Writing Goals and Resolutions - June Update

Here we go with June's update on my writing goals for 2009, and my general New Year resolutions. I've got to warn you, coming on the back of today's news, this isn't going to be uplifting!

Writing Goals

• Write every day, aiming for a minimum of two pages each day.
  It's all I can do sometimes to get a single blog entry a week done. First of the fails!
  
• Compile an electronic anthology of my best short stories from 2008.
  I really don't see this project happening at all. The time needed for Chinese Whisperings is more than I anticipated, let alone doing this. I may let this project go this year.
  
• Launch the Chinese Whispers anthology.
  Website has gone live, and is improving every day. We're back on course I think!
  
• Enter six writing contests.
  Two entered - didn't win either :-( Deadlines approach, and I shrink away from them, a sign of the depression I think. I don't think there are many more competitions left that I had intended to enter that still haven't closed.
  
• Complete two manuscripts to a publishable standard.
  Haven't worked on these at all. Conceivably, this could still happen though.
  
• Participate in, and complete, NaNoWriMo 2009.
  4 months to go.

New Year Resolutions

• Read at least one book per month.
  Books read this month - The Turn of the Screw and other stories by Henry James, The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham. ***UPDATE*** Also got Pride and Prejudice and Zombies read in June with 1 minute to spare!
  
• Get my 5k time down to 18 minutes.
  
• Run the BUPA London 10,000 in 45 minutes.
  Both of these goals came off the rails, and due to back injury from the car accident I had on holiday, I was forced to withdraw from the BUPA London 10,000.
  
• Take part in a half-marathon in late summer.
  Last month I was happy with the prospect of physio and running. In mid-May I finished my physio, but now need to return due to the recent injuries. What the physio makes of it will determine my chances for the half-marathon.
  
• Take part in a full-marathon at the end of the year.
  Again, this all depends on the assessment of my physio.

Ho hum

For some writers, misery and despair are sources of inspiration, that provide a rich seam of storytelling. For others, it paralyses them, leaving them unable to function, to write, robbing them of creativity.

Sadly I am amongst the latter type of writer. When darker thoughts begin to prey upon my mind, I shut down and stop writing. For some time now I've been afraid of addressing this, that to address a weakness such as this would lead to treatments that may be even more detrimental.

Well, I can't escape that any longer. This morning I was diagnosed with clinical depression and have been prescribed anti-depressants (citalopram hydrobromide), something that over the past twelve or so years of flirting with dark moods I have managed to avoid. My rationale has been that I don't want to surrender myself to chemicals that might make me feel better, but not address the root issues, and that might leave me unable to be creative.

I'm not exactly writing at the moment. I'm barely functioning, at a time when I really need to be creative. I was afraid that being on antidepressants would stop me writing, but if I'm not writing at the moment, then I might as well give them a try.

So, I'm not exactly sure what will happen over the next few weeks/months. Whether I'll be quieter than usual, or whether a great fugue will lift from me, and allow me to work, remains to be seen.

Whatever happens, it will doubtless be an awfully big adventure.

Those shows From Write Anything - 8 March 09

This is adapted from an article that appeared on the Write Anything website on March 08, 2009. The original text can be found here.

Those shows

The BBC has a scheme called the BBC writersroom, which aims to nurture new and emerging writing talent in film, TV, radio and theatre. They run a Writers Academy, graduates from which are offered opportunities to write for current BBC television and radio shows. It is not currently something I'd put myself forward for, mainly because I'm not confident about the technical requirements for scriptwriting, and at the moment want to concentrate on prose.

I do follow the writersroom blog however, and was struck by an entry on Wednesday. The author was giving a talk on writer training, and mentioned why they believed that sometimes new writers failed when writing for the shows the author worked on. Essentially, they lacked passion for the show, and sometimes they didn't even watch them.

Another writer interrupted to make the following statement:

Well we all know that writers on 'those shows' only write them to pay their mortgages.

