Anna Jones Buttimore's Blog, page 16
July 14, 2011
Sales Figures and Advertising
I just had the sales figures for Honeymoon Heist and to say that they are not good is stretching understatement to the limit. Not that I'm not grateful to both the people who bought it, but after all the effort and time I put into that book - and especially the work I did in promoting it - it's easy to feel disappointed and discouraged.
My first book sold 2,000 copies which made it a bestseller for an LDS book, but that was ten years ago. What has changed? Is my writing getting worse? Should I hang up my keyboard and take up gardening instead?
The internet was still relatively new in 2001, so Haven was widely promoted the old-fashioned way, with posters, an advert in the Deseret Book and Seagull Book catalogues, a radio advert and bookmarks. I even did a "virtual" book signing where a friend sat in a bookstore in Utah sticking stickers with my signature on in copies of my book presented to her buy buyers.
Promoting a book is often prohibitively expensive for the publishers. Those end-of-shelf racks which showcase a particular new release are paid-for placements, and it's the publishers who pay for them. Likewise it costs money to have a book featured in a catalogue, and publishers work on narrow margins. So Honeymoon Heist isn't in the Deseret Book catalogue and has never been advertised. Sales of this book rely on shoppers picking it up in a store and being intrigued by the back cover blurb, or perhaps having read a reivew or hearing a recommendation from a friend. Buyers are no longer "primed" by having my book placed before them in a catalogue, on a poster or on a bookstore display.
But there are other reasons why sales may be dropping not just for me, but for my fellow authors. The global recession has meant that people have less money to spend on books, and since a book is one product you can't take back to the shop if you don't like it, it's something of a risky investment when money is tight and TV entertainment is free.
The LDS market is also growing - which I welcome - but it means that today's LDS woman looking for a fiction novel has the choice of maybe a hundred rather than just ten or so. There are a limited number of buyers, so with a larger number of books available, those readers are spread thinly.
What all this means is that if I want sales to rival those of my first two books, I have to put in more work, write better books that people will talk about, and do my own publicity as much as I possibly can. Which is, after all, what this blog is all about.
My first book sold 2,000 copies which made it a bestseller for an LDS book, but that was ten years ago. What has changed? Is my writing getting worse? Should I hang up my keyboard and take up gardening instead?
The internet was still relatively new in 2001, so Haven was widely promoted the old-fashioned way, with posters, an advert in the Deseret Book and Seagull Book catalogues, a radio advert and bookmarks. I even did a "virtual" book signing where a friend sat in a bookstore in Utah sticking stickers with my signature on in copies of my book presented to her buy buyers.
Promoting a book is often prohibitively expensive for the publishers. Those end-of-shelf racks which showcase a particular new release are paid-for placements, and it's the publishers who pay for them. Likewise it costs money to have a book featured in a catalogue, and publishers work on narrow margins. So Honeymoon Heist isn't in the Deseret Book catalogue and has never been advertised. Sales of this book rely on shoppers picking it up in a store and being intrigued by the back cover blurb, or perhaps having read a reivew or hearing a recommendation from a friend. Buyers are no longer "primed" by having my book placed before them in a catalogue, on a poster or on a bookstore display.
But there are other reasons why sales may be dropping not just for me, but for my fellow authors. The global recession has meant that people have less money to spend on books, and since a book is one product you can't take back to the shop if you don't like it, it's something of a risky investment when money is tight and TV entertainment is free.
The LDS market is also growing - which I welcome - but it means that today's LDS woman looking for a fiction novel has the choice of maybe a hundred rather than just ten or so. There are a limited number of buyers, so with a larger number of books available, those readers are spread thinly.
What all this means is that if I want sales to rival those of my first two books, I have to put in more work, write better books that people will talk about, and do my own publicity as much as I possibly can. Which is, after all, what this blog is all about.
July 5, 2011
Their Creeds are an Abomination
I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and have been for some years now. As an entity, the church is much maligned and misunderstood. It does have some unique beliefs - premortal life, modern-day prophets and baptism for the dead - but not as many as you might suppose.
I "church hopped" for many years before joining this church, and some of its distinctive beliefs are what eventually drew me to it despite my best efforts to put up objections to them. In particular I might cite the LDS view of the trinity as three separate and distinct individuals who are one in purpose, rather than the traditional view of a single, formless deity who can divide into three parts at will and is given to talking to himself. I always struggled the traditional trinity doctrine - largely because I couldn't understand it or find in anywhere in the Bible - and I was more than happy eventually to abandon it.
For the most part I fully endorse and support the doctrines, practices and values of my church, but there is one I have had difficulty with, and that is the often-stated (in testimony meetings) claim that the LDS Church is "the only true and living church on the face of the earth". I have belonged to several other churches, you see, which I can see are living, and which teach true doctrines, and this claim seems to me to smack of arrogance and to invite hostility from other churches - as though we needed more of that.
It was brought home to me in particular recently when a friend from another church visited my ward one fast and testimony meeting. One sister stood up and expressed her distress that her daughter had joined another church. Naturally enough, my friend questioned this. Do Latter-day Saints truly believe that there is no salvation or hope outside the LDS church?
In 1820 a fourteen-year-old boy found himself confused by the number of conflicting messages he was hearing from preachers during a revival in his area, and decided to take the advice he found in James 1:5. He went to a quiet place and prayed out loud, asking God which church he should join. In a dramatic vision God and Jesus Christ appeared before him, and this is his account of what transpired next:
"I asked ... which of all the sects was right ... and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong ... their creeds were an abomination."
Pretty strong stuff. Ten years later Joseph Smith established the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on further revelations, and almost two hundred years later it is one of the fastest growing churches in the world.
Doubtless some members really do believe that all other churches are wrong and their creeds are an abomination. The sister who despaired at her daughter joined one of them may be among them (although I suspect she was probably more concerned that her sealing to her daughter would be invalidated). But I'm not and, I believe, neither are the majority of my fellow saints. In fact, many of them have spoken warmly of the spiritual experiences they have had worshipping in other churches, and the common ground they have found with Christians of many other denominations. After all, our core belief - that we are sinners who need salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as our saviour - is the same.
