Who was that shape in the shadows? Whose is that face in the mask?

When you're a kid, Hallowe'en is easy. Your costume is (or was when I was a kid) made by your parents, and people appreciated effort, more than accuracy. As an adult? It's all about a cool (and usually expensive!) costume from a store. My work had a Hallowe'en party this week, which raised the ugly question of what to dress as?

Kids often go as their heroes - Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Harry Potter. Adults? Usually it will be movie characters, or "Sexy [Insert type of costume here]" if you're a woman. Nobody dresses up as a writer though - the name behind the face is generally not famous enough to be recognised or immortalised in a cheap latex outfit.

But characters from novels, that's another matter. I tend to like books that don't exactly lend themselves to costumes - the characters are ordinary, and dress in ordinary clothes. I could have gone as Henry from The Time Traveller's Wife if I'd been prepared to spend the time naked, but as it was a work function, that probably would not be appropriate!

I've spoken before about my love of The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston LeRoux, so when looking for a costume, this seemed like a good literary port of call.

Et voila, mesdames et messieurs, je suis Erik, Le Fantome de L'Opera!

Of course, I have neglected to mention that this was a karaoke party too - and so for the first, and possibly the last time, the Phantom sang "Music of the Night" - and here is the photographic proof:

I love Hallowe'en, but only when other people make the effort too. Growing up, it seemed like every house, every TV station marked the event, and did something fun and related to Hallowe'en. Now? Hallowe'en is a Friday this year, and nothing. Barely a hint to recognise that it's taking place. Gone are the great events like Ghostwatch. Now the best we can hope for is another bloody Most Haunted (non-)event...

And of course October marks the end of my freedom, before my life gets consumed for a month (and this time, a lot more...) with this little project...

F-I-C-T-I-O-N

I have a love-hate relationship with Professor Richard Dawkins, sometimes dubbed "Darwin's rottweiler". One the one hand there is Dawkins the evolutionary biologist, the scientist, the teacher. A staggering genius, a sharp mind, and with a phenomenal ability to clearly and concisely explain complex subjects with enthusiasm and wit. His recent Channel 4 series The Genius of Charles Darwin gave a great insight into Darwin the man and Darwin the scientist, and demonstrated the vital importance of evolutionary theory to science. That, and the fact he resembles Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss, which amuses me...

Then there is Dawkins the atheist, a role that sees him become as fundamental as any American evangelist or Muslim cleric. To believe in something unprovable by science is irrational, and to Dawkins, irrationality is (excusing the theistic overtones!) a sin. I have absolute certainty in the existence of evolution, and that it is responsible for all life on this planet. However, I also have a faith in the existence of something else, a greater power. Although I have questioned the plausibility of theism, despite having a sophisticated theology that has strayed from my nominal Catholicism - in other words despite the fact that I have studied, considered, contemplated and rationally critiqued faith in general and my faith in particular - I am still an irrational person due to my belief and faith.

My beliefs do not contradict science, nor are they disproved by it, but because it cannot be tested (it is not a theory, nor even a hypothesis, merely a hope) it is inherently irrational; therefore as an irrational person my thoughts may be dismissed even on questions of rationality. For instance, Dawkins dismissed the opinions of the Archbishop of Canterbury on the subject of evolution, even though the Archbishop accepted Darwinian evolution. So long as God was part of the equation, even if it was a part wholly separate from science (touching on the question of "why", not "how"), then his opinions were irrelevant. If I want to know about the species, variety and life cycle of a rose, I'll consult science. But I'll stick to poetry to appreciate the colour, and what memories the smell evokes in me.

Now, on to my main point, before we get bogged down in metaphysics. I like and admire Dawkins when he talks about the areas in which he is strong - biology, science education and the like. I began to dislike him however when he moves into other areas, like philosophy, and attempts to use the tools of biological science to analyse these fields. Scientific rationality is not a trump card in philosophical debates. Rationality stops with science, and as much as we may like to dismiss it, irrationality exists. It exists in all non-scientific areas, throughout the humanities and arts. Emotions are irrational, and cause us to act irrationally. Morality is irrational. The world of philosophy (which I consider to include religion and theology as much as political theory) is inherently irrational. Dawkins dislikes irrationality, and so dismisses it. Yet the irrational is so much a part of society that you have to confront it and engage with it, not pretend it has no value and dismiss it out of hand.

