A respected acquaintance asked me for my thoughts on new writing, and if there are any new ways to write.

I have thought about this. Me, thinking is not normally a good thing – no good can come of it.

Follow my thinking: Sir Clive Sinclair invented that silly C5 thing. How ridiculous! Battery powered transport for urban dwellers – absurd. The man was a fool. Cars and motorbikes have internal combustion engines, the C5 will never work.

Retrospectively, he was a genius. Formula 1 cars are now part battery powered and all the major car manufacturers clamour to produce electric and hybrid powered vehicles.

You see it's all a matter of timing.

Enter the lowly audio book – a doomed silly idea. A failure on long-playing vinyl and a joke on multiple cassette tapes. Another disaster.

Books are written on paper, and they are far too long to be put into any convenient audio format.

For change and reaction, there is often a harmless catalyst, none forecast the effects of its presence.

Enter the arena: Messers Kindle and the e-reader gang. Well financed, these people are as I write, sowing the seeds of the destruction of the book as we know it, and in the finale, destroying themselves. For they will convince people 'a book' is not a permanent paper product. - And people will accept it.

Destroy the sanctity of the physical book and floodgates open, people become more open to new or other ideas.

Accepting that 'story is king', new evidence and the audio book come back into play and MP3 is in effect. How long does it take to read an average novel? You can get 22hrs of 64bit audio on a CD, and in all likelihood the DVD player in your lounge and the stereo in your car are equipped to play it. Not to mention MP3 players like the iPOD can also read your story.

What do we have? The Davinci Code read by Morgan Freeman. He'll read you a chapter before you go to sleep – just like mummy used to, and he'll read you the next chapter while you drive to work in your car. Have you every tried reading whilst driving – it doesn't sound easy, best let Morgan do it. The audio book has no competition, no more tired eyes while reading. Just think of it like listening to radio plays, but you get to choose. Old people love the Archers.

That's the old folk covered. The young?

No longer are you a nerd bookworm just because you like a good story. Nobody knows what your iPOD is playing you as you walk to school with Joanna Lumley reading you Harry Potter. And on the way home you listen to Henry V because it's part of the curriculum.

Young people used to love Jackanory.

So there you have it: people on their way to work headphones in ears with a best-seller being read to them by some celebrity.

Of course there will be those strange people who for some reasons like reading writing.

So yes, writing will change. Story will regain it's crown and once again voice will rule, and sell the product – but it won't be your voice.

 
 
"At the end of every month the five top ranked books over all time are delivered to the desks of an editorial board made up of international HarperCollins editors. The board read at least 10,000 words and deliver feedback to the author’s authonomy profile."

That's what Harper Collins said, right.

The silly boys on the Authonomy forum were commenting on a test posting made by a member named Laura some 18 months ago. - I took it upon myself to investigate what other 'comments' Laura had made.


Here's an example. . .

"A remarkable, thoughtful opening with some interesting imagery. I was reminded of Allende in the first chapter, something about the care taken in observing each character's thoughts and dialogue, and the seamless way the narrative creeps up on several characters in the space of a chapter. Would anyone agree?

I like Jane a lot- very refreshing to see such a strong female character in a piece of fiction set in this era (early C20th) and the mystery surrounding her engaged me really quickly. Is she a spy? On the run?

I thought the language was crisp and considered, certainly not a first draft. I would say that in places the descriptions are a little over done: the instance which springs to mind is when Jane "placed her backside carefully upon the smooth mahogany balustrade". It's not offensive as a sentence by any any means- I just felt the pudding was overegged slightly."

I compared this comment with some of the recent Editors reviews of the top 5. The reviewer seemed to be obsessed with the representation of female characters, refer to current authors, and often the recipient was left with the impression, the reviewer wanted a different book.


Here's an excerpt of review of "The IT Refugee."