But does that mean I doubt the validity of Joseph Smith's vision? Not at all. The young Joseph Smith was a bit of a rascal, and I think the Lord used particularly strong words with him because he had such a special calling ahead. Maybe not strong enough, in fact, because despite the emphatic declaration, Joseph joined the Methodist church with several members of his family a few months later. I don't know enough of the history to state for certain whether that harmed or delayed his work in setting up the Church, but common sense would seem to suggest that it did.
And what about that claim "their creeds were an abomination?" I take that statement entirely at face value as referring specifically to the Creeds. I know the Nicene Creed and parts of the Apostles' Creed by heart (in English and Welsh) and even as a faithful Anglican (and a Vicar's wife to boot) there were parts I objected to. In particular I never said the line "For us men and for our salvation" because I'm a woman. Now I would also have to leave out the line which says that Jesus is "of one substance with the Father." (I'm not a great fan of the creeds, which officially makes me a heretic.)
To get back to the question, do I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ really is the only true and living church on the face of the Earth? I believe that it is the church (organised body of believers) Jesus Christ established. I believe it holds the priesthood authority, and I believe it has more of the truths than any other church, but that's not the same thing at all as saying that it is the only true church. I can state with some certainty (because I have prayed about it and received a clear answer) that Christians who are members of other churches do have the forgiveness and salvation they seek, and are assured a glorious heavenly home in the life to come.
They do have the truth. But they don't have the further light and knowledge which comes with having ongoing revelation and further scriptures, for example. Neither do they have access to the additional blessings which members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints enjoy, such as the sealing ordinances which enable us to be united as families forever.
I'd like to apologise to my friend, and any other Christians who may have heard what appears to be the arrogant declaration the the LDS church is "the true church" and maybe even the implication that all other churches are valueless or somehow wrong. For my part (and despite apparently apologising for others I can't, in fact, speak for them) I do not subscribe to this view. Anyone going to a church, or indeed belonging to any religion, has to believe that theirs is somehow more right (or right for them) than everyone else's, or they are going to be very conflicted. If I didn't firmly believe the LDS Church to be true and right, then I wouldn't belong to it. But that doesn't mean that I believe your church isn't, and I would hope that is true for all fourteen million of my LDS brothers and sisters.
I "church hopped" for many years before joining this church, and some of its distinctive beliefs are what eventually drew me to it despite my best efforts to put up objections to them. In particular I might cite the LDS view of the trinity as three separate and distinct individuals who are one in purpose, rather than the traditional view of a single, formless deity who can divide into three parts at will and is given to talking to himself. I always struggled the traditional trinity doctrine - largely because I couldn't understand it or find in anywhere in the Bible - and I was more than happy eventually to abandon it.
For the most part I fully endorse and support the doctrines, practices and values of my church, but there is one I have had difficulty with, and that is the often-stated (in testimony meetings) claim that the LDS Church is "the only true and living church on the face of the earth". I have belonged to several other churches, you see, which I can see are living, and which teach true doctrines, and this claim seems to me to smack of arrogance and to invite hostility from other churches - as though we needed more of that.
It was brought home to me in particular recently when a friend from another church visited my ward one fast and testimony meeting. One sister stood up and expressed her distress that her daughter had joined another church. Naturally enough, my friend questioned this. Do Latter-day Saints truly believe that there is no salvation or hope outside the LDS church?
In 1820 a fourteen-year-old boy found himself confused by the number of conflicting messages he was hearing from preachers during a revival in his area, and decided to take the advice he found in James 1:5. He went to a quiet place and prayed out loud, asking God which church he should join. In a dramatic vision God and Jesus Christ appeared before him, and this is his account of what transpired next:
"I asked ... which of all the sects was right ... and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong ... their creeds were an abomination."
Pretty strong stuff. Ten years later Joseph Smith established the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on further revelations, and almost two hundred years later it is one of the fastest growing churches in the world.
Doubtless some members really do believe that all other churches are wrong and their creeds are an abomination. The sister who despaired at her daughter joined one of them may be among them (although I suspect she was probably more concerned that her sealing to her daughter would be invalidated). But I'm not and, I believe, neither are the majority of my fellow saints. In fact, many of them have spoken warmly of the spiritual experiences they have had worshipping in other churches, and the common ground they have found with Christians of many other denominations. After all, our core belief - that we are sinners who need salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as our saviour - is the same.
But does that mean I doubt the validity of Joseph Smith's vision? Not at all. The young Joseph Smith was a bit of a rascal, and I think the Lord used particularly strong words with him because he had such a special calling ahead. Maybe not strong enough, in fact, because despite the emphatic declaration, Joseph joined the Methodist church with several members of his family a few months later. I don't know enough of the history to state for certain whether that harmed or delayed his work in setting up the Church, but common sense would seem to suggest that it did.
And what about that claim "their creeds were an abomination?" I take that statement entirely at face value as referring specifically to the Creeds. I know the Nicene Creed and parts of the Apostles' Creed by heart (in English and Welsh) and even as a faithful Anglican (and a Vicar's wife to boot) there were parts I objected to. In particular I never said the line "For us men and for our salvation" because I'm a woman. Now I would also have to leave out the line which says that Jesus is "of one substance with the Father." (I'm not a great fan of the creeds, which officially makes me a heretic.)
To get back to the question, do I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ really is the only true and living church on the face of the Earth? I believe that it is the church (organised body of believers) Jesus Christ established. I believe it holds the priesthood authority, and I believe it has more of the truths than any other church, but that's not the same thing at all as saying that it is the only true church. I can state with some certainty (because I have prayed about it and received a clear answer) that Christians who are members of other churches do have the forgiveness and salvation they seek, and are assured a glorious heavenly home in the life to come.
They do have the truth. But they don't have the further light and knowledge which comes with having ongoing revelation and further scriptures, for example. Neither do they have access to the additional blessings which members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints enjoy, such as the sealing ordinances which enable us to be united as families forever.
