’ll talk about it.”

“Yes, sir.”

I knew him well enough to know that he would give me the details straight, without embellishment, and without a sales pitch.  He was the first of my bosses who was.  And he had been very accommodating with my personal issues.

I owed him an audience.

…

I’d been summoned to his office three times since I joined the station.  My first day, the day he told me I was seconded to a task force, the one that nearly got me killed, and the last, the day my wife had died, to break the news.

His office wasn’t the biggest, not the smallest.  He didn’t like the accoutrements of his rank, except for the personal assistant, Marianne, who guarded his door like a Grenadier Guard/

She smiled when I turned up at her desk, asked me the usual questions, then told me to go straight in.

He was looking out the window, not that there was anything particular to look at; it was basically the carpark and a small garden with a fountain which didn’t work.  Marianne had complained to the council a dozen times, and still nothing had been done about it.

He heard me come in but didn’t turn straight away.  He would have seen me come up the side street and enter by the side entrance.  Time to think about what he was going to say.

Three minutes later he turned but didn’t sit.  He motioned for me to take the chair opposite his desk, and I did.

“Have you decided?”

“Yes.”

“And?”

“It’s time.  With one thing or another, I don’t feel I could put everything that’s needed into the job.  IT’s not a matter of losing interest; it’s just the job is not the same anymore.”

“For some, yes.  But I understand.  With Evelyn, and the last assignment.  Hell of a mess, I’m afraid, still trying to find out exactly what happened.”

I could tell him if he wanted to listen, but he would not.  One of his personally selected officers wasn’t quite up to the mark and crumbled under pressure.  Trouble was, he died in the crossfire, and I wasn’t going to throw him under the bus now that he was dead.

The review would find that out soon enough, if they did a thorough job.  If….

“It was a difficult situation that no training could prepare anyone for, sir.”

He shrugged.  “Perhaps.  We’ll find out in due course, I expect.”

He sat.

I waited.

“There’s one last job I would like you to do.  We’ve had a request for an officer of your rank to go to the Met and run an investigation.  It’s one of the own Inspectors.  Bad situation, one where his fellow officers are judged to be too close to the case, and it needs an outsider’s perspective.”

“Not an internal review, sir.  I don’t think it’s a job any officer would want to conduct on a fellow officer, our office or theirs.”

“It’s a delicate situation, and needs care and understanding, the sort you have brought to this division.  And you have experience.”

I sighed inwardly.  There’s only one case that fit that category.  It didn’t end well for anyone.

I didn’t say anything, so he continued, “The Met have a case involving a Detective Inspector who has been shot by his wife.  You might have heard about it in the media; unfortunately, they like to make mountains out of molehills, and it’s blown up.”

“Three days ago?  DI Chalmers?” 

The Detective credited with bringing down a crime family responsible for killing half a dozen rivals over the last few years.  Undercover for the last three years, celebrated after the convictions, award ceremonies, media interviews- a hero.

Now a dead hero.

Day one, she was arrested.

Day two, ugly rumours started surfacing.

Day three, I was about to be sent into the fires of hell.

He slid a file across the desk towards me.  “If anyone can work out what the hell is going on, it’s you.  The Chief Super there wants this sorted as soon as possible.  Someone over there leaked confidential details, so finding out what happened and who the leak is are your first two priorities.”

“If I take the job.”

“You do, and I’ll personally shake your hand on the way out the door.”

“If I don’t?”

“That’s not a question, Rogers.  You have to give notice, and you’ve been cleared by the doctors to come back to work.  I’m sure you would want to be doing something proactive rather than shuffling paper clips down in the basement.”

He was probably right.

…

Chief Superintendent Graham was completely different to my Chief Super.  Big office, big personality, and what I would call a persuader, oozing all the charm of a snake oil salesman.  He shook my hand, gave me the glowing report he had received on me and said it was an open-and-shut case.

As far as he was concerned, the wife was guilty, and all I had to get was her confession.  Anything I had read in the media about the case was a load of bollocks, and that was the end of it.

This had all the hallmarks of a set-up.  If I succeeded, everything would be fine; if I dragged my feet, or found a different outcome, then I would become a scapegoat.

That feeling was confirmed after my first question, “I understand that Mrs Chalmers refuses to speak to anyone from this division.  Why?”

“Her lawyer.  Says we are biased.  We’re the goddamn police, for Christ’s sake.  We are supposed to be impartial.  We could have handled the case, but upstairs got involved after someone leaked case details to the media.  I want to know who.”

“And if she won’t speak to me?”

“She will.  She has to speak to someone, eventually; otherwise, it will seal her guilt.  She did it, there’s no doubt.  The forensics have her dead to rights.  The case files are on your desk, and your first interview is set for 11 am.”

He picked up the phone, then snapped, “Send Cartright in.”

A minute later, a female detective came in.  I had expected a male assistant.

“Ah, Cartright.  This is Detective Chief Inspector Rogers for the Thames Valley police.  It was agreed we get an outside officer to investigate, so we’re not accused of bias.”

“Yes, sir.”

“You belong to him for the duration of the investigation.  Anything he needs, make it happen.”

“Yes, sir.”

A wave of the hand and we were dismissed.

…

She took me downstairs to a separate office with two desks, filing cabinets, computers, printers, a large white board already covered in photos, papers and writing, and a door that closed out the rest of the office.

A half dozen detectives whom I had no doubt were best friends with the deceased, and looking for answers and someone to blame.

“You drew the short straw,” I said.

“No.  I volunteered.  They had me doing administrative work, nothing like what I signed up for.  None of the others wanted to work with you, so I stepped forward.”

“Why none of the others?”

“They think they should run the investigation, not someone from outside.”

“And what do you think?”

“It has to be someone from outside.  They aren’t prepared to believe that he was at fault, just in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

At least she hadn’t tried to condemn me; I was sure by the end of the day there would be an approach by one, or a group.

I had read the case notes in the file that my Chief Super had given me, but they were written up with exactly the sort of bias that wasn’t going to help anyone.  It would be interesting to get her view.  And I wondered if it was not a mistake on the part of this station’s Chief Super to allow her to work with me.  I’d know in a few minutes.

“And what are the facts, as you understand them?”