There are two interesting attitudes tied up in that statement. Firstly, what is wrong with doing paid work in order to pay your mortgage? I have a day job. It isn't my career, it is my job. I do it to pay my rent, pay my bills, buy food. This doesn't mean I don't care about my job, that I don't feel frustrated when things go wrong, or don't feel proud when I've done a good job.

But the second attitude is more disturbing – the snobbery towards certain types of writing. "Those shows" in the quote above are what the BBC term "Continuing Dramas". These can be onrunning, albeit periodic drama series, to soap operas. In the UK, Eastenders, Casualty and Larkrise to Candleford would all qualify as Continuing Dramas. For the US audience, this catch all term would include everything from Heroes and ER, to The Bold and the Beautiful and The Young and the Restless.

Yes, we all know that the quality of such dramas can vary. A high concept drama will always be more intellectually challenging than a soap opera. But that doesn't make the writing "worse" or "unworthy". The disparaging attitude to those who write such shows, that they only do so purely for the money, implies that such writing is easy, which belittles the work being done.

Yes, they aren't writing the next Pulitzer Prize winning novel. But there is still skill involved, still the same problems that all writers encounter. And if you don't show enough enthusiasm to find out about the show, to understand why the audience loves it, then you're not going do as good a job as you can. That is disrespectful to yourself as a writer, and to the company which is paying you to write.

And isn't that the dream? To be paid to do what we're all doing for nothing at the moment?

Or is it only writing if you suffer in obscure poverty for it? I don't believe that. Many fine writers of critical acclaim, who got their breaks on Continuing Dramas, don't believe that. It seems the only ones who believe that are the "undiscovered genii" who would doubtless jump at the chance to be paid to work on "those shows".

The old Lie

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Dulce et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen

Today is Armed Forces Day in the UK. It is the first time this day has been held, to honour serving and veteran members of all branches of the British armed forces.

It is slightly different from Remembrance Day, which primarily honours the war dead, and veterans of wars. Armed Forces Day however will honour all members, whether they served in war or not.

And herein lies my conundrum. I have friends, some close, some from my past, who have or are currently serving with honour and distinction in the British Armed Forces, in combat and support roles. I have relatives in the past who survived bloody combat, some serving by choice, others through obligation. I haven't always agreed with the uses of our armed forces, but I have always supported those who have placed themselves in harms way for Queen and Country.

But I am now a Quaker, and one of our testimonies is the Peace Testimony, the belief that war as a concept is an evil that should not be suffered, that peace is not merely the absence of war but a state to be worked towards, and that this is an achievable state. As part of this, Quaker's cannot really "celebrate" the armed forces, and so the question becomes what should the Quaker response to Armed Forces Day be?

Britain Yearly Meeting, the governing body for British Quakers, has called for an "Unarmed Forces Day", to celebrate the work of peacebuilders, conscientious objectors, and all those actively involved in conflict prevention.

I am not so naive as to believe that we can simply disband our armed forces - there are few Quakers who believe that. There will always, sadly, be a need for the armed forces. But the best defence against attack is not to have a country armed to the teeth and ready to lay waste to all opposition, but rather to remove those causes of conflict before they escalate into armed conflict.

When I studied international law, before I even knew what a Quaker was, I was convinced that war represented a failure of policy, a failure of diplomacy, a failure to negotiate. As Churchill once said, "More jaw-jaw, less war-war". There are some who would say that there is no negotiating with the likes of Hitler. This is true (indeed many Friends viewed Hitler as such an evil that he had to be opposed by force). But the Quakerly way would be to address the grievances that ultimately led to Hitler coming to power. The German people turned to Hitler because he promised to save them from the many problems that beset Germany at the time, many of which were caused by the other European powers. Could we have spared the lives of millions, saved the world from six years of bloody warfare, by helping the German people before they turned to Hitler?