I'd like to apologise to my friend, and any other Christians who may have heard what appears to be the arrogant declaration the the LDS church is "the true church" and maybe even the implication that all other churches are valueless or somehow wrong. For my part (and despite apparently apologising for others I can't, in fact, speak for them) I do not subscribe to this view. Anyone going to a church, or indeed belonging to any religion, has to believe that theirs is somehow more right (or right for them) than everyone else's, or they are going to be very conflicted. If I didn't firmly believe the LDS Church to be true and right, then I wouldn't belong to it. But that doesn't mean that I believe your church isn't, and I would hope that is true for all fourteen million of my LDS brothers and sisters.
June 21, 2011
"Hurry Up and Wait"
When my first book was accepted for publication I was told by my very wise editor that publishing was a "hurry up and wait" business, and could be extremely frustrating. And so it has proved to be. It seems that most publishers take up to a year from accepting a manuscript to actually printing and distributing the book, and then it can be another year before the author gets sales figures and royalties.
And yet it often seems that the edited manuscript is returned to the author with instructions to make required corrections and alterations and return it within 72 hours. Publishers work to deadlines, and with several books scheduled for specific release dates, and marketing based on everything happening as planned, part of the author's lot in life is to do whatever is necessary to fit in with it all.
I can cope with that. I understand that's how it works. That's fine.
The more difficult part is waiting for an answer, but again, that's par for the course. My latest effort, Emon and the Emperor, is currently with two UK agents, a US agent and a US publisher. One of the UK agents has had it for three months. But here's the thing - that's good. Especially in the case of a publisher, the longer they have your manuscript, the more likely it is that they are considering it seriously. If it's no good the acquisitions editor will read the first chapter or so and know enough to send it back with a standard rejection letter, generally within a couple of weeks. But if the first editor likes it then it gets passed up the chain for consideration by a more senior editor and, in the case of some publishers, by an entire committee, all of whom have to read the entire manuscript. That takes a long time, so often the longer the publisher (or agent) has your manuscript, the better.
So I'm being hopefully patient, because, again, that's how the system works, and I'm happy for the right answer to take a long time in coming. And I have plenty of other projects to be getting on with while I'm waiting.
And yet it often seems that the edited manuscript is returned to the author with instructions to make required corrections and alterations and return it within 72 hours. Publishers work to deadlines, and with several books scheduled for specific release dates, and marketing based on everything happening as planned, part of the author's lot in life is to do whatever is necessary to fit in with it all.
I can cope with that. I understand that's how it works. That's fine.
The more difficult part is waiting for an answer, but again, that's par for the course. My latest effort, Emon and the Emperor, is currently with two UK agents, a US agent and a US publisher. One of the UK agents has had it for three months. But here's the thing - that's good. Especially in the case of a publisher, the longer they have your manuscript, the more likely it is that they are considering it seriously. If it's no good the acquisitions editor will read the first chapter or so and know enough to send it back with a standard rejection letter, generally within a couple of weeks. But if the first editor likes it then it gets passed up the chain for consideration by a more senior editor and, in the case of some publishers, by an entire committee, all of whom have to read the entire manuscript. That takes a long time, so often the longer the publisher (or agent) has your manuscript, the better.
So I'm being hopefully patient, because, again, that's how the system works, and I'm happy for the right answer to take a long time in coming. And I have plenty of other projects to be getting on with while I'm waiting.
June 7, 2011
Wonderful Words
I posted a few weeks ago about why I object to swearing. Essentially it is because I don't like horrible, out-of-context, intended-to-offend words. But there are plenty of other words I love. Words which trip off the tongue and which are a joy to say - tributary, fluffy, coupon. (The Welsh words cynffon and bysedd trump them all, though. Welsh has the most amazingly satisfying words I know.)
Some words not only sound good, but have good associations which make them even more spirit-warming, "chocolate" being the obvious candidate. I also love the evocative word "Exogenesis", not only because it has such an exciting and mysterious meaning, but because it is the title of one a symphony by one of my favourite bands (Muse), and the name of an episode of Star Trek. "Epiphany" is another delightful word which is also the name of an episode of three of my favourite TV programmes - Desparate Houswives, Angel and Stargate SG-1.
The English language has the richest vocabulary (ooh, I like that word too, vocabulary) in the world, with over twice the number of words of its nearest rival, and new words are appearing in the dictionary all the time - much to the disgust of purist Scrabble players. I recently saw a quote which referred to "these troublous times". I've no idea whether "troublous" is a real word (troublesome, surely) but it sounds so nice that it really should be.
Since I work with words, I welcome them as tools of my trade, and rejoice in having so many evocative, powerful and meaningful words to choose from. I may even decide to invent a few myself. After all, Shakespeare did.
Some words not only sound good, but have good associations which make them even more spirit-warming, "chocolate" being the obvious candidate. I also love the evocative word "Exogenesis", not only because it has such an exciting and mysterious meaning, but because it is the title of one a symphony by one of my favourite bands (Muse), and the name of an episode of Star Trek. "Epiphany" is another delightful word which is also the name of an episode of three of my favourite TV programmes - Desparate Houswives, Angel and Stargate SG-1.
The English language has the richest vocabulary (ooh, I like that word too, vocabulary) in the world, with over twice the number of words of its nearest rival, and new words are appearing in the dictionary all the time - much to the disgust of purist Scrabble players. I recently saw a quote which referred to "these troublous times". I've no idea whether "troublous" is a real word (troublesome, surely) but it sounds so nice that it really should be.
Since I work with words, I welcome them as tools of my trade, and rejoice in having so many evocative, powerful and meaningful words to choose from. I may even decide to invent a few myself. After all, Shakespeare did.
May 21, 2011
Prophets and the End of the World
According to Harold Camping of Family Radio Worldwide, the end of the world - the rapture, the apocalypse, whatever you like to call is - is scheduled for today. Darned if I'm finishing the washing up, then.
Naturally this has raised much hilarity and skepticism, but it has also provoked some serious thought. For me, it raised two questions. How much do I believe in Prophecy, and if Rev. Camping is right, am I ready?