Something else that is irrational is our desire to fabricate stories, from the mundane to the fantastic, for our sheer entertainment. And it is this that Dawkins has decided to turn his attention to. Dawkins plans to study whether books aimed at children that involve fantasy and other "anti-science" are harmful to children.

Dawkins has said that he

"plan[s] to look at mythical accounts of various things and also the scientific account of the same thing.... the scientific one will be substantiated, but appeal to children to think for themselves; to look at the evidence. Always look at the evidence."

If this is solely the aim of his book, then all is well and good. However (and I hope that this is merely a misrepresentation of his intentions in the popular press), he is being reported as taking a wider swipe at children's fiction in general.

I think looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research.

Perhaps it is something for research, but it obviously did not have any effect on Dawkins' rationality - why presuppose that it should have an effect on others?

If Dawkins wishes to examine whether bringing up children to believe in a religious explanation for the world affects their ability to think rationally about science is one thing, but the Telegraph reports that he wants to look at the effects of "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards". Underlying that, is the belief that when parents read fiction to their children, they are expecting them to believe these tales as unquestionable truth. Harry Potter is not the truth. The Chronicles of Narnia are not the truth. And if Dawkins believes that parents are reading these stories to their children and expecting them to believe them as true, then he has himself become irrational. Children may accept something as true if you tell them it is, but I don't think that there is anyone out there telling their children that their wardrobe is a doorway to a land ruled by a talking lion.

Nor does this square with Dawkins' avowed love for the works of Philip Pullman. A world where children with magical powers who go to school to learn to use them is wrong, but a world where children are accompanied by shape-shifting talking animals is fine? I don't think so.

Fiction and fantasy encourage creativity in children's minds. Without creative thinking where do our advances come from? Ignoring the simply recreational and fun aspects of fantasy, if we don't dare to dream of flying to the moon, then we don't explore rocket science. Fantasy and fiction are not anathema to rational scientific thought. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was a mathematician and logician, yet as C S Lewis he provided many wonderful, fantastic tales. Linguist J R R Tolkien invented Middle-Earth. There are geneticists inspired to go into that field of science from reading X-Men comics. Palaeontologists who read and watched Jurassic Park as children.

Whilst Dawkins may, controversially, consider raising a child to believe in religion as a form of abuse, if he intends to place reading The Brother's Grimm or Harry Potter to children as form of child abuse then he is as batty as the fundamentalists who want Harry Potter banned for promoting witchcraft.

Where would it stop? Father Christmas and the Easter bunny have to go. Any stories that involve mythical beings, or a hint of the supernatural, would have to be forbidden. Only rational thoughts for our rational, scientific children. And yet even then - what about science fiction? Would we have to excise the canon of sci-fi for books that have premises that we now know to be scientifically impossible? Faster than light travel? Your book is gone. Jules Verne? Nice ideas, but not the way you described them. You are unsuitable for children. Should we instead be reading technical journals and scientific papers to our children?

My final words. This is not a personal attack on science, atheism, or Dawkins. Nor is it a defence of religion, or any stripe of irrational belief. It is a defence of writing, of fantasy, of story telling. Fundamentalists have long made the claim that if atheists were in charge, there would be no art, no literature, nothing of beauty in the world, because it is not "rational". I don't believe that, but by seriously asking if children's fantasy is somehow "anti-science" and therefore harmful, Dawkins risks leaving the door open to that charge.

The revolution - part 2 From Write Anything - 01 June 08

This is adapted from an article that appeared on the Write Anything website on June 1, 2008. The original text can be found here.

The revolution - part 2

Last week I discussed blogging and writing, and this week I want to look at what I believe is not only the single biggest milestone in the past decade for publishing, but which will continue to be important far into the future - the digital revolution.