“Not what this board has on it.  First, Mrs Chalmers was home after accompanying her husband to a gathering where her husband, Detective Inspector Chalmers, was the guest of honour.  It started at six.  By ten, according to several witnesses, there was a heated argument, apparently about his excessive drinking, and she left. 

“Chalmers remained and continued drinking.  She went home and arrived there about Eleven.  The gathering ended about twelve-forty-five, and those remaining got cabs home.  One of the Detective Sergeants put Chalmers in a cab.  He said he was quite intoxicated, but still coherent.  Apparently, he is a functioning alcoholic, whatever that means. 

“Next report: a call from a neighbour next door about loud shouting, and then a scream.  Seconds later, there was a shot fired.  The first responders found Mrs Chalmers with a gun in her hand, and her husband dead on the floor near the door. 

“Her only statement so far: she was defending herself from a raving, drunken lunatic who was trying to kill her.  There was no one else in the apartment; the gun had just been fired, one round, the bullet that killed him came from the gun in her hand.”

“Has there been any previous arguments, similar behaviour?”

“No.”

“They questioned the same neighbours?”

“They said that night was the first time anything had happened.  She had not presented herself as a killer, but several people in the building said she was ‘strange’.”

“Strange?”

“Odd behaviour.”

“These interviews were conducted by detectives and officers from this station?”

“Yes.”

“They are here?”

She picked up a folder and handed it to me.  “A dozen or so, right after the first responders and forensics got there.  Questioned everyone in the vicinity.  Some heard shouting, some didn’t. Most heard the shot, thought it was a backfiring car.”

“How long was he undercover?”

“Two years.”

“Report?”

She handed me another file.  It was quite thin.  Three pages.  I guess there was little need be said about an operation that ended with such success.

“We have an interview at 11.”

“She won’t talk.  Doesn’t trust any of us.”

“You too?”

“I work here.  I guess I’m one of ‘them’.”

“We’ll soon see.  You can sit in.  How much do you know about the case?”

“As much as I just told you, sir.  I probably know slightly more than you.”

“Mrs Chalmers?  You have half an hour to tell me as much as you can.”

…

My first question at the end of that briefing was why?  Why would she shoot her husband?  My knowledge of people who shoot other people wasn’t extensive, but those reasons I understood to be: if they were threatened to the point where there was no other choice, the trigger was exceptionally light, and it was an accident; that they had always intended to shoot the person in front of them because that person had driven them to it; they were a soldier shooting at the enemy in a war zone.  That was it.  The next question was how she came to have a gun.  Perhaps that was because it was not hers.  A quick look at the forensic report showed it to be her husband’s spare gun, usually locked away in the gun cabinet, at the bottom of the closet in the main bedroom.

It didn’t help her case, because she must have got it out between the time she got home and the time he got home, which meant she knew she might have to use it, or she intended to use it.

Why?

There was a debriefing report for Chalmers, and a psychological report after two years undercover.  I’d been there myself, though not in such an evil environment, so it had to have played havoc with his view of normal life.  The report said he had readjusted well, and that he had conducted himself in such a manner that the courts were impressed with his ability to factually and clearly report the facts for the prosecution.  A man on the edge after a two-year trip to hell and back might not have been as coherent and clear-minded.

It was a pity I could not talk to him and get a clear idea of his state of mind, irrespective of the words on the paper.

There was no psychiatric report on Mrs Chalmers yet.  It would be in her best interests if there was.  Perhaps I could persuade her.

We’d soon find out.

Cartright took me downstairs to the interview room where Mrs Chalmers was waiting.  She had been brought, under guard, from the holding cell.  She was, as I understood it, being held until after the initial investigation was finished, determining when she would come before a magistrate.  Someone had determined her to be a flight risk if she was bailed.

Outside the room, a man was waiting; I suspect one of Chalmer’s fellow officers, and one of two who had conducted the first interviews with his wife and witnesses.  The result of his initial interview was that she would not talk to any of the station staff, or anyone connected to her husband.  The transcript of what little had been exchanged told me everything I needed to know.

“Are you in charge of the Chalmers investigation?”

His tone was belligerent, and if strict protocol was being followed, he should not be here, or anywhere near the investigation.

“Who wants to know?”

“Detective Sergeant Blake, Detective Inspector Chalmers partner.  I would like to sit in on the interview.”

“You have the explicit permission of the Chief Superintendent?  I can call him if you like?”

“As a matter of courtesy.”

I looked at him and gauged the level of hatred he was feeling towards my presence.  I was sure there were three others just like him who would like to be here also.

He was here for a reason.

“What is it you don’t want me to find out?”

He looked at me with all the venom he could muster.

“You don’t know anything about the man or the case.”

“Which is exactly why I’m here.  I’m not too close to the subject, and I certainly have no biases one way or the other.  Fresh eyes, neutral attitude.  Your first interview with the subject will be a separate report from me.  You cannot be here, or anywhere near Mrs Chalmers, or for that matter, any of the witnesses already interviewed.  That includes all the Detective staff in this station, and former colleagues of Detective Inspector Chalmers.”

“A good man died, and we want to know why.”

“That’s why I’m here.  Let me do my job, and I’ll get the answers.”

I could see that was the last thing he wanted me to do, which told me one very important fact: there was more to this death than just a wife killing her husband after a violent argument.

He had more to say but decided not to.  “This isn’t right.”  He glared at Cartwright, which was much the same as intimidation, then left.

I saw her shiver.  Fear.  He had that ability, which to me was a sign.

“You may wish you didn’t volunteer.”

“No.  They’re all like that, looking down on the junior staff, and women in particular.  I was hoping it was better here than my last station.

I shook my head.  Despite all the programs, there were still pockets of bad behaviour.

“Ready?”

“As I’ll ever be, I guess.”

I nodded to the officer in charge of the section, and he came over and showed us into the interview room.

I never got over that first look from the suspect, the one that either held fear or contempt, though of late it had been more of the latter.  The new criminal class were bolder, meaner, and more contemptuous of the police, and tended to hide behind very expensive lawyers.

Mrs Chalmers lawyer looked positively sedate.  That meant perhaps I should be careful.

Mrs Chalmers did not speak.  I was guessing she had been advised to speak only when spoken to.

Cartright and I sat, and Cartright switched on the recording device and made the introduction.

