Rachael Eyre's Blog, page 17
October 10, 2013
Writers' block
Regular readers will know that I've taken to technology like ... well, a gorilla to tap dancing. Rather than the series of five blogs I anticipated, a dicky Net connection means I'll be lucky to write three (or, indeed two). Well, better late than nothing!
Today I thought I'd look at something that plagues most authors during their life: writers' block. I've known a few who say they never get it, or, even more infuriatingly, "it's just an excuse for bad writers". To which I say: balderdash! Everyone works at their own rate; to use a (rather iffy) analogy, just as you get some people who learn an instrument first time, others have to sweat and slog at it. Writers who can write effortless yards of prose are extremely rare; anything worth reading is (at least) the fourth or fifth draft.
If you're stuck on a section, don't freak out- that will only make the problem worse. Try writing another scene, or the same scene from a different angle. Mix and match it up- nothing's set in stone, everything's up for debate. You may find that you like these new ideas and integrate them into the story.
In very rare circumstances, you may have to admit that a story simply isn't working. It's easy to spot the signs: you've been writing it for months but you haven't got past the first few chapters, you genuinely don't know what will happen next (rather than the fun "Let's write this and see where it takes me" sense) and - most telling of all- you're not enjoying writing it. Answer this: if you, the creator, feel bored or indifferent, how will a reader feel?
It may be that you need to scrap what you've written so far and start again. This isn't admitting defeat, nor does it mean that your idea is worthless- Daphne du Maurier threw away what was effectively a full length novel and wrote it again from scratch, worried it would never see the light of day. The book? Rebecca.
Sometimes all you need is some distance. Put it away in a drawer, or don't access it for a while. Do other activities you enjoy- just because you're a writer doesn't mean it has to be your sole pastime. Catch up on your reading; perhaps give a genre you'd never ordinarily read a try. This way you'll be able to see what works, what's popular, what's cliched. Writers are often quick to spot the failings in other people's books but blind to their own.
Brainstorming or talking it over with friends and family can help; also try resources such as TV Tropes. This lists practically every plot point, leitmotif or characterisation to appear in fiction, as well as christening the most obnoxious, overused character type (the Mary Sue). Since there's no such thing as a completely original plot (sadly), they'll help you put a new spin on it.
That's it for today's blog. Tomorrow: throttling your reader with candy floss. I refer, of course, to a poorly conceived love story- and, by extension, a bad love interest.
Today I thought I'd look at something that plagues most authors during their life: writers' block. I've known a few who say they never get it, or, even more infuriatingly, "it's just an excuse for bad writers". To which I say: balderdash! Everyone works at their own rate; to use a (rather iffy) analogy, just as you get some people who learn an instrument first time, others have to sweat and slog at it. Writers who can write effortless yards of prose are extremely rare; anything worth reading is (at least) the fourth or fifth draft.
If you're stuck on a section, don't freak out- that will only make the problem worse. Try writing another scene, or the same scene from a different angle. Mix and match it up- nothing's set in stone, everything's up for debate. You may find that you like these new ideas and integrate them into the story.
In very rare circumstances, you may have to admit that a story simply isn't working. It's easy to spot the signs: you've been writing it for months but you haven't got past the first few chapters, you genuinely don't know what will happen next (rather than the fun "Let's write this and see where it takes me" sense) and - most telling of all- you're not enjoying writing it. Answer this: if you, the creator, feel bored or indifferent, how will a reader feel?
It may be that you need to scrap what you've written so far and start again. This isn't admitting defeat, nor does it mean that your idea is worthless- Daphne du Maurier threw away what was effectively a full length novel and wrote it again from scratch, worried it would never see the light of day. The book? Rebecca.
Sometimes all you need is some distance. Put it away in a drawer, or don't access it for a while. Do other activities you enjoy- just because you're a writer doesn't mean it has to be your sole pastime. Catch up on your reading; perhaps give a genre you'd never ordinarily read a try. This way you'll be able to see what works, what's popular, what's cliched. Writers are often quick to spot the failings in other people's books but blind to their own.
Brainstorming or talking it over with friends and family can help; also try resources such as TV Tropes. This lists practically every plot point, leitmotif or characterisation to appear in fiction, as well as christening the most obnoxious, overused character type (the Mary Sue). Since there's no such thing as a completely original plot (sadly), they'll help you put a new spin on it.
That's it for today's blog. Tomorrow: throttling your reader with candy floss. I refer, of course, to a poorly conceived love story- and, by extension, a bad love interest.
October 7, 2013
The best laid plans of mice and men ...
Due to unforeseen circumstances- plus I don't know what the dickens I'm doing- my Wordpress site is temporarily on ice. I'll do my best to get it up and running when my life's calmed down a bit.
That's not to say I'm going to be incommunicado. Since I'm effectively on holiday, I'll try to write a series of posts here over the next few nights, on anything and everything. Tonight's topic? The writer's bête noir: writer's block!