McCrum highlights the release of Amazon's Kindle bookreader, the first ebook reader that has actually got the publishing world excited, as at the forefront of this revolution. Whilst important, it is not the be all and end all of the revolution.

The popularity of the iPod and other digital music players enabled the flourishing of an online, digital music industry. Combined with vendors like the iTunes Music Store, Apple and other companies have ensured that we have music we can purchase from the comfort of our own homes, or on the move, on demand. Music is cheaper, easier to find, more convenient. CD sales have suffered in the way that vinyl suffered on the introduction of the CD.

There is no expectation that book sales will suffer in the same way should the Kindle, as is expected, take off in popularity. People seem to like the physical interaction with books and treat them differently to CDs. Yet the Kindle, and other electronic devices, ensure a portability and access to books akin to that seen with music. Book publishers are now digitising their back-catalogues, and many newly published books are also offered in digital format.

But the most exciting thing about the Kindle, is that the platform has been opened up to all, not just established authors. If you have written a book, even though it is not published, you can submit it for sale as an ebook format compatible with the Kindle and other electronic bookreaders.

This is not vanity publishing. This costs you no money in advance, and commits you to no minimum number of books you must publish. You submit the book, and Amazon will stock it electronically. Suddenly, the traditional publishers are cut out of the picture, and the publishing world becomes very democratic. Or perhaps more accurately, meritocratic. You still need to push to publicise your book and get readers, but the gates have been blown open. Your work will stand or fall by how good it is, not whether a publisher, on a whim, decides whether or not they like it.

In essence this is a digital version of print on demand (POD) services like Lulu.com and Createspace.com, physical book publishers in an electronic world. As many or as few copies of your book as you would like will be printed. You can offer the book for sale in their stores, and again for no money up front. With digital technology, self-publishing has become an easier and more affordable process.

Of course there are some drawbacks. I've already mentioned that you have to publicise your own book, and without a publishing house behind you that can be time consuming and costly, unless you are fortunate enough to get a devoted grassroots following. POD requires a minimum number of pages to be profitable, so very short fiction would only get a chance to be seen if part of an anthology, and the same for poetry.

I imagine ebook formats would be more forgiving of short fiction, but those searching through the Amazon ebook store and similar will be looking for established authors, and specific titles. It is simply not set up for casual browsing and sampling of untried and untested writers, and Amazon is merely providing commercial space - it will not market you, push your work, recommend you etc.

But the "iPod Moment" is upon us. Despite several false starts, the ebook format has gained acceptance. The devices to read them on are no longer bulky, inelegant and unusable, indeed many readers have screens that use "artificial paper", leaving them unaffected by glare etc. The publishing houses are not only making future titles with ebooks in mind, but are seeking to exploit back catalogues. To go to that expense, they must be reasonably certain there is a future to it. And thanks to no-upfront cost POD services and ebook retailers, publishing is within the reach of many more writers than had previously been conceivable. Whereas the dwindling number of publishing houses left them with exclusive control of what was available, based on economics rather than merit, the democratisation of publishing now at least offers fledgling authors the chance to be heard.

The downloadable music market has effectively killed the sale of physical singles, yet at the same time has led to a renaissance in single sales.

Might a similar renaissance not be possible with short stories, an art form whose decline has been lamented and whose death has been announced on several occasions?

Tags: Write Anything Sunday Writer Paul Anderson

Ahead of science...

Dammit, I love it when I do this kind of thing...

In the past I've written a story about Colony Collapse Disorder just before it became big.

The last few podcasts have concerned memory and helping someone deal with a traumatic event. If you missed them (and shame on you) then grab episodes 19, 20 and 21 from the podcasts page.

So, I have a story about a man who has suffered trauma, and who is helped by a doctor who uses an advanced technique to block and adjust memories in order to allow him to cope. It's not quite memory removal (if I develop the story further then that's quite an important point) but it's close.

So then I find this story just today: US scientists 'erase mice memory'.