Then she spoke.  “I don’t remember seeing you before at this station.  Are you new?”

“No.  I usually work at Thames Valley and have been seconded to this investigation to keep it impartial.  It has been decided that no one from this station, or anyone who worked with your husband, can investigate his death.  It would be a conflict of interest, as well as make it impossible to secure a conviction, if, and not when, you were found guilty.  My attitude is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  I understand you have refused to talk to any of the detectives in this location.”

“They are all Rodney’s mates.  None of them ever liked me, not one of the girls.”

I had some appreciation of what she was talking about.  Evelyn had a hard time getting along with some of the other wives, women who had a more, as she called it, ‘devil-may-care’ attitude.  These officers were crude and unruly for want of a better description, and sometimes a little too free with women other than their wives or girlfriends.  They called it ‘letting off steam’

“Evely had that problem too.” She gave me a strange look.  “My wife.  She didn’t fit in, but then, neither did I.  I was reminded by colleagues that it was part of the job, the dangers, the hours, what we had to put up with, but I didn’t quite see how overindulgence in alcohol and drugs, and having affairs, compensated.  Did your husband have problems?  I understand he was undercover for two years, often in bad situations, maintaining his position.”

“He never spoke about it.  Just seemed to be angry all the time.  I realised, after the first year, that he was drinking more, and I suspect part of that cover included being ‘one of the boys’.  I wasn’t that naïve as to know he was less than faithful, although when I asked him, he wouldn’t talk about it.  I know he was seeing someone else.”

“You know who it was?”

“Just a first name. She would call him at odd hours, and he would go off, saying it was a call he had to answer for work.”

“That makes you angry?”

“Disappointed.  I don’t think he realised how much he would have to change to do the job, or that he would like it so much.  He said that a few months ago, I was boring.  I offered to leave, let him have the file he wanted.  I don’t think he liked the idea of me leaving him.”

“So, was life for you worse after he went undercover, or had it started earlier, with the feeling you didn’t quite measure up to his and other officers’ expectations of a policeman’s wife or girlfriend?”

“Only after he joined the task force.  The officers were a different breed, as he called them.  They seemed to take more risks.  Worked hard, played hard, he said.  I didn’t like it.”

“Did you argue over it??

“Not at first.  He was on the fringe, trying to prove himself.  He was different, but the sort of different I liked, what attracted me to him.  Over time, he changed.  He couldn’t see it.  I and others outside the force could see it and tried to tell him.  That’s when things changed.  About a year ago.  I only recently found out there had been several people killed, and he blamed himself for not preventing it.”

A flare-up in the turf war.  A death on either side.  It could have escalated, but it didn’t.  I knew a little about taking the blame for something I could have prevented.  Not that I could have, but it doesn’t stop you.  It changed me until I got help.  Evelyn had insisted.

…

She took a drink of water, then exchanged a meaningful look with her lawyer.  Perhaps she suspected I was going to start asking the difficult questions.

I was.

“Let’s move forward to three days ago.  Tell me what happened before and during the party.”

I expected silence, because any questions prior to this regarding that night went unanswered.

“Perhaps you would be better asking me about the month or the week before.”

“After he came back from the undercover assignment, and working with the prosecution lawyers over the evidence he had gathered, and the arrests?”

“That was work.  He was a different person at work than at home.  He found it very difficult to settle back into a normal life.  He was, what I would call, a different set of withdrawal symptoms.  At first he wouldn’t tell me that he was going, what’s the expression someone used, cold turkey, after years of boozing and drugs.  He should have taken the offer of spending time in a facility to wind down, but he didn’t.  He spent more time with his fellow officers than he did with me; we never talked, and when I wanted to, he would get angry and walk out, coming back later drunk or high on drugs, and abusive.  Then he started spending days away, not telling me where he was or what he was doing.  I endured this for several months until that party, the one celebrating the end of the evidence-gathering and laying of charges phase.  I told him before we left that it was all but over now; we could go back to our life.  He basically said whatever we had was over, and he had moved on.  It was not unexpected.  I asked him if he didn’t want me to go, and he said we could discuss it more after the party, that he hadn’t told any of the others yet, and we had to show unity.”

“You could have stayed home.”

“No.  There was an edge to his tone that told me that if I didn’t do as he asked, there might be trouble.  Appearances were important, even if our marriage had gone to hell in a handbasket.  For the sake of appearances, I went.  Then he treated me like I wasn’t there.  As the evening wore on, I was speaking with the other wives, and one in particular asked if everything was alright.  She and the others were completely unaware of our situation.  I said it was not, and she mentioned that Gerry, her husband, had said he was seeing another woman.  I felt stupid being there, everyone knowing, but it always is a case of the wife being the last to know.  I told him I wanted to leave, and he basically told me to go, with a few extra expletives.  I’m sure you have a pieced-together version of the words spoken.”

“We have a phone video, perhaps to paint you in a particular light. You were, if I may say, remarkably calm.”

“I wasn’t.  It was probably the worst few minutes of my life.  I had no real friends there.  As you are aware, I left alone and went home.”

“And when he came home?”

“When he decided to come home and proceed to abuse me because I had to go digging into stuff that didn’t concern me.  Of course, I had no idea what he was talking about.  All I did was mind my own business; it was the other ladies that picked and probed and told me what was going on, trying, I believe, to make me look like a fool.”

Mad enough to shoot him?  “You had a few hours to stew over the news.”

“No.  I packed a bag and left it by the front door.  I was going to say I’d had enough and leave.”

“There was an argument?”

“He was screaming at me, calling me names I dare not repeat, and then threatened me.”

“Where did the gun come from?”

“The gun safe.  It was his spare weapon.  I went to get it, and it wasn’t in there.  It was in the drawer of his bedside table next to the bed.”

“Was he expecting trouble from those he was testifying against?”

“He never said, but he knew I hated the sight of it, and insisted he never get it out where I could see it.”

“Have you used it before?”

“No.  I knew it was there; I believed that when he came home he would be belligerent, and I would have it near me just in case.  I had no intention of using it.”

“Have you used any sort of gun before?”

“No.”

“So, you had the gun and didn’t know how to use it.  Was the safety off?”

“I didn’t know anything about a safety.  I assumed he had it stored in a safe mode.”