"I think intentionally the author wants to show that, amidst a backdrop of war and suffering, women still have the same issues of career, love, shopping etc. but I don’t think the reader would see it that way. There is one particular scene where Maya is sunbathing in a bikini whilst Israeli helicopters circle above. Whilst this may genuinely happen (and may be second nature to women in a country dogged by war), I think readers (conscious of the suffering seen in the press concerning the region) may find this hard to believe. These women are in a fortunate strata of society and it is difficult to envisage this sort of lifestyle existing alongside one of abject poverty. These women are not what we would consider stereotypical refugees; some may find this the main strength of the novel but I found that it jarred and made the narrative slightly unbelievable."

Taking into account the age of the reviewer, and the reviews were written 18 months apart. I have come to the conclusion these 'comments' were written by the same person.

Further research reveals that "Laura" is not a member of Harper Collins Editorial board and has as musch influence with the commissioning editor as I do.

If all this is correct; there is no Ed's desk, and the review is written by one inexperienced and unqualified.
 
 
If your are a new writer, perhaps lacking in confidence, authonomy.com and similar website are probably not for you, especially if you are from the UK. You are inevitably guided by the misguided as each failed writer imparts the same myths as if gospel.

It is painfully apparent that after writing a first novel that was rejected by the agent or editor. One would seek to know exactly what the agent or editor does want. The simple answer to this question is he or she doesn't know. Suffice to say they'll know it when they see it. - Writers are never satisfied with this answer. It is the literary equivalent of "It's not you – it's me." The result is a huge market developed to satisfy the writer's desire to know. Creative writing courses, 'How to' books, seminars and the like, all designed relieve the struggling artist of hard earned cash.

As already stated, the editor has no idea what he or she wants until they see it. Nevertheless, the writer has a desire to improve their writing. They are taught, US simple writing techniques primarily designed for journalism and other non-fiction writing, coupled with academic training with a view to improving their English Language, rather than the more relevant subject of English Literature.

The rather ugly result is formulaic novels written in dreadfully toneless prose stripped of naturally occurring adverbs and adjectives. The mission of the writer has changed. Originally the writer intended to write THEIR story in the hope the people would like it. Now they're sucked in, trying (and failing) to write a story they think an editor would like, convincing themselves if they follow a particular set of guidelines they will reach the promised land.

Finally, when authors get together, they spread the gospel according to the 'How to' book and judge each others work by these guidelines. Ultimately, they are no longer creative writers, but they have developed the skills for self-publishing. They can edit, they can proof – they've just forgotten how to write.

Such is the power of the fraud, the aspiring writers fail to notice that successful novelists to not adhere to these guidelines, and when the matter is brought to their attention, they offer the excuse. 'But they are published writers – they're allowed.'

So my advice – don't listen to them (or me either).

 
 

I note, within struggling writer's make-up, apart from mandatory pet-ownership, is the ability to discuss matters of no consequence to the nth degree.

Opening lines, do they really matter? I think not. - In all the books I've read, I cannot remember a single opening line. In the twenty- two stories I keep in the folder named 'Authonomy' I cannot remember word-for-word any of the opening lines - and I wrote them.

I can remember the opening line of chapter 2 of Fib's Kid; "George chased Karen all through the curriculum." - I can only remember that because a reviewer claimed it made no sense. And on checking through the books to hand. I find that  the opening lines are random, and instantly forgettable. There is no pattern, rhyme, nor reason.

When it comes to the opening of the book, rather than listen to contrived, convoluted, contrite nonsense. I prefer to look at things like age-old proverbs and stereotypes. Proverbs survive because within them there exists a knowledge and truth.

"Are you sitting comfortably? - Then we'll begin."

This statement for me contains the essence of a good opening, for I can think of two professions it applies to, and their mission is one and the same. - Fiction writer, hypnotist. Both attempt to take a person to another place. Would a hypnotist start with "You are feeling sleepy?" - I think not.

First the reader needs to be relaxed before you can work your magic on him.

