I haven’t been shy about my love for Crimson Lake in my review or on Twitter, so I was excited to have Candice Fox fit in this short and sweet QnA about the book and Amy and Ted.
One of the things I enjoyed about the book was that Ted’s life unravelled because of chance and circumstance. He could have turned differently, and stopped later and nothing like Crimson Lake would have happened to him.
Circumstance and the random nature of the universe came together to make Ted a suspect in something he had nothing to do with – why did you choose this as an avenue to pursue with Ted?
A lot of crime is like that, not just in how innocent people become suspects. People tend to talk about crime in a sort of universal, mystical sense. If only she hadn’t walked down that street on that night at that exact moment, she might not have encountered her killer, that sort of thing. People like to find the ‘fate’ in crime, because it makes regret easier, fantasies about stopping it. I suppose I also wanted to make what happens to Ted as easy and as simple as possible, so that the reader might imagine it happening to them, might be afraid that it’s in their cards. If it had been far out and convoluted, I’d have risked the reader not only refusing to believe it, but perhaps feeling safe that this is something that couldn’t possibly happen to them.
Amanda and Ted are very different characters – why did you think they’d work together?
It’s critical to have different partners in crime, some sort of conflict that will make them rub together, because that’s the only way you generate banter. It’s how they grow closer together, by learning to be with each other, rather than finding they’re so similar that being with each other is easy. There is an argument, of course, for the kind of partners who get on just great, the ‘buddy’ partnership, but even these kinds of characters will clash with unacceptable idiosyncrasies they find in each other. I wanted something less stressful than Frank and Eden’s conflict of my Bennett/Archer – that she’s a serial killer and he knows it – because I knew Crimson Lake was going to be a stressful book. That she’s a complete weirdo and Ted’s only option seemed a good solution.
The book is in Ted’s POV, but at the end, Amanda’s POV is in a chapter – what was the thinking behind this choice? Does that mean the next book will follow her POV?
No, the next book doesn’t follow Amanda’s POV completely, as I think readers are far too in love with Ted, from what I’m seeing in the reviews. And with a character like Amanda, it’s important to maintain a bit of mystery or she’ll lose her edge. But the dynamics of this partnership are going to require moments like that, because there will be times when I need to separate them for different work on different cases, so it was a bit of a freeing gesture. I didn’t want to shock anyone by doing it for the first time in a second or third book.
And that’s it! What do you think of Candice’s choice with regards to her partnership — do buddy partnerships work better for you? Or something else?