“And you were going to use it, how?”

“Aim it, tell him I was going and to keep his distance.”

“He would know the safety was engaged and simply take it off you.  So, it got to the point where you aimed it at him.  How far away was he when you did?”

“About 6 feet at most.  Just out of his reach.  When he saw it, he grinned.  He put his hands up and said, ‘Just pull the trigger and get it over with’.  He would have known the safety was set.  I didn’t.  By that time my hands were shaking, and I was losing resolve.  He knew that.  He took a step, and I pulled the trigger, and the gun went off.  The next thing, he was on the ground, and there was blood everywhere.  I fainted and was roused when the first police arrived on the scene.  I had no intention of using the gun.  Pulling the trigger was purely reflexive when he advanced on me, and I did not expect it would fire.”

I could see she was exhausted.  It hadn’t been a long interview, but it was difficult.  Perhaps she trusted me, but it was more than I could have hoped for.  At the very least, there was a basis for manslaughter, but there was something else that was off.  Not in her testimony but in the documentation, and I had to go back to the files.

“Thank you for your time, and for giving me as full an account of the events from your perspective.”

“You should discuss that with your legal representative.”

That was as much as I could tell her.

…

When we got back to the office, I closed the door.  I could feel the heat of the stares from the other detectives there.  They knew where I had been and who I had interviewed.  I expected a call from the Chief Superintendent.

“What are your first thoughts?”  I had cautioned her not to speak of anything we had just heard until back in the office.  I had no doubt the walls had ears.  There would be a queue a mile long to hear what was on that tape.

Cartright went to her desk and picked up the rushed forensics.  It had arrived just before I did that morning, and I hadn’t got to read it.  She had.

“The bullet had been fired from a distance between ten and twelve feet.  She could not have shot him, not on her evidence.”

“Would she lie about that distance, make a mistake? She was in fear of him.”

“Possibly.”

She turned the page and read.  “There’s a question mark, not a serious problem, but while the striation marks were a match, there was an anomaly, but not enough to discount the fact the gun was fired from the gun she was holding.”

I shrugged.  We should go to the scene and have a look.”

“For what?”

“Whatever it is we are missing.”

…

It took another three days and a lot of pressure from above not to have her arrested for the murder of Detective Inspector Chalmers.  When the Chief Superintendent received a copy of the interview, he summoned me to his office.

He held up the document.  “A confession.  Well done.  Have her charged.”

“She fired the gun.  It was just not the one that killed her husband.”

“The forensic evidence says otherwise.  This is as open and shut a case as you will get.”

“In that I will disagree.  It’s far more complicated than that.”

“Then if it was not her, who was it?”

“One of his colleagues’ wives, the one he was having an affair with.  I thought it was the husband, but he has an alibi.”

“What are you talking about?”  I could see the frustration and rage building.  I had to be clear in my facts before I could definitively say who it was.

“As I said, it was complicated.  There was a second bullet; it took a while to find it, but where it landed made sense given that Mrs Chalmers had never used a gun before, and as you are aware, ever gun kicks, and if you aren’t prepared, the bullet could go anywhere.  Certainly not where you aim it, and definitely if you have the shakes.”

“I read the interview.  She could be lying.  There’s been a distinct lack of emotion after his killing.”

“I believe she was a victim of domestic violence, particularly after the undercover role.  Indications are that he immersed himself too deeply in the role, taking on aspects of the character that changed his personality and attitude.  It’s a shame he did not accept counselling when it was offered.”

There was a knock on the door.  His personal assistant put her head in nd said, “Sergeant Cartwright, sir.”

“Send her in.”

She came in, closed the door, and gave me a sheet of paper.

“What is it?”

“Second bullet, sir.  Perfectly matches the gun Mrs Rogerson used.”

“So did the other bullet.”

“It seemed to, but it didn’t.  It came from a similar gun.  It was one of two that Chalmers and a fellow detective inspector, Rogerson, bought from a gun dealer as backup weapons, and as it happens, were consecutive serial numbers.”

“That’s impossible.”

“I thought so too, but the forensics team are writing it up.  It’s one of those very strange anomalies.”

“That means Mrs Rogerson was having an affair with Chalmers.  She used to work in forensics and knew about the striation factors for consecutive guns because it was one of her cases; she got his gun and sneaked into the Chalmers residence and waited.  She had fuelled the rumours of an affair and probably hoped more than she knew she would confront him and had left his gun where she could see it, with the safety off.  It was risky, ill-thought-out, but in the end nearly worked.  That will be the basis of the report.”

“Both the Rogersons are in custody and awaiting interview.  Both are waiting for legal representation.”

“Good work.” He shook his head and sat down.  The interview was over.

Now the real work began.

…

©  Charles Heath  2026

365 Days of writing, 2026 – Beyond the second novel

…

Writing a compelling book or television series requires a complex infrastructure to keep audiences engaged over multiple installments. Beyond generational lineages, world-building locations, historical integration, and timelines, several critical structural elements are essential for crafting a successful series:

1. The Overarching Narrative Arc (The Macro-Plot)

While individual books or episodes have their own self-contained conflicts, a series requires a macro-plot that spans the entire run.

  • The “Uber-Conflict”: This is the ultimate threat, mystery, or goal that won’t be resolved until the final installment (e.g., defeating a Dark Lord, solving a multi-year conspiracy, or reaching a distant destination).
  • The Breadcrumb Trail: Each installment must advance this macro-plot slightly, offering clues, minor victories, or shifts in power so the audience feels a continuous sense of momentum.

2. Series-Length Character Arcs

Characters in a standalone story change over 300 pages; characters in a series must evolve sustainably over thousands of pages.

  • Slower Burn Development: Flaws, trauma, and growth must be rationed. A character shouldn’t overcome their core emotional wound in book one, or they will have nowhere to go in book two.
  • The Cost of Consistency: Writers must balance keeping characters recognizable (their core traits, humor, or skills) with allowing them to be permanently altered by the events of each previous installment.

3. Structural Formula & Narrative Pacing

A series needs a reliable structural blueprint so the audience knows what kind of experience to expect.