To paint a 17th century battlefield from a standing start is a task too mighty for I, or indeed, most. It is difficult to relax in a strange environment. It is far easier to put your reader in familiar surroundings or mental state. It can be a simple as looking at his wife's shoes and wondering why she had so many, and he could not recall her at any time during the last year ever wearing more than three of the many pairs she has so neatly lined up.

Can you remember the point at which you ceased reading and were captured into the fictional world? No, because it happens with a single thought generating a single image. It is in this stage you describe items the reader has already seen, being careful not be specific. "Her brightly painted nails caressed the glass." The art is to get the reader to generate the image from his own memories rather than build the picture from your description. If your reader has had that same thought, he will see his own wife's shoes, or his secretary's hand on a wine glass at the office party. He has generated an image, he is now tuned into your channel, - you may begin.

Why paint images when you can get the reader to do the painting?

 
Who knew? 05/04/2009
 

The dissolution of the publishing houses is well under way, and as with textiles and cars, the rest of the world will prove their superiority in a free market. With the death of 'English Literature' and the advent of 'literature' written in English – the market becomes free, and more simplified. Calls for quality on POD are the equivalent of Custer's last stand. As long as the writer writes in a language where 20,000+ people will get and appreciate it, the job's done and there's profit to be had.

The publishing industry reverts to true simplicity; regardless of race, colour, creed or education – Are there enough buyers on the globe to make this publication financially viable? That is the total sum of the publishing industry. It is no more than that. Asking Lee Sung Wong; "Have you read the classics?" May invoke the response: "Why, have you?" His classics and your classics are not one and the same. English structure, English grammar etc are no longer a priority. For example, many cultures tell stories in the second person POV. - It's a global market.

 
 

Having thought about the site and its problems. Undoubtedly it is the 'friendly' nature of the site that is the route cause of the problem. For thousands of years writing has been a solitary trade, and nothing has changed. Excepting now, we use a computer to replace the quill and paper.

Yes, it is good to recommend a book you've enjoyed but when 'we' enters the equation, the popularity contest takes over and merit of the work becomes a secondary issue.

On examination, let's get this one to the Ed's desk is a noble intention but more often than not the preferred candidate's work takes the place of something superior. The end result is the same; the work of the 'friend' is rejected by the Ed's desk and the other writer eventually leaves the site. Every month, there are mediocre books pushed past better books – it cannot be denied.

To add insult to injury there are those who have achieved their gold stars through dubious methods. All those friends and dummy user accounts idle. An army of sockpuppets fat from the ride on a gold star manuscript for which they were created lay waiting, to be passed to the next 'friend.' We notice the writer of 'the Jin Deception' offer his support to Chris Cross, and her book rapidly heads towards the top of the pile. Kfran, supports the stalled 'Spirit Prisoners' and overnight it heads the weekly chart.

Apart from to send other writers to other routes. What can be achieved? Harper Collins have no friends; present them with a mediocre manuscript, they'll just say no. (Again)

 
 

Where did literature go wrong, who, or what is responsible for its demise? I actually think I can answer that one for you. But only read on if you subscribe to the belief held by the majority of publishers, agents, and editors. - You have the ability to write, or you don't.

Historically, literature was for the upper classes, the educated. Epic complex sagas were written which only they understood. Those working in mines and cotton mills had no need to be involved They had other pastimes such as revolting, eating cake, and being sent off to war for no particular reason.

Then came the silver screen. Those uneducated, illiterate heathens could watch the stories. But they were simple-minded folk, for them, the stories [screenplays] had to be clear, structured and predictable.

All this time the UK education system taught English Literature and English Language. With globalisation and migration, the whole meaning of the courses involving the word "English" became confusing – it required re-branding.

