S.R. Garrae's Blog, page 2

The People vs. Reading, Part III, or Shakespeare isn't relevant

Every so often, someone complains that teaching today’s children Shakespeare is a waste of time, since the words of a man writing 400+ years ago in archaic language is not “accessible”. Whatever “accessible” might mean. (To me, it means ensuring that buildings, notices, announcements, etc are easy to use for everyone in society. Too often, though, “accessible” seems to mean “without having to stretch your mind”.) Shakespeare, they say, is no longer “relevant”.

Let’s just consider that with reference to the four great tragedies, each summarised to one line.

Hamlet: hates his new stepfather and is taking it out on his mother and girlfriend.
In today’s society, the blended family is a major thing. So how are the major themes of Hamlet not relevant, seen through the step-family lens?

King Lear: a father playing favourites and a massive case of sibling rivalry.
Who hasn’t seen the dysfunctional “golden child” and “scapegoat” played out: either in families or in a classroom?

Macbeth: driven by a forceful wife, he wants to be the star of the show, top dog.
Translate to followers on social media, or the present-day cult of the celebrity, and you see that vaulting ambition didn’t stop in 12th century Scotland.

Othello: a jealous husband becomes abusive to his innocent wife, spurred on by a malicious “friend”.
We try to root out abuse and toxic “friendships” wherever we find them, but they’re common, aren’t they?

In summary: Shakespeare is as relevant now as when he first wrote, because his themes are as important to society now as they were then.

“But the language is too difficult,” I hear you cry. Everything is difficult, when you first meet it. Walking. Talking. Potty training! Reading, writing, and arithmetic. It didn’t stop you, or me, overcoming as many difficulties as we could, to do it the best that we can in our circumstances. People who face particular challenges strive to overcome them. So why shouldn’t we encourage people to enjoy Shakespeare, and stretch their minds wider?

Or do we deliberately tell them that it’s too hard, so that they’re left feeling that it’s not for the likes of them: they’ll never be clever enough? That smacks of “keeping them in their place”; limiting their prospects; leaving them behind. It’s blocking people out from words and phrases that have shaped the English language and culture. It’s a socially acceptable way of ensuring that they don’t get the chance to be “people like us”.

I don’t like that. I don’t like that it’s discrimination dressed up as “for their benefit” or “they’d never cope”. I don’t like that children are not being challenged to go further and understand more; to think more widely. I don’t like that a swathe of underprivileged children are being – “for their own good” – restricted in what they can learn. I hate that their ambitions are being curbed and circumscribed before they even know that they could be ambitious.

And I especially do not like that the children of the elite will be exposed to Shakespeare, and similar, because their parents can afford to buy books, and go to the theatre, and discuss it with them, and introduce them to all the many things that drive them to think more widely, learn more, and become the self-perpetuating elite of the future.

So ask yourself, as I did, when you say that Shakespeare is “not relevant” – what are your real reasons?

Death in Focus

I am Legion: identity or Identikit?

Being a very new “real” author, as you’d expect, I’ve been reading about what I should do to promote my book. (which is why I’ve got this blog...you can all suffer my musings while I procrastinate around writing book 2) All the advice is that I should split my Twitter account, to have one for personal matters and one for book promotion, because otherwise it’s unprofessional.

I get the theory behind that. In my previous life as a senior professional finance type, I didn’t have anything on line in my real name, to avoid it being linked to my work self. Of course, I didn’t exactly want my writing linked to my work self. Didn’t exactly fit that image. Finance versus romantic crime with steamy scenes...well, it doesn’t match, does it?

But somehow I keep thinking...well, but, I’m not just the author of my book. I’m a spouse. I’m a parent. I’m a friend. I’m my past, and my present, and my future. I like pictures of cute kittens (okay, it’s a cliché, but I do. I just don’t want to own one), I need a support network to force me to exercise, and I get worked up about the news, worried about the world, and made happy by the good things in life. (Especially chocolate.) I am the person who wants to tweet a pat on the shoulder or share amusement. To quote another, or misquote the Bible: I am Legion, I contain multitudes – and all of those multitudes are me.

So I wonder, if I split the personal from the “professional”, does that take away some of who I am? Does it mean that I’m hiding? Should a writer only be their professional self, and leave their personality behind?

But then, my personality is in every word I write: in my style, in my word choice, in the tone I use. So why should I care if I’m tweeting today’s flowers of procrastination (when I wrote this, it was marigolds), because that’s me too.

I contain multitudes, and each of them contributes to my writing. So why should I hide them?

Death in Focus

The People vs Reading, Part II, or Classics revisited

So, I said a post ago that I’d return to the question of why popular genres and fun stories are disparaged, and, if not ignored, disapproved of when it comes to writing.
I think it’s twofold.

One. Romance (and all its related subgenres, e.g. romantic crime, which is what I write) is read overwhelmingly by women. Like it or not, a woman sitting reading is a woman who is not doing the washing, the childrearing, the cooking...or any of the domestic wifework which she is expected to do by society as a whole instead of doing something that solely pleases her. Women, I’m afraid, are still expected to put themselves last – and reading is putting yourself first. So if you turn the single biggest genre which predominantly women read into a guilty “this isn’t a real book” – you discourage women from reading and talking about it. You make it a second-class activity, which they shouldn’t really enjoy. Just to be totally provocative, one might compare it to how women have been conditioned to think that sex is something they shouldn’t really enjoy.

