That’s my big dilemma now. I never start a story before I know how it begins and ends. The middle is what happens when I combine the ingredients, mold them, stretch them, and cut them. The middle can change and ingredients can be subtracted or added at will, but the beginning and the end have to remain the same.
I say Little Old Lady, but I want to explore the plausibility of a contract killer in her late sixties.
Why not? I’ve known men and women in nursing homes who lead lives that no one wrote a book about and I wondered why. The more I think about this woman and how plausible it is that she could be an effective hit person in the modern age, the more I fill in her background and realize that there is quite a bit that would explain her skill set, how she finds work, and how she manages to stay out of prison even when the police seem to close in on her.
So I’m confident that I can write a plausible character but now the how of the matter comes to fruition. It needs to be something that leaves the reader utterly entranced, baffled, and desiring more. If I want to earn that favorable comparison to Agatha Christie, I better not have even one coincidence (Even though she says that one is acceptable, as long as it’s one per book. Yes, dead authors talk to me, what of it?).