Just to be contrary, I'll answer the second question first. Yes. I'd very much like to have my due fourscore years and ten of this very interesting and fun life, and I would like my children to experience rather more of what the world has to offer before they are caught up into eternal bliss, but on the whole it's been a great 42 years, and I am satisfied that I'm ready to meet Jesus with my head held high should it come to that. He and I are well-enough acquainted to be on first-name terms.
So that leaves the issue of prophecy. Do I actually believe Rev. Camping? I'm trying to not let the fact that the very word "camping" has negative connotations for me affect my judgement, but, in fact, no. Not for a moment.
Every Christian should believe in prophecy, because the Bible very clearly teaches that prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit which is available to all. (See Numbers 11:25-29 and 1 Corinthians 12.) But if that's the case, what is to stop off-the-wall fundamentalists proclaiming bizarre and contradictory revelations? And how are we to tell which to believe?
We can all, indeed, have the spirit of prophecy in a certain measure to give words of inspiration to our family or close friends, and to receive guidance for ourselves. But it seems to me when I read the Bible that throughtout the ages, God has appointed a specific spokesman - or occasionally spokesmen - to give His proclaimations to His people (which is now all of us). One thing which marks the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints out from others is that we do believe in a single individual called by God to be a Prophet with a capital P.
I love that about it. Because I think despite having the Holy Scriptures, we are still so much in need of guidance. In some places, the Bible is unclear - is baptism essential to salvation or not? At other times we are unsure how to relate it to modern life, and sometimes we are not clear which rules and guidelines of the Old Covenant and still in force for the New - should we still pay tithing? Stone adulterers? Naturally we can, and should, seek personal guidance for our answers to these questions, but other Christians will seek and obtain completely contrary answers, which is where division and confusion creeps in.
So it's good to have a "buck stops here" person who has been duly called, appointed and ordained of God to be a prophet, seer and revelator and who is the only person on the earth with the authority to declare God's will to all of creation. His name is Thomas S. Monson, I've met him, and he's very nice.
This raises another question, of course. If President Monson were to declare the end of the world on a specific date, would I be more likely to believe him than I would to believe Harold Camping? Would I make arrangements for my pets to be taken care of following my rapture as some followers of Camping have done? Well, no. Because the Bible says in Matthew 24:36 that no one knows when that day will be, not even Jesus himself. So if President Monson did predict a date, I would cease to believe that he is a prophet. And that's yet another reason I don't believe Harold Camping.
Several people have predicted the date of the apocalypse before now. William Miller predicted various dates in 1843 and 1844. The Jehovah's Witnesses predicted 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1942. Many people predicted 1993 (to allow for the seven years of tribulation before the ushering in of the Milennium) and Harold Camping - remember him? - also predicted that the world would end on 6th September 1994.
Anyway, according to his latest theory the rapture will occur at 6 p.m. precisely (in which time zone, I wonder?) and it's now almost 4 p.m., so I'd better go and pack.
Naturally this has raised much hilarity and skepticism, but it has also provoked some serious thought. For me, it raised two questions. How much do I believe in Prophecy, and if Rev. Camping is right, am I ready?
Just to be contrary, I'll answer the second question first. Yes. I'd very much like to have my due fourscore years and ten of this very interesting and fun life, and I would like my children to experience rather more of what the world has to offer before they are caught up into eternal bliss, but on the whole it's been a great 42 years, and I am satisfied that I'm ready to meet Jesus with my head held high should it come to that. He and I are well-enough acquainted to be on first-name terms.
So that leaves the issue of prophecy. Do I actually believe Rev. Camping? I'm trying to not let the fact that the very word "camping" has negative connotations for me affect my judgement, but, in fact, no. Not for a moment.
Every Christian should believe in prophecy, because the Bible very clearly teaches that prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit which is available to all. (See Numbers 11:25-29 and 1 Corinthians 12.) But if that's the case, what is to stop off-the-wall fundamentalists proclaiming bizarre and contradictory revelations? And how are we to tell which to believe?
We can all, indeed, have the spirit of prophecy in a certain measure to give words of inspiration to our family or close friends, and to receive guidance for ourselves. But it seems to me when I read the Bible that throughtout the ages, God has appointed a specific spokesman - or occasionally spokesmen - to give His proclaimations to His people (which is now all of us). One thing which marks the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints out from others is that we do believe in a single individual called by God to be a Prophet with a capital P.
I love that about it. Because I think despite having the Holy Scriptures, we are still so much in need of guidance. In some places, the Bible is unclear - is baptism essential to salvation or not? At other times we are unsure how to relate it to modern life, and sometimes we are not clear which rules and guidelines of the Old Covenant and still in force for the New - should we still pay tithing? Stone adulterers? Naturally we can, and should, seek personal guidance for our answers to these questions, but other Christians will seek and obtain completely contrary answers, which is where division and confusion creeps in.
So it's good to have a "buck stops here" person who has been duly called, appointed and ordained of God to be a prophet, seer and revelator and who is the only person on the earth with the authority to declare God's will to all of creation. His name is Thomas S. Monson, I've met him, and he's very nice.
This raises another question, of course. If President Monson were to declare the end of the world on a specific date, would I be more likely to believe him than I would to believe Harold Camping? Would I make arrangements for my pets to be taken care of following my rapture as some followers of Camping have done? Well, no. Because the Bible says in Matthew 24:36 that no one knows when that day will be, not even Jesus himself. So if President Monson did predict a date, I would cease to believe that he is a prophet. And that's yet another reason I don't believe Harold Camping.
Several people have predicted the date of the apocalypse before now. William Miller predicted various dates in 1843 and 1844. The Jehovah's Witnesses predicted 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1942. Many people predicted 1993 (to allow for the seven years of tribulation before the ushering in of the Milennium) and Harold Camping - remember him? - also predicted that the world would end on 6th September 1994.
Anyway, according to his latest theory the rapture will occur at 6 p.m. precisely (in which time zone, I wonder?) and it's now almost 4 p.m., so I'd better go and pack.
May 19, 2011
What Do I Work on Next?
Okay, so I've finished my Magnum Opus Emon and the Emperor (120,000 words) and submitted it, and so it's time to get on with the next project. The question is, which one? I'm hoping you blog readers can help me to decide. Comment to vote! Share this blog so that I can get other opinions! I'm in a quandary and I need your help!