The money men seized their opportunity. By cobbling together simple US screenwriting techniques with the redundant English Language course, business had a marketable product. Called "Creative writing," this new course was taken up by the millions who could not write. Somehow they believed this magical course would turn them into writers of great classics. The untalented millions graduated, and began to flood agents and publishers with manuscripts. Meanwhile, western education systems were providing improved education for all. The problem was, all the writers were trained to write simple stories in a clear and succinct manner with perfect grammar for the non-existent 'dumb reader.' The dumb reader no longer really existed, he was extinct, but the system had created a lot of dumb writers to cater for him. Such were the numbers of dumb writers, they dominated the industry. They declared anything that wasn't written according to the dumb standards as - shit.

The dumb reader, now c/w University degree reads old classics when looking for something to read. Modern literature? Well that's just a big kiddy comic,, with no pictures. - What fun is that? No. When he wants mindless entertainment, he watches TV. TV has pictures that move.

 
 

What I'm seeing (and calculating as my way forward), are changes in concepts in good story-telling. Thank God, anything to relieve us that dumbed down shit. Remember, times have changed, there are no big publishers, or film studios, or TV networks. Just huge media companies. Naturally, they would like to sell the story in identical formats on every platform.

Enter a generation of novelists who have grown up in front of a television, and the results are natural bias to exposition through dialogue and action, POV alignment to cameras, and careful attention to their method of 'telling' narrative. Their 'vision' of what they're writing has the detachment of always being seen through a lens.

They will have written story to be viewed, as opposed to a work where narrative is used to get expose character's thoughts. Hence, there is no difference between the book, and the film, and damned on-line interactive video game.

Death to the screenwriters and novelists?

 
 

Did I blog this before? Oh well. Fibonacci's Child sits at #10 in Harper Collins' slush-pile (Authonomy). I wonder how it got ranked so highly? I have no idea. From the publisher's point of view there are perhaps 6000 manuscripts which they peruse at their leisure. Leisure, is not strictly the right word. When it's raining of a lunchtime and they cannot go out to play, an editor may click randomly through the slush whilst munching cheese and onion crisps, as an apple and a bottle of mineral water look on.

 In Authonomy game, the game where you attain a top 5 ranking and Harper Collins politely tell you, your book is shite and they will not publish it. In that game, there are only 500 books, even so #10 is pretty good me thinks.

 Why do Harper Collins always say the books are shite? I hear you ask. Well, I answer. There are two recognised methods, of reaching the top 5.

Method 1: Read, vote for, and comment on, every active book on the site. This method is preferred by ex-school teachers who have developed a certain skill from marking 20 students essays per hour.

 Method 2: Be nice on the forum. Hopefully, when it's your 'turn', somebody will announce that you're a 'jolly good chap' and henceforth are deserving to be voted in this month.

 The methods can be summarised as 1) Hard-working, and 2) Popular. The main problem with both of these systems is none of them take into account whether or not the book is any good. The lack of quality is a detail that Harper Collins are concerned about. Silly buggers!

Anyway, the gems I've found are kept here.

 
 

I suppose I've been bad. I've been spending way too much time in Harper Collins slush pile. It's been a pilgrimage of discovery. For the most part? I've been discovering how not to write. I've discovered, in amongst some very nice people, the dregs of society - humanity. There's a thing called authorism, a parody of western society. Anything not understood, beyond the rabble's collective comprehension gets nuked. Those not knowing the correct usage of the m-dash, n-dash, and the gerund, are unskilled and suitable only for manual labour.

There is racism, born of ignorance. My proposal for This is how I walk; In my Black Shoes went down like a lead balloon. Despite the "anti" lobby - the work is still ranked in the top 100 on the site. There are probably 1000 active manuscripts, so #100 is a fair achievement.

Fibonacci's Child is even more interesting, the novel currently sits a #30, despite an old-school presence that refuse to read or vote for it.

The biggest discovery has been about me, my writing, and the realisation that I'm a fraud. 'Adult themes in simple terms' is what I claim to write. However, apparently I have a prose muscle, which I flex mightily in the short-haul.

I'll blog again tomorrow, and I'll try to keep up.