I have the world's most sporadic Net connection, so please bear with me, but I'll do my damnedest to get these articles posted. Love you all.
That's not to say I'm going to be incommunicado. Since I'm effectively on holiday, I'll try to write a series of posts here over the next few nights, on anything and everything. Tonight's topic? The writer's bête noir: writer's block!
I have the world's most sporadic Net connection, so please bear with me, but I'll do my damnedest to get these articles posted. Love you all.
September 12, 2013
Didn't get short listed...
Yes, it's disappointing, but I've got to take it on the chin and move on.
At least it's given me the confidence to enter further competitions and carry on writing. I would never have thought I'd be long listed for anything this time last year.
I wish the nominees the very best of luck, both in Polari and the future.
At least it's given me the confidence to enter further competitions and carry on writing. I would never have thought I'd be long listed for anything this time last year.
I wish the nominees the very best of luck, both in Polari and the future.
September 9, 2013
New WordPress Site
After a Faustian struggle, I've finally caved in and set up a WordPress site. The address is:
rachaeleyre.wordpress.com
I'll still be making the odd post here, but for all the latest news, info etc, please visit the website.
Thanks!
rachaeleyre.wordpress.com
I'll still be making the odd post here, but for all the latest news, info etc, please visit the website.
Thanks!
September 7, 2013
Sex In Books: to plunge or not?
We're currently in the vanguard of a literary sex explosion.
Think I'm exaggerating? Stroll down to your nearest bookshop or, better still, your local supermarket. Along with the satsumas, rusks and sticky tape you can now buy- on a two for one deal, no less- books with stark titles like 'Open To You', the covers sporting black and white photography noticeably classier than the contents. Erotica has finally become mainstream.
Or has it? Scanning examples of these books, a clumsy sleight of hand seems to be at work. Plenty of column inches have been spent examining how Christian Gray is a predator and domestic abuser- that's nothing new. What's really striking is the dishonesty about motives: how they try to market themselves as love stories AND erotica, but manifestly fail to be either. It's as though somebody somewhere hissed, "Women can't possibly read just for masturbatory purposes! You've got to shoehorn lurve into it!"
Which is arrant nonsense. I freely admit I'm a hopeless romantic, and believe sex without emotional involvement is like sneezing, but you can't tell me that women won't accept "no strings". Look at the popularity of vibrators and sites like Sex in the UK. When I was at uni, some of the most enthusiastic porn consumers were girls; the less plot, the better.
The erotica craze seems to be a sleazier version of the fantasy boom in the Nineties. Kids hooked onto Harry Potter and its followers because there had been a real dearth of children's books; women are seizing upon these books because sex scenes in mainstream fiction have been few and far between, making them feel daring and 'naughty'. I personally hooted with derision at Ana Steele's description of her first time, how it's like the spin cycle on a washing machine. I can only speculate that EL James has a) really mediocre sex or b) one damned amazing washing machine.
Which raises an important question for authors: should they include sex, or not?
Be truthful. If you're writing a romance, then yes, by all means; you need to prove that your lovers are made for each other, and sexual compatibility is an important factor. If you're writing a genre novel- humour, for instance, or crime- it can be a good way of establishing character or the world you're in. Does your lead habitually engage in senseless one night stands? Is this the first time your heroine has made love since her husband's death? Perhaps she's a sex therapist who sleeps with her clients.
Ask yourself: is this necessary? Is it in character? Does it add anything to the plot? Once you've established that your hero is a disaffected rake, do you really need to see him banging a new girl every chapter? If he's a loser, do you have to add poor sexual performance to his list of blunders?
When it comes to sex, less is definitely more. People have a tendency to fill in the blanks; their imaginations are far filthier than anything you could write. Perhaps I'm burdened with a smutty mind, but I frequently find that books other people describe as 'graphic' are tame to say the least. I steer clear of strong language (cock is as far as I will go) and don't go into detail about genitalia and fluids, yet I've had some sites refuse to publish my work.
Perhaps the best test is this: would you squirm if you had to read it aloud? Would you mind seeing it on a screen? If you can give the right answer, you're onto a good 'un.
Think I'm exaggerating? Stroll down to your nearest bookshop or, better still, your local supermarket. Along with the satsumas, rusks and sticky tape you can now buy- on a two for one deal, no less- books with stark titles like 'Open To You', the covers sporting black and white photography noticeably classier than the contents. Erotica has finally become mainstream.
Or has it? Scanning examples of these books, a clumsy sleight of hand seems to be at work. Plenty of column inches have been spent examining how Christian Gray is a predator and domestic abuser- that's nothing new. What's really striking is the dishonesty about motives: how they try to market themselves as love stories AND erotica, but manifestly fail to be either. It's as though somebody somewhere hissed, "Women can't possibly read just for masturbatory purposes! You've got to shoehorn lurve into it!"