I love it when this kind of thing happens...

Disorganised and chaotic...

I love deadlines. I especially love the sound they make as they go whooshing by...

So, nine days to go until The Long Watch. I'm still not finished editing it. That's really quite bad. I'm going to have to edit it on the fly. That's really quite bad. Part of the edit is involving a rewrite - a really important plot point has been relegated to not that important at all, and a really minor point is now pretty much the whole point of the story. Nothing like putting pressure on myself is there!

Sigh...

Where did the summer go?

A sneak (NaNo) peek

With November just around the corner, that means NaNoWriMo is coming up again. This time around I have two projects. The first is serialising last year's story.

The Long Watch: Apocatastasis will start on 1 November and continue... until the story runs out. I have no idea how many chapters this thing is, so I'm trying to keep it down to 1500-2000 words per post.

And at the same time, I'm working on the sequel. For a while, the backstory to one of the characters had a distinctly Lovecraftian nature. In the second story, the story will be specifically part of the Cthulhu Mythos universe. One, or more, of the main groups involved will be located in New England, and the town of Arkham (and of course, Miskatonic University) will feature prominently.

So I'm fulfilling one ambition at least, to write something that is part of the Lovecraftian universe. Sadly I can't go much further into it without spoiling the first story. Sorry about that. You'll just have to read the first one!

Tags: NaNoWriMo Lovecraftian Mythos Arkham Miskatonic University The Long Watch

The revolution - part 1 From Write Anything - 25 May 08

This is adapted from an article that appeared on the Write Anything website on May 25, 2008. The original text can be found here.

The revolution - part 1

In the Observer newspaper in May, out-going Literary Editor Robert McCrum looked over the past decade in the publishing world, and described the writing world as witnessing the "biggest revolution since William Caxton set up his printing shop in the precincts of Westminster Abbey."

He touched on what he considered the ten milestones of the decade. The (re-)emergence of author as celebrity, the success of Amazon, the Harry Potter phenomenon, the rise of (and backlash against) celebrity bookclubs, the flourishing of literary festivals, the increase in value and notoriety of book prizes, the ability of some "old guard" writers to adapt to the new movements in the literary world, and the surprise success of word of mouth best-sellers.

The final two milestones are the rise in blogging and what McCrum calls "the iPod moment", and I think these are the most important ones for us, for the writers who are just starting out. I will leave the issues of the coming revolution in digital publishing until next week, but for now I want to take a look at blogging.

McCrum concentrates on the democratisation of the book review - in a time when many newspapers are reducing, or even removing their book content, the internet has seen the rise in online book reviews. Amazon carries customer reviews, and there are many online review blogs that the publishing world has begun to sit up and pay attention to. At Write Anything, we have set up our own review site, Dear Reader. McCrum also points out the paradox that whilst the internet has allowed millions to find a voice, it still remains a struggle to find an audience, but he doesn’t explore this issue further. Blogging has seen many writers able to do what they never could before - get their words "out there". But to whom? Despite the interest in blogging, it has been rare to find a blogging writer who has their work turned into a "real" book. The most successful books from blogs, (Girl With A One Track Mind, Belle de Jour, Rachel from North London) were not written as books, but as pure opinion. As far as a new technology can have tradition, they were "traditional" blogs and not serialised novels.

Other authors who have had success, such as Scott Sigler, did not blog their work but generated a following through podcasts. Whilst this caught the book world unprepared (how can a book by an unknown, given away for free, possibly work?), with the benefit of hindsight we ought not to have been surprised. Audiobooks have been popular for years. Podcast novels are audiobooks that are sent to you, chapter by chapter for free. An old idea applied through new technology.

But where are the authors who have had their fiction, posted on their blogs, turned into novels? There are very, very few, and those there are won their book deals by the traditional routes, even though they blog their writing. Should this worry us, as blogging writers? I would say no - for now. It is a no because new authors are still being found, still being published. You don’t need a blog to become an author (whether you need a blog once you have become an author is another matter - as a marketing tool it can be invaluable). So long as new authors are still being found in the traditional way, via submissions to agents and publishers, then writing will still be as it was - incredibly hard to get in to, but not impossible.