Diplomacy addresses grievances before they become intractable. Peacebuilding, rather than peacekeeping, puts the structures for co-operation and negotiation in place before people feel they have "no choice" but to resort to violent means. Some equate pacifism with defeatism, or cowardice. But pacifism is not passive - it is an active and engaged process, that involves working to resolve problems, to keep people talking. Some say it is cowardice to not fight. There was nothing cowardly about standing up to society, when all others were baying for blood, and saying you would not take a life, but you would stride out, unarmed, onto the fields of combat, and rescue the wounded, as many Quakers did in both World Wars. Even today, Quakers stand in conflict zones as peace observers, taking enormous personal risks in the hope that their presence will prevent conflict.

Quaker Advices & Queries No. 31 says:

We are called to live 'in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars'. Do you faithfully maintain our testimony that war and the preparation for war are inconsistent with the spirit of Christ? Search out whatever in your own way of life may contain the seeds of war. Stand firm in our testimony, even when others commit or prepare to commit acts of violence, yet always remember that they too are children of God.

As Quakers we not only oppose war, but see the preparation for war as inconsistent with our beliefs - and that preparation necessarilly includes the armed forces. So the Peace Testimony, which I believe in, comes into conflict (no pun intended) with the idea behind Armed Forces Day, a celebration of military bravery, and diplomatic failure. I can honour those who paid the ultimate price to defend this country from invasion. I can commemorate those injured in the service of their country, those who are willing to risk injury and death for us, and only ask in return that we never lightly send them to face those risks. I can respect those who chose to join the armed forces and serve with honour and gallantry. But I cannot celebrate militarism, war and death, and I fear that Armed Forces Day will turn into a triumphalist celebration of the worst aspects of war.

On Remembrance Day I shall wear my red poppy for those who fell. I may even wear a white poppy as well, to commemmorate all those killed by war, not as soldiers, but as victims. I can daily hope that my friends in the armed forces survive, and work to remove the reasons for placing them in harms way. I can work to live in a world where a professional soldier is no longer required, as it is now, and where disputes are resolved with compassion and understanding, not through threats and force of arms.

Something to hide?

My name is Paul Anderson - it really is impossible to hide that fact. The domain for this site is my name, my pictures are dotted around this site, I link to my Facebook profile. I am not an anonymous blogger. I don't want to be an anonymous blogger. The reason for that is simple. I want to be a writer. I want a career where people will know me, at the very least, by name.

Others do not have that luxury. Some people have a story to tell - perhaps a story that needs to be told, but are in a position where disclosing their details may result in the loss of their job, ostracision, or just plain embarrassment.

Journalists rely on anonymous sources and whistleblowers in order to reveal the truth. But now they are turning on their own protections of anonymity by pursuing a policy of outing prominent anonymous bloggers.

The Orwell Prize winning blogger known as "NightJack" was a serving police officer who detailed real life on the job - a genuine insight into what it really meant to be on the modern police force, warts and all. Clearly, he would be unable to maintain this blog if his true identity was revealed. And so The Times newspaper duly sought to do that. NightJack sought an injunction to prevent the publication of the story, and lost. Mr Justice Eady (of whom I shall have more to say another day) decided that the public interest in disclosing his identity outweighed any public interest there might be in allowing his quasi-whistleblowing to continue, and we now know that NightJack is Detective Constable Richard Horton. Inevitably, DC Horton could not continue with the blog. It has been deleted (which is why I do not include a link to it) and he has been disciplined by his police force. Whatever value his blog may have served is now lost to us, his career is in jeopardy, and The Times carries much of the responsibility.

I am unsure of what my opinion of this case is. I never read NightJack, and now have no opportunity to do so. If the justifications of Times journalist Patrick Foster are to be believed, then NightJack potentially placed prosecutions and convictions at risk by revealing details that could be traced back to specific cases (although some commenters have countered that these details are only identifiable because of Mr Foster's actions). This would be dangerous to the public interest. However, reading the article one thing DC Horton appears to be most criticised for is advising the public of their rights when investigated by the police, specifically if you are innocent. Heaven forefend that a serving police officer should actually be concerned about the legal rights of a suspect!