Here are the proposed backliners:
Finders Keepers [Romantic comedy for adult women]
When Jen, Maralee, Amelia and Dolphin meet again at a school reunion they realise that, twenty-five years on, they are all still single. And so they decide to meet regularly to help each other navigate the perilous forty-something dating scene. But there's a twist - the first one of them to find a "keeper" will have her wedding paid for by the others. Through romantic blunder after dating disaster and hilarious misunderstanding, the women each come to understand more about themselves, and why they are looking for love.
The Saved Sinner [Poignant and thoughtful adult novel written from alternating points of view]
Jeanette Hesketh is thrilled when her LDS missionary son, Harley, returns home. But Harley hasn't been home for long before he announces that he's been "saved" and is forsaking his membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not only that, but he wants his mother and sister to join him in his new "born again" life and, as far as Jeanette can tell, will stop at nothing to achieve his aim. But Jeanette won't let Harley destroy her family or her faith, and she has a few tricks up her sleeve too.
Blackwood [Gothic horror for children aged 9-15]
Orphaned sisters Prudence, Patience, Temperance and Chastity Blackwood live alone in a rambling old mansion from which they run a successful antiques business. Successful largely because of the sisters' unique abilities to relate to the previous owners of unusual old objects, from a suit of armour to a mysterious locked chest.
Emon and Emara [Young adult/crossover fantasy sequel]
Emon never wanted to be Emperor, and he's finding it harder than he ever imagined. So he leaves the Empire to search for Emara, taking with him five of the newest recruits from the shathan programme including nerdy and nervous Kevin, gung-ho gangster Vito, and shallow and petulant Essa. But Emara's world is more dangerous than he had imagined, and Terran seems to have his own reasons for trying to keep Emon away from her.
So, which of these should be next? Which are you most looking forward to reading?
Here are the proposed backliners:
Finders Keepers [Romantic comedy for adult women]
When Jen, Maralee, Amelia and Dolphin meet again at a school reunion they realise that, twenty-five years on, they are all still single. And so they decide to meet regularly to help each other navigate the perilous forty-something dating scene. But there's a twist - the first one of them to find a "keeper" will have her wedding paid for by the others. Through romantic blunder after dating disaster and hilarious misunderstanding, the women each come to understand more about themselves, and why they are looking for love.
The Saved Sinner [Poignant and thoughtful adult novel written from alternating points of view]
Jeanette Hesketh is thrilled when her LDS missionary son, Harley, returns home. But Harley hasn't been home for long before he announces that he's been "saved" and is forsaking his membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not only that, but he wants his mother and sister to join him in his new "born again" life and, as far as Jeanette can tell, will stop at nothing to achieve his aim. But Jeanette won't let Harley destroy her family or her faith, and she has a few tricks up her sleeve too.
Blackwood [Gothic horror for children aged 9-15]
Orphaned sisters Prudence, Patience, Temperance and Chastity Blackwood live alone in a rambling old mansion from which they run a successful antiques business. Successful largely because of the sisters' unique abilities to relate to the previous owners of unusual old objects, from a suit of armour to a mysterious locked chest.
Emon and Emara [Young adult/crossover fantasy sequel]
Emon never wanted to be Emperor, and he's finding it harder than he ever imagined. So he leaves the Empire to search for Emara, taking with him five of the newest recruits from the shathan programme including nerdy and nervous Kevin, gung-ho gangster Vito, and shallow and petulant Essa. But Emara's world is more dangerous than he had imagined, and Terran seems to have his own reasons for trying to keep Emon away from her.
So, which of these should be next? Which are you most looking forward to reading?
May 10, 2011
My Tattoos
My eldest daughter watches LA Ink, Miami Ink and London Ink, programmes about tattoo studios, the people who go there to get tattooed, and the stories and reasons behind the designs they have inked indellibly onto their skin. It's a passably interesting programme - the stories are often touching and some of the artwork is stunning.
I have two tattoos and have never recorded why I had them or what they mean. Until now.
When I was 19 and a first-year University student I had this design tattooed onto my bac
k at a small tattoo parlour near the railway bridge in Bangor. It's small - about the size of a 50p piece - and I often refer to it as a Sacred Heart, which is a Catholic symbol, even though I've never been Catholic. At the time it represented to me the love of Jesus as expressed in his willingness to die on the cross. Of course since I had it done I have joined a church which doesn't use the sign of the cross (or allow tattoos!), and for a while I considered having it removed or altered. But now I am content that it is still a true expression of my faith in, and love for, my saviour Jesus Christ, and it has come to mean more to me than it did all those years ago as my relationship with Him has grown.
I had my second tattoo done when I was in my early thirties, partly because I felt I was entering middle age and wanted to do something young and reckless. I designed it myself, it's on my upper right arm, and it represents freedom, imagination, creativity, purity, beauty and strength - all things which were rather lacking in my life at the time. The horse originally had a blonde mane and tail, but the yellow ink has faded somewhat so needs to be retouched. It represents me, of course, so has to be blonde. The horse has a name - Eagle -which is taken from a line in a Queen song on which I based an early fantasy novel, which also says a lot about me.
Gwen, the daughter who watches the TV programmes about tattooing, wants to get a tattoo herself once she is old enough. And she says she wants to get the same flying horse as I've got. Gwen loves horses to the point of obsession so that may be something to do with it, but for her it has another meaning - it represents her mother.
I'm rather torn. On the one hand, I am not getting any more tattoos and fully intend to toe the LDS church line on tattoos being the equivalent of graffitti on the temple of the Holy Ghost. It's a painful procedure so naturally I don't want her to have to endure it, and my little girl is perfect as she is without marking her skin.
On the other hand I'm tremendously touched that she should want to record her love for me (and horses) in this way, and I do think it is a beautiful picture, if I say so myself.
I have two tattoos and have never recorded why I had them or what they mean. Until now.