If that avenue should dry up, if new authors should be pushed out in favour of the celebrity book, then I think we should begin to worry. If publishing houses are only interested in name recognition to sell books and will not touch new unknowns, at that moment the lack of interest in blogging writers will be troubling. Because at that point the only way to have a career as a writer will be to take matters into your own hands. The only way to ensure that there continues to be literature will be through the efforts of the producers of that literature.

This will only happen if the means of production and distribution become available to the writers. A blog is not enough. A blog cannot have its page corners folded to mark your place. A blog cannot be annotated. A blog is not accessible when you are stuck in a tunnel on a train and want something other than the safety information notice to read.

And in advance of just such a need, comes the technology. The iPod moment.

To be continued…

Tags: Write Anything Sunday Writer Paul Anderson

Faith and the New Gods

This is a little something I've whipped up for a radio show - I've no idea when it will be going out, and I think it is probably on the long side for the time slot. I was asked for 300 words and I've gone over 700. But you know me, I'm somewhat loquacious.

"We saw you as gods..." The words of UN Secretary General Wyrmwood in the DC Comics' 1996 mini-series Kingdom Come. He speaks them to Superman, shortly after ordering a nuclear attack that destroys four fifths of the superpowered population, in an attempt to stop a superhero war that threatened to destroy humanity.

From the Golden Age of the 1930s and 1940s, through the Silver Age of the 1960s to the Modern Age now, the superhero has been an icon for generations of young people. More than human, beyond the mundane realities of normal existence, above the law, with fantastic powers - superheroes are more than men and woman in brightly coloured capes; they became the new gods.

But not godly in the way we would instantly recognise. They are not perfect - some are villains, some are heroes, yet all are capable of acting for good and for evil, regardless of their nominal status. They have tempers, they have vices, and whilst death may only last until a new writer takes over, comic book characters are still mortal. They are not like the gods we would recognise from the major world religions, instead they are more like the gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon (petty, squabbling, flawed, vindictive) or the demigods and heroes legend (Hercules, Goliath, Achilles).

In fact, some superheroes explicitly lay claim to being demigods. Heroes such as Hercules and Thor lay claim to being, if not the actual gods, at least to being possessed by them.

With such phenomenal powers, it might not be immediately obvious that religion would have a place in comic books, but it does. In some stories a profound influence, in others a mere background detail, like nationality, or marital status. But our heroes are mortals, not gods, and religions is part of their world, and they each have a faith, or a lack of faith. So how can you tell the religion of a comic book character?

Helpfully, there is a site that has meticulously compiled the religious affiliation of almost every comic book character.

The Comic Book Religion Database lists superheroes by religion, superhero team, publisher and individually, and is fully searchable. From the major religions such as Christianity, Judaism or Islam, to the less well known, such as Druze, Yazidi and Santerian, and even includes non-religious and philosophical affiliations, such as Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism and Communism.

There are many strong examples of superheroes who have been identified as not only belonging to a religious denomination, but also practising it. Superman, although from the planet Krypton, was raised as a Methodist. The Thing, from the Fantastic Four, is Jewish. Nightcrawler, from the X-Men, is a Catholic. Dust, another member of the X-Men, is Sunni Muslim. Quasar, from the Avengers, is an Atheist. The Green Arrow is Buddhist.

This is just a small selection from over 60 religious categories and thousands of characters featured in the guide. Even if you aren't particularly religious, or not particularly interested in comic book characters, the site is worth a look and may surprise you with revelations of which character belongs to which religion, how strongly they adhere to that faith, and how that faith has affected the characterisation or the storylines.

For example, Batman was raised by Catholic and Episcopalian parents. After their deaths, the young Bruce Wayne prayed daily for the strength and means to avenge them, taking his encounter with a bat as the sign he was looking for. Although the character is now lapsed in his faith, that background contributed to the character he became - his attitudes towards justice and violence would have been different had he been raised in a different faith, or even a different denomination, just as much as they would have been different had other aspects of his upbringing been different.