  • Procedural vs. Serialised: You must decide if your series is episodic (a “monster-of-the-week” or “case-of-the-book” format where status quo is largely maintained) or serialised (one continuous, unfolding story where you cannot skip an instalment).
  • The 70/30 Rule: A common pacing strategy where roughly 70% of an individual book focuses on resolving the immediate, self-contained plot, while 30% dedicatedly services the ongoing series-wide arcs and subplots.

4. The Integration of Subplots (A-Plot, B-Plot, C-Plot)

To keep a long-form story from feeling stagnant, a series relies heavily on a rotating matrix of subplots.

  • The A-Plot: The immediate conflict of the current book (e.g., catching this killer).
  • The B-Plot: Ongoing character relationships, personal dramas, or professional rivalries that evolve slowly across multiple books.
  • The C-Plot: Subtle seeds planted for future books—an unexplained magical anomaly, a background political shift, or a minor character who will become the main antagonist three books later.

5. Managing Information Architecture

In a series, how you ration and recall information is just as important as the plot itself.

  • The Exposition Balance: Every subsequent installment must gracefully remind returning readers of past events without alienating or boring them, while simultaneously catching up new readers.
  • Payoff Trajectory: You must master the art of the setup and payoff across vast distances. A passing comment in book one might be the twist ending of book four.

6. Theme and Motifs

A series is often unified by a central thematic question that is explored from multiple angles through different characters and situations across the installments.

  • Thematic Evolution: If book one explores the corrupting nature of absolute power, book two might explore the burden of rebuilding after power falls, and book three might look at the compromises required to maintain peace. The setting and characters stay the same, but the thematic lens shifts.

…

365 Days of writing, 2026 – Beyond the second novel

…

Writing a compelling book or television series requires a complex infrastructure to keep audiences engaged over multiple installments. Beyond generational lineages, world-building locations, historical integration, and timelines, several critical structural elements are essential for crafting a successful series:

1. The Overarching Narrative Arc (The Macro-Plot)

While individual books or episodes have their own self-contained conflicts, a series requires a macro-plot that spans the entire run.

  • The “Uber-Conflict”: This is the ultimate threat, mystery, or goal that won’t be resolved until the final installment (e.g., defeating a Dark Lord, solving a multi-year conspiracy, or reaching a distant destination).
  • The Breadcrumb Trail: Each installment must advance this macro-plot slightly, offering clues, minor victories, or shifts in power so the audience feels a continuous sense of momentum.

2. Series-Length Character Arcs

Characters in a standalone story change over 300 pages; characters in a series must evolve sustainably over thousands of pages.

  • Slower Burn Development: Flaws, trauma, and growth must be rationed. A character shouldn’t overcome their core emotional wound in book one, or they will have nowhere to go in book two.
  • The Cost of Consistency: Writers must balance keeping characters recognizable (their core traits, humor, or skills) with allowing them to be permanently altered by the events of each previous installment.

3. Structural Formula & Narrative Pacing

A series needs a reliable structural blueprint so the audience knows what kind of experience to expect.

  • Procedural vs. Serialised: You must decide if your series is episodic (a “monster-of-the-week” or “case-of-the-book” format where status quo is largely maintained) or serialised (one continuous, unfolding story where you cannot skip an instalment).
  • The 70/30 Rule: A common pacing strategy where roughly 70% of an individual book focuses on resolving the immediate, self-contained plot, while 30% dedicatedly services the ongoing series-wide arcs and subplots.

4. The Integration of Subplots (A-Plot, B-Plot, C-Plot)

To keep a long-form story from feeling stagnant, a series relies heavily on a rotating matrix of subplots.

  • The A-Plot: The immediate conflict of the current book (e.g., catching this killer).
  • The B-Plot: Ongoing character relationships, personal dramas, or professional rivalries that evolve slowly across multiple books.
  • The C-Plot: Subtle seeds planted for future books—an unexplained magical anomaly, a background political shift, or a minor character who will become the main antagonist three books later.

5. Managing Information Architecture

In a series, how you ration and recall information is just as important as the plot itself.

  • The Exposition Balance: Every subsequent installment must gracefully remind returning readers of past events without alienating or boring them, while simultaneously catching up new readers.
  • Payoff Trajectory: You must master the art of the setup and payoff across vast distances. A passing comment in book one might be the twist ending of book four.

6. Theme and Motifs

A series is often unified by a central thematic question that is explored from multiple angles through different characters and situations across the installments.

  • Thematic Evolution: If book one explores the corrupting nature of absolute power, book two might explore the burden of rebuilding after power falls, and book three might look at the compromises required to maintain peace. The setting and characters stay the same, but the thematic lens shifts.

…

365 Days of Writing, 2026 – 261

Day 261 – Writing about what you know well

…

Why Writing About What You Know Can Be Harder Than Writing About What Surprises You (And How to Overcome It)


Introduction

You’ve spent years mastering your craft, building a deep knowledge base, and now you’re asked to write about it. Yet, the blank screen stares back, and the words refuse to flow. Surprisingly, many writers find it easier to write about a subject that fascinates or even intimidates them than about something they already know inside and out.

In this post we’ll explore the paradox of familiarity, unpack the emotional and technical obstacles that make “writing about what you know” feel like a slog, and deliver a step‑by‑step framework to turn that expertise into high‑quality, SEO‑friendly content that readers (and Google) love.


Table of Contents

  1. The Paradox of Familiarity
  2. Psychological Barriers When Writing About What You Know
  3. The Unexpected Freedom of Writing About the Unknown
  4. Practical Strategies to Make Familiar Topics Shine
    • Reframe Your Perspective
    • Use Storytelling & Personal Anecdotes
    • Drill Deeper: Find the “Angle”
    • Leverage Fresh Research & Data
    • Structure for Readability & SEO
  5. When to Choose Surprise Over Familiarity
  6. SEO Checklist for Expert Content
  7. Conclusion & Call‑to‑Action
  8. FAQs

1. The Paradox of Familiarity

Writing About the UnknownWriting About What You Know
Pros: Fresh curiosity, high emotional stakes, “novelty” factor.Cons: Fear of sounding boring, assumptions of shared knowledge, perfectionism.
Cons: Limited background research needed, risk of inaccuracy.Pros: Authority, depth, credibility.