When I was 19 and a first-year University student I had this design tattooed onto my bac
k at a small tattoo parlour near the railway bridge in Bangor. It's small - about the size of a 50p piece - and I often refer to it as a Sacred Heart, which is a Catholic symbol, even though I've never been Catholic. At the time it represented to me the love of Jesus as expressed in his willingness to die on the cross. Of course since I had it done I have joined a church which doesn't use the sign of the cross (or allow tattoos!), and for a while I considered having it removed or altered. But now I am content that it is still a true expression of my faith in, and love for, my saviour Jesus Christ, and it has come to mean more to me than it did all those years ago as my relationship with Him has grown.
I had my second tattoo done when I was in my early thirties, partly because I felt I was entering middle age and wanted to do something young and reckless. I designed it myself, it's on my upper right arm, and it represents freedom, imagination, creativity, purity, beauty and strength - all things which were rather lacking in my life at the time. The horse originally had a blonde mane and tail, but the yellow ink has faded somewhat so needs to be retouched. It represents me, of course, so has to be blonde. The horse has a name - Eagle -which is taken from a line in a Queen song on which I based an early fantasy novel, which also says a lot about me.
Gwen, the daughter who watches the TV programmes about tattooing, wants to get a tattoo herself once she is old enough. And she says she wants to get the same flying horse as I've got. Gwen loves horses to the point of obsession so that may be something to do with it, but for her it has another meaning - it represents her mother.
I'm rather torn. On the one hand, I am not getting any more tattoos and fully intend to toe the LDS church line on tattoos being the equivalent of graffitti on the temple of the Holy Ghost. It's a painful procedure so naturally I don't want her to have to endure it, and my little girl is perfect as she is without marking her skin.
On the other hand I'm tremendously touched that she should want to record her love for me (and horses) in this way, and I do think it is a beautiful picture, if I say so myself.
April 27, 2011
A New Book Idea
I had a new book idea on Saturday. And, like my third book, Easterfield, this one feels as though it's writing itself. I can't get it out of my head, and new ideas keep appearing and begging to be committed to words.
But unlike Easterfield, this isn't a book I'm going to enjoy writing. In fact, it's going to be difficult and unpleasant, and if it gets published, many readers are going to be upset and challenged by what they read. To give you some idea of why that might be, here's my proposed backliner:
Jeanette Hesketh is thrilled when her missionary son, Harley, returns home. It's five years to the day since her husband died, and with Harley back at home in London with his mother and teenage sister her forever family feels as near to complete as it ever could this side of the veil.
But Harley hasn't been home for long before he announces that he's been "saved" and is forsaking his membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not only that, but he wants his mother and sister to join him in his new "born again" life and, as far as Jeanette can tell, will stop at nothing to achieve his aim.
But Jeanette won't let Harley destroy her family or her faith, and she has a few tricks up her sleeve too.
Let the games begin.
It's going to get at the very root of what faith means to people, and the differences between Mormon doctrine and the traditional Evangelical gospel. Chapters are going to be written from alternating points of view, so that readers on both sides of the divide will get to understand exactly why that person feels as they do, what they are experiencing, and how they see their world.
Here, for example, is a section I wrote last night in McDonald's while waiting to drive my daughter home from mutual. Harley has just returned from a particularly emotionally charged meeting at Living Water church.
Mum was still out when I got back, of course. I remembered those interminably long Mormon meetings with a strange mixture of horror and gratitude. Horror because three hours is a lot of indoctrination to endure on a Sunday morning; gratitude because it meant I had a whole hour to myself before Mum got home. And, as I so often did these days, I knew how I wanted to spend that time. I needed to read the Bible.
I was halfway up the stairs before I realised that I had left my Bible under my chair at the Ichthus centre. I mentally kicked myself. Only one thing to carry with me and I had managed to forget it. But it didn't matter, I reminded myself. I had a Bible in my old Mormon "scriptures". I would have to make do with that.
I dug it out of the bottom drawer in my wardrobe and sprawled across the bed to read. Within the embossed leather covers alongside the Bible were three more books: the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. Books I had studied. Books I knew well, and yet, now, books my soul recoiled from.
I remembered a word Dad had often used in his business as an antiques dealer – provenance. It means the history, authenticity and story behind something. The Bible's provenance was not in any doubt; the provenance of these other books, these "Latter-day Scriptures", was entirely a matter of faith. I no longer believed them to be scripture, and thus they had no right to share a cover with God's word, the Bible. I lay my hand across the page. I knew now what I had to do. What the Lord wanted from me.
It was Mosiah 18; one of my favourite chapters once, judging from the red pencil and yellow highlighting, margin notes, and little round patches of warped paper where tears had once fallen on what I was reading. I felt the thin paper under my fingers. I clenched my hand and the paper tore easily. I crumpled it and it ripped jaggedly, too far from the spine. Some tiny text was left on wispy edges. I tore at that too.
After that I pulled out page after page. The sound of tearing paper was quieter and more musical than I might have expected, and strangely pleasant. I could pull out ten pages at a time, but even so it took me over half an hour to remove all the offending pages from the book. And then I stared at it, ruined spine and uselessly gaping cover, and wondered why I hadn't just thrown the whole thing out.
Because the Bible was too precious. And this Bible, as unreadable as it now was, would be a reminder to me for all time of what I had once been and what I now was. A new creation in Christ. Someone who had had the old errors torn away and was now raw and rough, but still holy.
You see what I mean? Believe me, that scene was hard to write, although not as difficult as the next chapter will be when Jeanette discovers the pages in Harley's bin.
Hopefully, by the end, all readers will have discovered that the divide is far smaller than it looks, and that there is so much ground in common that it really is possible to find tolerance, understanding and acceptance. I feel this book needs to be written, and I am finding it strangely compelling as I write, but it's not a happy experience.
But unlike Easterfield, this isn't a book I'm going to enjoy writing. In fact, it's going to be difficult and unpleasant, and if it gets published, many readers are going to be upset and challenged by what they read. To give you some idea of why that might be, here's my proposed backliner:
Jeanette Hesketh is thrilled when her missionary son, Harley, returns home. It's five years to the day since her husband died, and with Harley back at home in London with his mother and teenage sister her forever family feels as near to complete as it ever could this side of the veil.