Nightcrawler, an X-Man character with a strong Catholic faith, found himself struggling to reconcile his friendship with fellow X-Man Colossus, and with his faith's teachings on homosexuality, when Colossus came out as gay. This is a recent example where faith played a particularly strong role in a storyline.

The "new gods" of the fantasy realm have not replaced the faiths of the real world. It is tempting to say that as faith, and the emphasis placed upon it, have diminished in recent years to be replaced with a more materialistic society, celebrity and superheroes have stepped into the social void once occupied by deities. Whilst comic books may be analogous to myths and legends, whilst fantastic characters with amazing powers may fulfil the functions of gods and demi-gods in the post-modern world, superheroes are not the new gods.

"We saw you as gods..." said Wyrmwood to Superman.

"As we saw ourselves," was Superman's reply. "And we were both wrong." Even superheroes bow their heads and pray, give thanks, and place their faith in something greater than themselves.

Know your "writes" From Write Anything - 18 May 08

This is adapted from an article that appeared on the Write Anything website on May 18, 2008. The original text can be found here.

Know your "writes"

Information on the internet is immediate. Trends are created and die within a very short space of time. If the mainstream media are to be believed, blogging only really started in 2006. By then, I was running two blogs, having previously abandoned a further four. Mainstream media might have more of the respect, but they aren't always very quick to pick up on things...

But now they have noticed blogging, it isn't always a god thing. Bloggers who blog anonymously are ruthlessly tracked down, exposed, and if they refuse to co-operate, a hatchet-job opinion piece is run on them. Worse still is a condescending attitude that the press have towards those who blog, or produce other creative online endeavours.

The attitude is that these can be used by the mainstream media however they see fit. In the UK, a rather prominent blogger found one of his posts, reprinted, word-for-word, in one of our most prominent Sunday newspapers, without his permission. Rather than simply complain, he sent them an invoice, arguing that any other freelancer would be paid for an article, so why shouldn't he. You can read the Mail on Sunday's patronising response (although they did pay) here, but the thrust of the argument used by the newspaper was this:

1. The blog was online, and therefore in the public domain;
   
2. The blogger was an amateur, and therefore ought to be happy to have received the publicity.

These arguments are of course a nonsense, but betray a worrying attitude.

Firstly, public domain has a very specific legal meaning. It does not simply mean "freely available". If it did, you would be free to copy the text of the latest bestseller on the basis that you could borrow it in the library. Yesterday's newspaper pulled out of the trash is not "public domain". Creative works only enter the public domain after their copyright has expired, or if the author of the work explicitly places the work into the public domain (difficult to do, but not impossible).

Freely distributed does not mean free to republish, and although the specifics of the law vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in 99% of cases you would be right to assume that what you are reading on someone's blog or website is protected by copyright and cannot be reused without the author's explicit consent. As soon as something is put into a fixed form, it is covered by copyright.

The "fair use" doctrine (including limited re-use for review/criticism purposes) and such initiatives as the Creative Commons Licence extend the ability of other people to use copyrighted material, but always under restrictive conditions. For instance, my writing site is covered by a Creative Commons Licence that states that you are free to re-publish any material on my site, without my permission, so long as you attribute the work to me, you do not modify the work, and you are not doing so for commercial purposes. Any violation of these three restrictions (and reprinting in a newspaper would be "commercial purposes") is a breach of the licence and would require my explicit consent.

The attitude that since we do not charge people to read our words, we agree to have any media use our work for their own purposes is worrying to bloggers, but more so for online writers. You cannot copyright an idea (as the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail discovered when they unsuccessfully tried to sue Dan Brown for writing the Da Vinci Code) but you own the copyright over your work. If we did not, we would never write or blog. If the press increased their unauthorised use of blogs, and worse, if publishers began publishing work they had discovered "free" online, then we'd all give up.