Two. Literature shouldn’t be for the masses. Popular genres and fun stories aren’t what “clever” people read. I was, in my profession, respected as “clever”. As I said in the first post on this topic “The Story Trap”, I’ve read a lot. Most of it is in these disparaged, “popular” genres. And you know why? Because after fighting my way through hugely complex, technical, dense legalese all day, with millions of dollars and our reputation on the line if I got it wrong – I don’t want to read dense, technical, complex prose. I want to read a *story*.

There is a place for clever-clever literature. But if you look at the classic British authors (I make no claim to know about US authors: my knowledge is basically Mark Twain), and one or two others – they wrote stories. Austen and Burney wrote romance novels, with social satire. Mrs Radcliffe invented the Gothic horror novel, and Mary Shelley Frankenstein and his monster. Jules Verne and HG Wells wrote science fiction with a side of fantasy. I’ve left out Shakespeare, because I’ll address him separately another day. Chaucer’s Canterbury tales are a set of entertaining stories: high knightly saga to vulgar humour. Malory’s Knights of the Round Table is military fantasy, with spirituality baked in. And Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables – now a smash hit mega-musical – is a classic redemption story.

Not one of those classic authors wrote clever-clever literature. They wrote *stories*. Complex stories, with complex characters, sure. But they were stories, with a plot which anyone can follow, and characters with whom you can identify. Who, released from prison, unable to find a job and unable even to vote, would not identify with Valjean, turning back to crime and only saved by the grace of the Bishop who gave him his seed funding to start again? Who, reading about Elizabeth Bennett, doesn’t identify with her instant dislike of an arrogant man or her annoyance at her flashy, bling-loving younger sister, ruining her chances of looking cool?

And yet, according to “clever” people, these genres are... second rate. Lower class. Less intelligent.

Really?

I bet they all claim to have read the names I’ve checked above.

Death in Focus

The People vs. Reading – Part I or The Story Trap

Much to my astonishment and terror, I was invited to a book club (in which one of my family members is prominent, which explains it: nepotism is a legitimate marketing tool) to discuss my book. The meeting was postponed, and at a different event I met one of the book club members, who confessed somewhat apologetically that she hadn’t yet read my book. Of course I encouraged her, by pointing out that my effort was not a literary masterpiece, or full of deep and complex meanings, but a story written for people to enjoy.

“Thank heavens,” she said, in summary. “I don’t want to read worthy books. I want something that’s fun. Easy to read. A story.” And just today I saw a Tweet which noted that a Creative Writing class made it very clear that romance – a very, very popular genre – wasn’t “approved”. (@aweaverwrites)

It got me thinking. Part of learning to write is learning to read – everything in sight, if you’re me, including the backs of cereal packets and road signs if there’s nothing better – but reading as widely as you can. I’ve read some of everything (I am not young!) from great classic authors through to Harlequin romance; science fiction and fantasy; detective stories; Westerns; spirituality to erotica and everything in between. I’ve read books that literary types would denounce as bubblegum rubbish (lots of them) and books of which the literati would approve (far fewer). In my previous life, I read, wrote and occasionally lectured on complex technical papers and book chapters. I still do read enormous amounts – just look at my library on Goodreads, which is only a fraction of what I’ve read since I haven’t put on all the physical books I’ve read or own.

But mostly, what I want to read is a story. Not necessarily an easy story, or a simple one: after all, people aren’t simple and they’re rarely easy. I appreciate complex cleverness, and great vocabulary, but I’d like it to be part of the story: a narrative I can follow with characters with whom I can connect – even if I hate them. I don’t think I’m alone in that.

So why do we, or Creative Writing classes, disparage the fun, page turning, and above all *popular* stories that most people like reading?

Thoughts welcomed, in the comment box. I'll return to this subject.

Death in Focus

Zen and the Serenity Prayer

I saw a comment on Twitter recently.
“Grant me the serenity to not read the comments, the courage to not read the comments, and the wisdom to not read the comments.” (@aparnapkin)
At first I thought that it was a perfect statement of zen and peaceful mindfulness for writers, because after all, affirmation should come from within, not from sales stats or praise, (I find both exceedingly affirming, personally, even if it’s a single sale once a week) but then I realised that, for writing and for anything else, actually that sentiment doesn’t help me.
If I don’t read the comments on my writing, I’ll never know what I need to improve as a writer. Yes, some comments – there are always trolls – will be designed simply to hurt. But far more commentary will point me to something that I could do better. There’s always something to do better.
More generally, if I don’t read the comments about the world around me, I’m not participating. I’m not applying a writer’s eye to sift opinion from fact, good from bad, prejudice from fairness. If I don’t understand human nature and what drives it, then I can’t – not just won’t – be a good writer, because my characters will be flat: at best caricatures, at worst simply...boring. Their actions will be unrealistic, and their reasoning improbable.
I prefer the Serenity Prayer: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference. I can’t change the comments. I can improve my writing.

Death in Focus

Once upon a time...

As somebody else said, all good stories start with "Once upon a time". Of course, this is a blog, but it seems like a good place to start the blog too.

Once upon a time, I was a financial type, and, boring as that might sound, I loved my job and the stress and busy life. My hobby was reading. My work involved vast quantities of reading. You might say that my whole life was centred around books and reading, and you wouldn't be wrong.

And then, one day, I was diagnosed with eye issues.

It was a shock. It shocked me into writing. At first I wrote, and still write, fanfiction. People liked it, criticised it, and provided a lot of guidance on how to write better.

Finally, I was brave enough to write an original book. Death in Focus

And so that's why I'm here. This blog is about my thoughts on writing, and how I'm doing. Share it, comment, or ask questions.