Justice Eady, in deciding the issue of the injunction, had the discretion to allow publication of this blogger's name for the limited facts and circumstances of this one case. But Eady did not exercise this discretion, and instead has placed the very concept of anonymity on the internet in peril, and The Times has colluded in this, to the point now that it is reacting petulantly to any criticism directed at it.

Anna Mikhailova, who made her name by outing Girl With a One Track Mind blogger Zoe Margolis, has written a rather sniffy article about her experiences of taking on the blogosphere.

Ms Mikhailova saw nothing wrong with "outing" Ms Margolis, as her anonymity was merely "a marketing gimmick". Perhaps the publishers of the book of her blog exploited her anonymous status for the purposes of marketing, but for Ms Margolis her anonymity was not a gimmick. It was the essential shield that allowed her to keep her job, and to protect herself and her family from some of the disgusting abuse directed at them in the wake of her outing. Having seen the emails Ms Mikhailova sent to Ms Margolis in the run up to the story breaking, which Ms Margolis has reproduced here, they are quite plainly bullying and manipulation couched in the language of a friendly overture. I am particularly struck by this paragraph in an email dated August 5th 2006 from Ms Mikhailova's News Editor:

We have obtained your birth certificate, and details about where you went to school and college ... We propose to publish the fact that you are 33 and live in [my address] -London, and that your mother, [her name], is a [her address] -based [her profession].

Of what possible, conceivable, rational public interest could there possibly be in Ms Margolis' address, or details about her mother, such as address and profession? This isn't journalism. This is mud-raking. In yesterday's Times article Ms Mikhailova has the gall to complain about the behaviour directed at her, including having her photo and details of where she worked and studied published - exactly what she had done to Ms Margolis!

The ultimate justification Ms Mikhailova has settled on is that print journalists have legal teams that check articles before publication to prevent libel, and bloggers don't. Therefore, the occassional outing of anonymous bloggers is a necessary check on their actions.

Let's ignore the obvious flaw for a second - that neither Ms Margolis nor DC Horton had committed libel when they were outed. The necessary check on the actions of a blogger would be to hold them legally responsible for what they have done, not remove their anonymity "just in case". Had DC Horton committed libel, then revealing his identity as a necessary part of libel proceedings would be acceptable. Indeed, anonymity does not preserve you from the actions of the law, it merely gives you a measure of privacy.

And the cadre of lawyers at the disposal of newspapers does not prevent them from being sued for libel. As recently as January of this year Roman Abramovich decided to sue The Times over one of the articles that Ms Mikhailova claims are checked and cleared by the lawyers. In the past few weeks The Scotland on Sunday was forced to pay damages to Gordon Brown's brother over allegations that had doubtless been cleared by the lawyers. I can think of no bloggers who have been sued for libel. Who is it that should be a tiny bit more careful Ms Mikhailova? The bloggers who are anonymous for reasons of privacy, or the journalists who muck-rake and get sued for libel despite their legal teams?

For a more rational take on this story, including the potential problems it may introduce for anonymous sources in the future, read Emily Bell's column in today's Guardian.

What is missing? From Write Anything - 1 March 09

This is adapted from an article that appeared on the Write Anything website on March 01, 2009. The original text can be found here.

What is missing?

I don't know if you can spot what is missing? Within this tumult of words, an important, nay critical part is sadly lacking.

What can you say? Do you know? Can you pick out what is wanting from my typographic thoughts? Would you savour a hint? I can assist you. A solitary word – lipogram.

A difficult task to construct a lipogram – such a short scrap was a taxing duty.

Would you want to try and fashion your own and post it to this location?

Tags: Write Anything Sunday Writer Paul Anderson

Cross-over From Write Anything - 22 February 09

This is adapted from an article that appeared on the Write Anything website on February 22, 2009. The original text can be found here.