So much for the law. Now for the second argument, that as amateurs we ought to be glad to see our work plagiarised.

Restated like that, you can immediately see the flaw in the argument. Yes, it is great to have your work exposed to a wider audience in another medium. And if a national newspaper contacts you and says "we thought this was really compelling, we'd like to reproduce this as an article in our paper, would that interest you", few would say no. But that's not what happens. Instead, the work is taken without notice and without permission, the discover made only fortuitously, the labours of the original author not even considered as the violation is committed. And then we are expected to be grateful?

So be careful about your online writing. Because you do it without a profit in mind, does not mean you should not guard it jealously. Others ought not to profit from your generosity.

Tags: Write Anything Sunday Writer Paul Anderson

Going dark

I'm going to be out of the loop for a couple of weeks - not that you'll notice any change in posting regularity (firstly I post maybe twice a week, secondly I've got a few scheduled posts that will appear shortly).

But I might not be terribly responsive to comments, feedback or e-mails, just so you know.

However, I am still contactable, so don't give up on me. And hey, see those little symbols in the "About the author" section? They indicate my online status. From left to right, they are MSN, AIM, Yahoo and Skype. If these are flashing, then I'm online and you can click on them to send me a message through your preferred IM client. There isn't one for Google Chat, yet, but if the others are flashing, then chances are I'm on G-Chat too. So hit me up sometime, the worst that will happen is I might ignore you.

Eight Things I Do To Avoid Writing

My esteemed colleague Annie has tagged me with a procrastination meme - 8 things you do to avoid writing. The only question I have is "only eight?"

1. Working. Yeah, upwards of 10 hours of my day is spent on working, and travelling to work. Time I would rather spend on writing. But first, I need to be successful enough to quit my job and write. Maybe I should just do that, quit and travel and write. Who needs money? The economy is going down the tubes anyway...
   
2. Web browsing. Ah, the internet! Blessed font of knowledge! Enabling writers to research information they could only previously imagine! Source of kittens and funny videos... Yup, if ever there was something that is both simultaneously a blessing and a curse to the writer, it is the internet. So many distractions. Hell, even social networking (and, despite my brother's opinions, I DO need as many profiles as I have) takes up precious writing time.
   
3. Making coffee. You go, you make your cup, you bring it back to the computer and sit down. Start drinking. Well, now you only have one free hand, right? You can't type - so instead you muse on your story. And then you notice the cup is empty. Time for another cup....
   
4. Watching TV. Far too much TV. I call it "research". Sure, I can claim that Heroes, CSI, Law and Order, 24 and Doctor Who are well-written and excellent genre examples. I don't have that excuse with America's Next Top Model...
   
5. Reading. A good writer is one who reads a lot. However, a good writer is also one who reads appropriately, and does not use time better served writing for his reading.
   
6. New ideas. "Hey, this would make a good story..." "Imagine if it happened this way..." Yeah, great, ideas are good, but if could possibly concentrate on just one idea and keep going at it, that would be good. Thanks.
   
7. Housework. Although often this is a procrastination technique of last resort...
   
8. Blog memes! You know, responding to the memes that I've been tagged with always provides a distraction!

I need a name...

So, La Contessa is due to make her appearance in The Astonishing Adventures of Captain Juan. Up until now, she has only ever been "La Contessa", and sometimes "La Contessa DeLume".

Now she needs a name, and Annie and Jodi are reluctant to give her a name, since she is one of "my" characters.

We each have characters that we either created, or if we didn't create them we've become associated with them - for instance although I had a first mate called Pete, it was Annie and Jodi who have been the ones to turn him into a real character. And although I didn't come up with Father Paolo, I've begun to appropriate him (for reasons which will become apparent later...) as my character.

But back to La Contessa. She needs a name, but I don't have one for her; she has always been simply "La Contessa" in my mind. Does anyone want to suggest a name for a 15th/16th Century noble woman in the Spanish court? I don't want to reveal too much about the character, as it might spoil what's coming next - suffice to say the character is not going in a direction that I would have thought to take her myself, and it is adding a further layer of intrigue to the plot...