Even though familiar topics give you authority, they also bring invisible friction:

  1. Assumed knowledge: You skip explanations you think are “obvious,” leaving readers confused.
  2. Perfectionism: You feel pressured to be exactly right, which can freeze the writing process.
  3. Self‑censorship: You worry about sounding “pretentious” or “dry.”

The result? Writer’s block, a flat tone, and content that under‑delivers on both reader value and SEO potential.


2. Psychological Barriers When Writing About What You Know

2.1 The “Expert’s Curse”

When you’ve internalized a topic, it’s easy to forget what beginners struggle with. This “curse of knowledge” creates a mental gap between your expertise and the reader’s understanding, making it hard to translate that knowledge into accessible language.

2.2 Fear of Redundancy

You might think, “Everyone already knows this.” That fear pushes you to over‑edit or abandon the piece altogether, believing the content won’t add value.

2.3 Perfection Paralysis

Because you can prove every point, you feel obligated to double‑check every fact, turning a 500‑word draft into an endless research marathon.

2.4 Emotional Distance

Writing about a subject that’s personal (e.g., a hobby you love) can trigger emotional over‑investment. You become overly protective of the content, stalling revision and publication.


3. The Unexpected Freedom of Writing About the Unknown

When you write about something that surprises you, a few psychological boosters kick in:

BoostWhy It Helps
CuriosityTriggers dopamine, energizing the writing flow.
Low stakesYou’re less likely to worry about “getting it perfect.”
Novelty biasReaders (and search engines) love fresh angles, encouraging you to dig deeper.

The flip side? You may need to research more to avoid inaccuracies, but the process often feels more adventurous and less intimidating than confronting your own expertise.


4. Practical Strategies to Make Familiar Topics Shine

Below is a step‑by‑step framework you can apply to any piece where you’re writing about what you already know. Each step integrates SEO best practices without sacrificing readability.

4.1 Reframe Your Perspective

  1. Adopt a “Beginner’s Mindset.” Imagine you’re explaining the topic to a 12‑year‑old or a new hire.
  2. Ask “Why does this matter to them?” Focus on benefits, not just facts.
  3. Write a one‑sentence “value proposition.” Example: “Learn three quick hacks to cut your email inbox in half, even if you’ve been managing it for years.”

4.2 Use Storytelling & Personal Anecdotes

  • Hook: Start with a vivid anecdote that illustrates the problem.
  • Conflict: Show the struggle you faced despite your expertise.
  • Resolution: Deliver actionable tips that solved the issue.

Example: “When I first automated my reporting workflow, I thought the biggest hurdle would be the tech. Instead, it was convincing my team that the new dashboard was trustworthy.”

Stories humanize expertise, making dense information more relatable and SEO‑friendly (Google favors dwell time).

4.3 Drill Deeper: Find the “Angle”

Your expert knowledge likely includes niche sub‑topics that few others have covered. Use these to differentiate your post:

Typical AngleHow to Find It
Common myth bustingList the top 3 misconceptions you’ve heard.
Process walkthroughBreak a complex workflow into a step‑by‑step guide.
Case studyShare real data from your own project.
Tool comparisonProvide a side‑by‑side matrix of pros/cons for tools you use daily.

4.4 Leverage Fresh Research & Data

Even when you’re the authority, up‑to‑date statistics amp up credibility and SEO:

  • Pull the latest industry reports (e.g., HubSpot, Statista).
  • Quote expert interviews (including your own).
  • Add visual assets: charts, infographics, or screenshots.

Tip: Embed a Google Data Studio chart on your page. It’s interactive, improves dwell time, and signals freshness to Google.

4.5 Structure for Readability & SEO

  1. Title – Include primary keyword early: “How to Write About What You Know (Even When It Feels Hard)”
  2. Meta Description – 150‑160 characters, incorporating the same keyword.
  3. H1, H2, H3 – Use a logical hierarchy with keyword variations.
  4. Short Paragraphs – 2‑4 sentences each.
  5. Bullet Points & Numbered Lists – Boost skimmability.
  6. Internal Links – Connect to 2‑3 related posts on your site (e.g., “5 Ways to Overcome Writer’s Block”).
  7. External Links – Cite authoritative sources.
  8. Call‑to‑Action (CTA) – End with a prompt (download a checklist, sign up for a newsletter).

SEO Boost: Add a FAQ schema (structured data) using the questions in the final FAQ section. This often earns featured snippets.


5. When to Choose Surprise Over Familiarity

Sometimes the best approach is to pivot and write about a topic that genuinely excites you, even if it’s outside your core expertise. Consider this path when:

  • You’re experiencing burnout on a particular niche.
  • Your analytics show a decline in engagement for evergreen content.
  • You spot a trending keyword that aligns loosely with your brand but offers a fresh angle.

Hybrid Strategy: Write a “Beginner’s Guide” to the surprising topic, then sprinkle in expert insights from your main field to create a unique cross‑disciplinary piece. This can attract new audiences while retaining authority.


6. SEO Checklist for Expert Content

✅ ItemWhy It Matters
Target keyword in title (within first 60 characters)Boosts click‑through rate (CTR).
Primary keyword in first 100 wordsSignals relevance to search engines.
LSI keywords (e.g., “writing challenges,” “expert content creation”)Improves semantic coverage.
Optimized images (alt‑text with keyword)Increases image search traffic.
Internal linking (2‑3 links)Enhances site architecture & page authority.
Outbound links to authoritative sitesReinforces credibility.
Readability score (Flesch‑Kincaid > 60)Improves user experience.
Mobile‑friendly layoutGoogle’s mobile‑first indexing.
Schema markup (FAQ)Increases chance of rich results.
Social share buttonsDrives referral traffic.

7. Conclusion & Call‑to‑Action

Writing about what you already know can feel like navigating a maze of perfectionism, assumed knowledge, and fear of redundancy. Yet, by reframing your mindset, injecting storytelling, digging for fresh angles, and structuring for SEO, you can transform your expertise into magnetic, high‑ranking content.

Ready to turn your expertise into traffic‑generating copy?
Download our free “Expert to Engager” checklist and start publishing your next powerhouse article today!