Cross-over

Circumstances have moved faster than there are days in the week - I had originally intended to write about the recent changes to Facebook's terms of service, and the potential pitfalls and problems that it posed for writers and artists. By Thursday however Facebook, under pressure from the backlash provoked by the changes, reverted to the original terms of service, rendering any comment I was going to make a moot point. I'll keep my comments in reserve for when the new ToS is released.

But this week I've been thinking a lot about genre, and crossing over genres. It all started out as an off-hand joke. A position as an editorial assistant at a children's book publisher has become vacant, and I am applying for it. Those familiar with my interests will realise that children's and young adult fiction is really not what I do, and eyebrows were raised at the suggestion I might get involved with children's books.

This then led into intense speculation about what such titles might look like after my involvement - my personal favourites being The Haunted House at Pooh Corner and The Very Hungry Zombie - you can see a list here with sample text.

Joking aside however, might infant horror not be a viable genre after all? Recent successful Young Adult books have been in the fantasy genre, straying into the horror. Think of the Harry Potter series and the use of the supernatural in that, or more pertinently, Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series. We might be tempted to think that of course horror is not suitable for children - but consider that vampires are walking, talking sexual metaphors - is that any less suitable for young adults?

Even before these recent examples, children's books evinced a taste for the praeternatural. Meg and Mog concerns a witch and her cat. For children too young for Twilight there is The Little Vampire. The Children of Green Knowe is about ghosts, familial curses and a malevolent, demonic force.

I considered my infant horror genre a joke, but in many respects it is already here, and has been here for a very long time. I've mentioned before that one of my earliest reading memories is a children's adaptation of Dracula, complete with horrific illustrations. I and many other children were raised on fairy tales where wicked stepmothers dance to death in red hot shoes, where handsome princes have their eyes gouged out, and where old crones are cooked alive in ovens.

Perhaps infant Gothic horror isn't such a strange idea after all.

What cross over genres can you think of that seem to be an unlikely marriage, but which actually work? Would you/did you read horror as a child? Would you let your own children read them now?

Tags: Write Anything Sunday Writer Paul Anderson

Simplify From Write Anything - 8 February 09

This is adapted from an article that appeared on the Write Anything website on February 08, 2009. The original text can be found here.

Simplify

There are a few books that I revisit throughout my life. Winnie-the-Pooh, The Tao of Pooh, The Tao-te-Ching, The Name of the Rose. Each draw me back for different reasons, either because of the pleasure they give me in reading them (Winnie-the-Pooh, The Name of the Rose) or because of the guidance and wisdom I find in them (Tao-te-Ching, The Tao of Pooh).

One book that I came to comparatively later in life than those I have mentioned, is Walden, by the American Transcendentalist writer, Henry David Thoreau. I only discovered this book in my mid-twenties, but it is one I go back to often for inspiration.

Today I spent the morning in a contemplative silence, and considered something that Thoreau wrote:

Our life is frittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify.

For the past few months, this is a process I have been trying to take myself through. Getting rid of unwanted or unused possessions, reusing rather than replacing items, swapping and bartering rather than buying and disposing. Reducing the clutter, the distractions, the attachments. Spiritually, emotionally, and physically, the emphasis has been on doing more with less, and living a life which, insofar as the 21st Century allows, can be described as "simplified".

And so too should my writing life be simplified. There are too many distractions, too many works in progress to flit from, never ceasing, never concentrating. To simplify I have cut down on these distractions; removed works in progress that are not truly in progress, deleted blogs that lie unattended, yet are still distracting.

Now here too, on this site, changes are coming, and my response to them will be to simplify, simplify. Too often I find myself stuck for something unique and novel (excuse the pun) to say on the topic of writing - so why not simplify? Rather than speak for my writing, why not let my writing speak for me.

I am not yet sure what form this change will take, but I intend to go back to basics. To write. Just write. For over a year I have been saying that I am a writer. I have worn the appellation, without bringing myself to the application. Return to the basics, and finish what I have started. The final words belong to Thoreau,

If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.

Tags: Write Anything Sunday Writer Paul Anderson