This thing called wantin’ and havin’ it all… From Write Anything - 11 May 08

This is adapted from an article that appeared on the Write Anything website on May 11, 2008. The original text can be found here.

This thing called wantin’ and havin’ it all…

In 2007, Doris Lessing was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. At the time, she said "Thank you does not seem enough when you’ve won the best of them all. It is astonishing and amazing," especially as she had been informed in the 1960s that she would never win, as the Noble judges did not like her. One year on, Lessing has called winning the prize a disaster. It has left her in such high demand that it has completely sapped her of creativity, and she is now unable to write.

Last week I mentioned a long discussion carried out across blog posts and comments on blog posts about great books, books you have to read, and popular books. Very early in the discussion, Jodi asked whether it was possible for a writer to have both literary and commercial success at the same time. I could recall very few writers who have enjoyed the commercial success of a Dan Brown, or a J K Rowling, while at the same time being given the literary recognition of a Salman Rushdie or a Kingsly Amis. At the time the question was framed as "is it possible to have both"? Lessing's dilemma prompts a further consideration - would you want both?

With critical acclaim comes expectation, often unreasonable expectation. Your book is brilliant, a staggering work of unadulterated genius. The critics rave, raising you to the pantheon of the literary gods, a worthy successor to Shakespeare, Dickins, Hemmingway. What do you do next?

Unless your next book is an even more staggering work of sheer unadulterated genius, the knives will come out. You've lost your edge. A flash in the pan. I guess we were wrong about you. That's an awful lot of expectation on a book that hasn't been written. Every word should be gold. Every idea original. Every sentence quoteworthy. I can't write that! And all of a sudden it is "hello writer's block".

As writers we want to have both. Do I want to open up a copy of the New Yorker, or the London Review of Books, and see my name, read critical discussions of my work, and have adulation heaped upon me? Of course I do! But I want to walk into my local Waterstones, Borders, Barnes & Noble and see my book in a prominent place, recommended by the staff. I want to sit on public transport, look over at the guy sat down reading a book, and realise that it is MY name on the cover.

Good reviews generate good sales, but there is a difference between being liked by the book critics of the popular press, and being critically acclaimed by the literati.

Was winning the Noble Prize a disaster for Lessing? It can be described as the pinnacle of a writer's career, and it has come at a late stage in her life. Better to be suffering from such a "disaster" now, rather than early in a writing career. With a substantial body of work, coupled with a Nobel Prize, it is unlikely that Lessing will fade into obscurity. A younger writer with only one or two novels may vanish. And from her descriptions, it is simply that she lacks the time, and consequently the energy, to write. The Prize has put her in demand, but has not robbed her of her creative voice. Instead, it has robbed her of the opportunity. This too shall pass.

So, would you rather have literary acclaim, or commercial success? Can you have it all? Would you want it all?

Tags: Write Anything Sunday Writer Paul Anderson

Advance warning!

Remember almost six months ago I ran the BUPA London 10,000? Well, I received an e-mail today. As the weather conditions for the race were so awful, they are rewarding(?) those who actually showed up and ran the course with the opportunity to register for next year's race before the official registrations start, meaning you would have a guaranteed spot.

You can tell where this is going can't you?

Yes, I've signed up again. So I now officially have a place on the BUPA London 10,000 2009. As a balloted race entrant (rather than gaining a spot through a charity) I have the luxury of choosing to run for any charity I want, or to not run for a charity at all.

I've decided to go for my preferred charity, Amnesty International. So yes, I will be seeking donations again, and yes, you will get sick of me talking about this. But I reckon you've got a good 6 months clear before I start pestering you...

As for times, I was aiming for under an hour last time, and delighted to get 53 minutes. It was a bit daunting being placed in the serious runner's category, but on the time last year I earned it, and this year I'm aiming for 45 minutes. Given I'm close to a 20 minute 5k, this should be well within my capabilities.

Tags: BUPA London 10000 sponsor me Amnesty International running