But Harley hasn't been home for long before he announces that he's been "saved" and is forsaking his membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not only that, but he wants his mother and sister to join him in his new "born again" life and, as far as Jeanette can tell, will stop at nothing to achieve his aim.
But Jeanette won't let Harley destroy her family or her faith, and she has a few tricks up her sleeve too.
Let the games begin.
It's going to get at the very root of what faith means to people, and the differences between Mormon doctrine and the traditional Evangelical gospel. Chapters are going to be written from alternating points of view, so that readers on both sides of the divide will get to understand exactly why that person feels as they do, what they are experiencing, and how they see their world.
Here, for example, is a section I wrote last night in McDonald's while waiting to drive my daughter home from mutual. Harley has just returned from a particularly emotionally charged meeting at Living Water church.
Mum was still out when I got back, of course. I remembered those interminably long Mormon meetings with a strange mixture of horror and gratitude. Horror because three hours is a lot of indoctrination to endure on a Sunday morning; gratitude because it meant I had a whole hour to myself before Mum got home. And, as I so often did these days, I knew how I wanted to spend that time. I needed to read the Bible.
I was halfway up the stairs before I realised that I had left my Bible under my chair at the Ichthus centre. I mentally kicked myself. Only one thing to carry with me and I had managed to forget it. But it didn't matter, I reminded myself. I had a Bible in my old Mormon "scriptures". I would have to make do with that.
I dug it out of the bottom drawer in my wardrobe and sprawled across the bed to read. Within the embossed leather covers alongside the Bible were three more books: the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. Books I had studied. Books I knew well, and yet, now, books my soul recoiled from.
I remembered a word Dad had often used in his business as an antiques dealer – provenance. It means the history, authenticity and story behind something. The Bible's provenance was not in any doubt; the provenance of these other books, these "Latter-day Scriptures", was entirely a matter of faith. I no longer believed them to be scripture, and thus they had no right to share a cover with God's word, the Bible. I lay my hand across the page. I knew now what I had to do. What the Lord wanted from me.
It was Mosiah 18; one of my favourite chapters once, judging from the red pencil and yellow highlighting, margin notes, and little round patches of warped paper where tears had once fallen on what I was reading. I felt the thin paper under my fingers. I clenched my hand and the paper tore easily. I crumpled it and it ripped jaggedly, too far from the spine. Some tiny text was left on wispy edges. I tore at that too.
After that I pulled out page after page. The sound of tearing paper was quieter and more musical than I might have expected, and strangely pleasant. I could pull out ten pages at a time, but even so it took me over half an hour to remove all the offending pages from the book. And then I stared at it, ruined spine and uselessly gaping cover, and wondered why I hadn't just thrown the whole thing out.
Because the Bible was too precious. And this Bible, as unreadable as it now was, would be a reminder to me for all time of what I had once been and what I now was. A new creation in Christ. Someone who had had the old errors torn away and was now raw and rough, but still holy.
You see what I mean? Believe me, that scene was hard to write, although not as difficult as the next chapter will be when Jeanette discovers the pages in Harley's bin.
Hopefully, by the end, all readers will have discovered that the divide is far smaller than it looks, and that there is so much ground in common that it really is possible to find tolerance, understanding and acceptance. I feel this book needs to be written, and I am finding it strangely compelling as I write, but it's not a happy experience.
April 5, 2011
Why I object to swearing
"Profanity is the attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully."
I love words. I'm pretentious enough to enjoy calling myself a wordsmith. I like the way a collection of carefully chosen words, when printed, can move people to tears, or anger, or change lives. There are some very beautiful words in the English language which convey meaning both with their sound and their associations: effervescent, tributary, elegant.
But there are also some very ugly words used to shock and offend, to convey the meanness or toughness of the speaker, or to be controversial. Most of them have four letters, and I can smugly say that I know that I have never uttered most of them.
I have a policy of removing from my friends list anyone who swears on Facebook. I am personally offended by swearing, and I don't need to be brought down by switching on my computer to catch up with news of friends and family, and being confronted with vulgarity. There are several reasons why I object to swearing:
1. It is intended to shock and offend.
Anyone using these words must, therefore, be someone who is insensitive to the feelings of those around them, or doesn't care about the effect their words have on others. I prefer not to be friends with such people. Their language says a lot about them, and I do judge them by it.
2. It is poor use of language.
The words used generally refer to sexual behaviour, private parts or faeces. In most cases, these are not relevant to what is being said. I accept that maybe these words do have a context in which it is acceptable for them to be used - when describing the behaviour or things they relate to (although I personally would choose alternative words) - but this is not generally everyday conversation. Using words such as the F-word, or the S-word to describe, for example, the weather, is using them seriously out of the correct context.
3. It is less effective than using more appropriate words.
Swearing does not add to our understanding of what is being said. When describing, for example, poor service and food in a restaurant, saying "the food was *!$~@ and the waitress ~@+$%&!" is far less effective and descriptive than saying "the food was cold and rank, and the waitress was lazy and offhand."
4. It's unnecessary.
People have asked me what I say when I need an expletive to express my pain, outrage or otherwise vent my frustration. I have thought about this, and in theory I welcome it as an opportunity to get creative and have my choice of expletive say something about me. I have chosen to use "Belgium" (which was the ultimate in offensive swear words in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) or "Smeg" (which was the expletive of choice in Red Dwarf) because I am a sci-fi geek. (That's the theory. In the heat of the moment I generally say something very dull, like "Poo" or "Rats".)
5. I want my children to be good people.
I don't want my children to grow up being foul mouthed, common and unpleasant, so I'd really rather they didn't hear these words, or see them on the computer screen. I don't want them thinking it's OK to choose to use offensive and base language when we have the richest language with the biggest vocabulary in the world and so many better words to choose from. So I switch off the television if there is swearing on the programme we are watching, and I have been known (to their huge chagrin)to remonstrate with people on the street who use swear words within earshot of my kids.
Really it is all summed up in the quote given above. Those who swear do so because they lack the intellect to use language correctly, and because they want to appear intimidating and offend those around them. It doesn't uplift or help anyone, and so I choose not to use profane language. And you know what? I'm 42 years old, and only one person in my entire life has commented that they have never heard me swear.