8. Frequently Asked Questions

QuestionAnswer
Why does writing about familiar topics feel harder?The “expert’s curse,” fear of redundancy, and perfectionism create mental blocks that stall the writing flow.
How can I avoid sounding pretentious when writing about my field?Adopt a beginner’s mindset, use plain language, and pepper your piece with relatable anecdotes.
Is it better for SEO to write about trending topics or evergreen expertise?A mix works best: evergreen content builds long‑term authority, while trending pieces capture short‑term traffic spikes.
How many times should I edit an expert article?Aim for 3 passes: (1) Content & structure, (2) Clarity & readability, (3) SEO & final polish.
What’s the quickest way to add credibility to a familiar‑topic post?Insert recent data, cite authoritative sources, and embed a visual (chart/infographic).

TL;DR

  • Familiar topics trigger psychological blocks that make writing feel tougher.
  • Reframe, story‑tell, find a unique angle, and back it with fresh data.
  • Follow the SEO checklist to turn expertise into searchable, shareable content.

Take the first step now: [Download the free “Expert to Engager” checklist] and watch your knowledge convert into clicks, leads, and lasting authority.


Happy writing! 🎉

…

PI Walthenson’s second case – A case of finding the ‘Flying Dutchman’.

Known only to a few, there is a legend that a ship named the ‘Flying Dutchman’ left Nazi Germany in the last weeks of the war and set sail for America, escorted by U-boats, under a different name. Aboard was a trove of treasure and gold worth a ‘king’s ransom’.

It was said that it had been sent to a group of American Nazis to create the Fourth Reich at an appropriate time. Over the years, many expeditions off the coast had searched, but found no trace of the vessel or the treasure.

In other words, it was just a legend created to boost tourism.

…

Fast forward to 2024. Our intrepid private detective, Harry Walthenson, overhears a conversation at Grand Central Station. It was the oddness of the message that caught his attention. An investigation turned up nothing out of the ordinary, and he thinks no more about it.

Then Harry is kidnapped, interrogated, and asked questions over and over about a date and a place, why he went there, and when he could not give satisfactory answers, he was beaten half to death and left for dead on a rubbish heap. He was lucky that it was a living space for homeless men; otherwise, he would have died.

In the aftermath, he once again gives it no more thought.

…

After resolving his first case successfully, there’s no rest. Harry’s angry mother comes to his office and demands that he find out where his father has gone. She believes he has run off with a mistress, not for the first time.

Perhaps it was not the wisest decision she has made, because Harry promises to investigate, and adds that she might not like what he finds.

He soon discovered he does not like what he finds, that his father’s friends, a cabal formed at University, have two who are his mother’s current lovers, and another, a criminal blackmailing his father.

Felicity, now his partner, working on a different case, and trying to get answers, uncovers a crime family involved in guarding a disused warehouse on the docks, where she believes Harry had been taken for interrogation, and subsequently dumped nearby to die.

Why are they up to? What is so important that the empty warehouse needs guarding? Who is employing them?

Harry, following up on the death of the blackmailer, traces his death back to an enforcer employed by his grandfather. His mother’s grandfather was a pre-war industrialist who made his fortune in war munitions and shipbuilding.

He was also a member of the American Nazi party.

When Harry also discovers a logbook belonging to a so-called wartime Liberty ship the “Paul Revere” in brackets ‘Freiheitskämpfer’, hidden by his father, and written in a code that is not readily identifiable.

It is no longer a matter of a father who has run off with his mistress; it is a very frightened man in fear of his life, running from a group who will stop at nothing to get the logbook back. And when Harry discovers a family connection to the group, it becomes a race against time to decode the log and find his father before his grandfather does.

…

Coming soon: Harry Walthenson’s new adventure – A case of finding the ‘Flying Dutchman’

365 Days of Writing, 2026 – 261

Day 261 – Writing about what you know well

…

Why Writing About What You Know Can Be Harder Than Writing About What Surprises You (And How to Overcome It)


Introduction

You’ve spent years mastering your craft, building a deep knowledge base, and now you’re asked to write about it. Yet, the blank screen stares back, and the words refuse to flow. Surprisingly, many writers find it easier to write about a subject that fascinates or even intimidates them than about something they already know inside and out.

In this post we’ll explore the paradox of familiarity, unpack the emotional and technical obstacles that make “writing about what you know” feel like a slog, and deliver a step‑by‑step framework to turn that expertise into high‑quality, SEO‑friendly content that readers (and Google) love.


Table of Contents

  1. The Paradox of Familiarity
  2. Psychological Barriers When Writing About What You Know
  3. The Unexpected Freedom of Writing About the Unknown
  4. Practical Strategies to Make Familiar Topics Shine
    • Reframe Your Perspective
    • Use Storytelling & Personal Anecdotes
    • Drill Deeper: Find the “Angle”
    • Leverage Fresh Research & Data
    • Structure for Readability & SEO
  5. When to Choose Surprise Over Familiarity
  6. SEO Checklist for Expert Content
  7. Conclusion & Call‑to‑Action
  8. FAQs

1. The Paradox of Familiarity

Writing About the UnknownWriting About What You Know
Pros: Fresh curiosity, high emotional stakes, “novelty” factor.Cons: Fear of sounding boring, assumptions of shared knowledge, perfectionism.
Cons: Limited background research needed, risk of inaccuracy.Pros: Authority, depth, credibility.

Even though familiar topics give you authority, they also bring invisible friction:

  1. Assumed knowledge: You skip explanations you think are “obvious,” leaving readers confused.
  2. Perfectionism: You feel pressured to be exactly right, which can freeze the writing process.
  3. Self‑censorship: You worry about sounding “pretentious” or “dry.”

The result? Writer’s block, a flat tone, and content that under‑delivers on both reader value and SEO potential.


2. Psychological Barriers When Writing About What You Know

2.1 The “Expert’s Curse”

When you’ve internalized a topic, it’s easy to forget what beginners struggle with. This “curse of knowledge” creates a mental gap between your expertise and the reader’s understanding, making it hard to translate that knowledge into accessible language.

2.2 Fear of Redundancy

You might think, “Everyone already knows this.” That fear pushes you to over‑edit or abandon the piece altogether, believing the content won’t add value.

2.3 Perfection Paralysis

Because you can prove every point, you feel obligated to double‑check every fact, turning a 500‑word draft into an endless research marathon.

2.4 Emotional Distance

Writing about a subject that’s personal (e.g., a hobby you love) can trigger emotional over‑investment. You become overly protective of the content, stalling revision and publication.


3. The Unexpected Freedom of Writing About the Unknown

When you write about something that surprises you, a few psychological boosters kick in:

BoostWhy It Helps
CuriosityTriggers dopamine, energizing the writing flow.
Low stakesYou’re less likely to worry about “getting it perfect.”
Novelty biasReaders (and search engines) love fresh angles, encouraging you to dig deeper.

The flip side? You may need to research more to avoid inaccuracies, but the process often feels more adventurous and less intimidating than confronting your own expertise.


4. Practical Strategies to Make Familiar Topics Shine

Below is a step‑by‑step framework you can apply to any piece where you’re writing about what you already know. Each step integrates SEO best practices without sacrificing readability.

4.1 Reframe Your Perspective

  1. Adopt a “Beginner’s Mindset.” Imagine you’re explaining the topic to a 12‑year‑old or a new hire.
  2. Ask “Why does this matter to them?” Focus on benefits, not just facts.
  3. Write a one‑sentence “value proposition.” Example: “Learn three quick hacks to cut your email inbox in half, even if you’ve been managing it for years.”

4.2 Use Storytelling & Personal Anecdotes

  • Hook: Start with a vivid anecdote that illustrates the problem.
  • Conflict: Show the struggle you faced despite your expertise.
  • Resolution: Deliver actionable tips that solved the issue.

Example: “When I first automated my reporting workflow, I thought the biggest hurdle would be the tech. Instead, it was convincing my team that the new dashboard was trustworthy.”

Stories humanize expertise, making dense information more relatable and SEO‑friendly (Google favors dwell time).

4.3 Drill Deeper: Find the “Angle”

Your expert knowledge likely includes niche sub‑topics that few others have covered. Use these to differentiate your post:

Typical AngleHow to Find It
Common myth bustingList the top 3 misconceptions you’ve heard.
Process walkthroughBreak a complex workflow into a step‑by‑step guide.
Case studyShare real data from your own project.
Tool comparisonProvide a side‑by‑side matrix of pros/cons for tools you use daily.

4.4 Leverage Fresh Research & Data

Even when you’re the authority, up‑to‑date statistics amp up credibility and SEO:

  • Pull the latest industry reports (e.g., HubSpot, Statista).
  • Quote expert interviews (including your own).
  • Add visual assets: charts, infographics, or screenshots.

Tip: Embed a Google Data Studio chart on your page. It’s interactive, improves dwell time, and signals freshness to Google.

4.5 Structure for Readability & SEO

  1. Title – Include primary keyword early: “How to Write About What You Know (Even When It Feels Hard)”
  2. Meta Description – 150‑160 characters, incorporating the same keyword.
  3. H1, H2, H3 – Use a logical hierarchy with keyword variations.
  4. Short Paragraphs – 2‑4 sentences each.
  5. Bullet Points & Numbered Lists – Boost skimmability.
  6. Internal Links – Connect to 2‑3 related posts on your site (e.g., “5 Ways to Overcome Writer’s Block”).
  7. External Links – Cite authoritative sources.
  8. Call‑to‑Action (CTA) – End with a prompt (download a checklist, sign up for a newsletter).

SEO Boost: Add a FAQ schema (structured data) using the questions in the final FAQ section. This often earns featured snippets.


5. When to Choose Surprise Over Familiarity

Sometimes the best approach is to pivot and write about a topic that genuinely excites you, even if it’s outside your core expertise. Consider this path when:

  • You’re experiencing burnout on a particular niche.
  • Your analytics show a decline in engagement for evergreen content.
  • You spot a trending keyword that aligns loosely with your brand but offers a fresh angle.

Hybrid Strategy: Write a “Beginner’s Guide” to the surprising topic, then sprinkle in expert insights from your main field to create a unique cross‑disciplinary piece. This can attract new audiences while retaining authority.


6. SEO Checklist for Expert Content

✅ ItemWhy It Matters
Target keyword in title (within first 60 characters)Boosts click‑through rate (CTR).
Primary keyword in first 100 wordsSignals relevance to search engines.
LSI keywords (e.g., “writing challenges,” “expert content creation”)Improves semantic coverage.
Optimized images (alt‑text with keyword)Increases image search traffic.
Internal linking (2‑3 links)Enhances site architecture & page authority.
Outbound links to authoritative sitesReinforces credibility.
Readability score (Flesch‑Kincaid > 60)Improves user experience.
Mobile‑friendly layoutGoogle’s mobile‑first indexing.
Schema markup (FAQ)Increases chance of rich results.
Social share buttonsDrives referral traffic.

7. Conclusion & Call‑to‑Action

Writing about what you already know can feel like navigating a maze of perfectionism, assumed knowledge, and fear of redundancy. Yet, by reframing your mindset, injecting storytelling, digging for fresh angles, and structuring for SEO, you can transform your expertise into magnetic, high‑ranking content.

Ready to turn your expertise into traffic‑generating copy?
Download our free “Expert to Engager” checklist and start publishing your next powerhouse article today!


8. Frequently Asked Questions

QuestionAnswer
Why does writing about familiar topics feel harder?The “expert’s curse,” fear of redundancy, and perfectionism create mental blocks that stall the writing flow.
How can I avoid sounding pretentious when writing about my field?Adopt a beginner’s mindset, use plain language, and pepper your piece with relatable anecdotes.
Is it better for SEO to write about trending topics or evergreen expertise?A mix works best: evergreen content builds long‑term authority, while trending pieces capture short‑term traffic spikes.
How many times should I edit an expert article?Aim for 3 passes: (1) Content & structure, (2) Clarity & readability, (3) SEO & final polish.
What’s the quickest way to add credibility to a familiar‑topic post?Insert recent data, cite authoritative sources, and embed a visual (chart/infographic).

TL;DR

  • Familiar topics trigger psychological blocks that make writing feel tougher.
  • Reframe, story‑tell, find a unique angle, and back it with fresh data.
  • Follow the SEO checklist to turn expertise into searchable, shareable content.

Take the first step now: [Download the free “Expert to Engager” checklist] and watch your knowledge convert into clicks, leads, and lasting authority.


Happy writing! 🎉

…