I love words. I'm pretentious enough to enjoy calling myself a wordsmith. I like the way a collection of carefully chosen words, when printed, can move people to tears, or anger, or change lives. There are some very beautiful words in the English language which convey meaning both with their sound and their associations: effervescent, tributary, elegant.
But there are also some very ugly words used to shock and offend, to convey the meanness or toughness of the speaker, or to be controversial. Most of them have four letters, and I can smugly say that I know that I have never uttered most of them.
I have a policy of removing from my friends list anyone who swears on Facebook. I am personally offended by swearing, and I don't need to be brought down by switching on my computer to catch up with news of friends and family, and being confronted with vulgarity. There are several reasons why I object to swearing:
1. It is intended to shock and offend.
Anyone using these words must, therefore, be someone who is insensitive to the feelings of those around them, or doesn't care about the effect their words have on others. I prefer not to be friends with such people. Their language says a lot about them, and I do judge them by it.
2. It is poor use of language.
The words used generally refer to sexual behaviour, private parts or faeces. In most cases, these are not relevant to what is being said. I accept that maybe these words do have a context in which it is acceptable for them to be used - when describing the behaviour or things they relate to (although I personally would choose alternative words) - but this is not generally everyday conversation. Using words such as the F-word, or the S-word to describe, for example, the weather, is using them seriously out of the correct context.
3. It is less effective than using more appropriate words.
Swearing does not add to our understanding of what is being said. When describing, for example, poor service and food in a restaurant, saying "the food was *!$~@ and the waitress ~@+$%&!" is far less effective and descriptive than saying "the food was cold and rank, and the waitress was lazy and offhand."
4. It's unnecessary.
People have asked me what I say when I need an expletive to express my pain, outrage or otherwise vent my frustration. I have thought about this, and in theory I welcome it as an opportunity to get creative and have my choice of expletive say something about me. I have chosen to use "Belgium" (which was the ultimate in offensive swear words in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) or "Smeg" (which was the expletive of choice in Red Dwarf) because I am a sci-fi geek. (That's the theory. In the heat of the moment I generally say something very dull, like "Poo" or "Rats".)
5. I want my children to be good people.
I don't want my children to grow up being foul mouthed, common and unpleasant, so I'd really rather they didn't hear these words, or see them on the computer screen. I don't want them thinking it's OK to choose to use offensive and base language when we have the richest language with the biggest vocabulary in the world and so many better words to choose from. So I switch off the television if there is swearing on the programme we are watching, and I have been known (to their huge chagrin)to remonstrate with people on the street who use swear words within earshot of my kids.
Really it is all summed up in the quote given above. Those who swear do so because they lack the intellect to use language correctly, and because they want to appear intimidating and offend those around them. It doesn't uplift or help anyone, and so I choose not to use profane language. And you know what? I'm 42 years old, and only one person in my entire life has commented that they have never heard me swear.
March 29, 2011
"Where do you find the time?"
Yesterday I told my work colleagues (because I have a real job too, I don't just write books) that I'm having a total of five books published this year. They all said the same thing: "Wherever do you find the time to write all these books!" (I suspect they were wondering whether I'm secretly working on chapter 11 when I'm supposed to be organising volunteer rotas or typing up minutes.) That's a question almost every writer struggles with. I have three children, a part-time job, and a calling. Until last week I was also an Avon rep. I have a house to keep clean, laundry to do, and meals to prepare. I'm trying to lose weight, so I try to get to the gym three times a week. Writing is right down at the bottom of my list of priorities, just above sleeping. The simple answer to where I find the time to write these books is, "several years ago". I'll explain, book by book:
Honeymoon Heist, which was published in February, was started in 1996. Around the scene where they hide in plain sight on the beach I got into some major writer's block and didn't write any more for several years. I completed it, finally, in 2009.
Landscape in Oils (title will change) which is due to be published in the Summer, was inspired by the idea of a friend (Debbie from Llangoed) I worked with in an Estate Agent's office next door to Bangor police station. I left that job in 1995 and I think most of the story had been written by then. Three years ago I took it out, dusted it off and started sending it to publishers.
Haven is being republished (in slightly revised and updated form) this year, ten years after its original release date. My publishers, Walnut Springs, felt that readers of Christmas at Haven should have the opportunity to read the others in the series. (Unfortunately I don't have the manuscript any more, and so I am having to scan in the whole book.)
A World Away, ditto.
Christmas at Haven is the third in the Haven trilogy. I wrote it in 2001 and 2002, intending it to be published right after the first two, but it was rejected and has been on the back burner since then.
Honeymoon Heist, which was published in February, was started in 1996. Around the scene where they hide in plain sight on the beach I got into some major writer's block and didn't write any more for several years. I completed it, finally, in 2009.
Landscape in Oils (title will change) which is due to be published in the Summer, was inspired by the idea of a friend (Debbie from Llangoed) I worked with in an Estate Agent's office next door to Bangor police station. I left that job in 1995 and I think most of the story had been written by then. Three years ago I took it out, dusted it off and started sending it to publishers.
Haven is being republished (in slightly revised and updated form) this year, ten years after its original release date. My publishers, Walnut Springs, felt that readers of Christmas at Haven should have the opportunity to read the others in the series. (Unfortunately I don't have the manuscript any more, and so I am having to scan in the whole book.)
A World Away, ditto.
Christmas at Haven is the third in the Haven trilogy. I wrote it in 2001 and 2002, intending it to be published right after the first two, but it was rejected and has been on the back burner since then.
I spent all of last year writing a fantasy novel called Emon and the Emperor. It's currently doing the rounds of UK agents. It may be several years before it gets published, and then, again, my work colleagues can ask, "Where did you find the time?" and I'll say "2010".
Seriously, though, I find I write better in the evenings when my body slows down and my brain speeds up. Tonight I am taking my daughter to Mutual (our church youth group) and since it's a long drive home again just to turn around and go back to pick her up, I'll be shutting myself in a room in the church with my laptop enjoying some blissful peace and quiet to revise Emon.
Where do you find the time to write?