Which is arrant nonsense. I freely admit I'm a hopeless romantic, and believe sex without emotional involvement is like sneezing, but you can't tell me that women won't accept "no strings". Look at the popularity of vibrators and sites like Sex in the UK. When I was at uni, some of the most enthusiastic porn consumers were girls; the less plot, the better.
The erotica craze seems to be a sleazier version of the fantasy boom in the Nineties. Kids hooked onto Harry Potter and its followers because there had been a real dearth of children's books; women are seizing upon these books because sex scenes in mainstream fiction have been few and far between, making them feel daring and 'naughty'. I personally hooted with derision at Ana Steele's description of her first time, how it's like the spin cycle on a washing machine. I can only speculate that EL James has a) really mediocre sex or b) one damned amazing washing machine.
Which raises an important question for authors: should they include sex, or not?
Be truthful. If you're writing a romance, then yes, by all means; you need to prove that your lovers are made for each other, and sexual compatibility is an important factor. If you're writing a genre novel- humour, for instance, or crime- it can be a good way of establishing character or the world you're in. Does your lead habitually engage in senseless one night stands? Is this the first time your heroine has made love since her husband's death? Perhaps she's a sex therapist who sleeps with her clients.
Ask yourself: is this necessary? Is it in character? Does it add anything to the plot? Once you've established that your hero is a disaffected rake, do you really need to see him banging a new girl every chapter? If he's a loser, do you have to add poor sexual performance to his list of blunders?
When it comes to sex, less is definitely more. People have a tendency to fill in the blanks; their imaginations are far filthier than anything you could write. Perhaps I'm burdened with a smutty mind, but I frequently find that books other people describe as 'graphic' are tame to say the least. I steer clear of strong language (cock is as far as I will go) and don't go into detail about genitalia and fluids, yet I've had some sites refuse to publish my work.
Perhaps the best test is this: would you squirm if you had to read it aloud? Would you mind seeing it on a screen? If you can give the right answer, you're onto a good 'un.
September 5, 2013
Adaptations
For the last few weeks at Casa Eyre, the missus and I have been indulging in a rare televisual treat. I've long been a fan of Jake Arnott, the bisexual crime writer, and ever since I'd learned there was an adaptation of his first- and best- book, The Long Firm, I've been gagging to see it. You can imagine my shrieks of joy when it started appearing on Wednesday evenings!
The Long Firm is essentially a period piece. Taking the form of five short stories, it introduces us to five different characters and their experiences of Harry Starks, a self styled "businessman" with a taste for rent boys, torture and Judy Garland. Harry is a fully fleshed out creation, funny and frightening, awe inspiring and pitiful by turns. Underestimate him, his intelligence and his seemingly fathomless capacity for violence at your peril.
I'm delighted to say that the book has been rewarded with a pitch perfect adaptation. From casting to period dinge, every last detail is right. Since so much of the saga rests upon Harry, they needed an extraordinary actor, and in Mark Strong they have the real deal. It's this performance that established him as an A list talent and you can see why: he can make you quake and make you cry, sometimes within the same scene. You sense the loneliness of the man, how he'd love to be more than a thug, but he's trapped in a era that had no time for gays or Jews.
With Strong's example before them, the cast have no choice but to up their game. They've split the book into four episodes, shedding the weakest of the stories, meaning that each one focuses on that character's story. So far we've seen Derek Jacobi as Lord Thursby, the world's sleaziest ex MP; Lena Headey as Ruby Ryder, a blonde sex kitten in the Diana Dors mould, and Phil Daniels as Jimmy, a drug dealing scuzzball who's the nearest Harry has to a friend. A recurring figure throughout is Inspector Mooney, a bent copper played by George Costigan; you always want to have a wash after one of his scenes!
Various plot points have been cut, adapted or merged: for example, the red hot poker scene from the first story has been carried across to Jimmy's (very effectively too), and, rather than an interchangeable series of pretty blond boys, we meet only one of Harry's lovers, the unhappy and ultimately tragic Tommy. While I miss the presence of the Krays, every other change is for the best, tightening the story and making it work better as drama.
Adaptations can be a mixed blessing. When they get it right, as they do here, they attract new fans as well as making old ones want to go back and re-read the book. Yet fandom can be a highly critical place: the old hands are often condescending and snobbish to the newcomers, especially if they enjoy the adaptation but don't want to read the original (old school Holmesians vs Sherlock fans spring to mind). If you're a die hard fan, there's always the worry that this version of the story will supplant the 'proper' one- for example, can anybody think of Wolverine and Iron Man without thinking of Hugh Jackman and Robert Downey Junior?
Poor adaptations are even worse. There's the amusement from your friends ("You're into that?") and the book being written off as tripe by all and sundry, even critics who should know better. They might even discourage directors from having another go ("Oh, that last one was box office poison"), never mind that it was the film rather than the source text that was at fault. And of course everybody has their favourite version- my favourite Holmes and Watson are Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke, who I'd defend to the death, yet fans are equally enamoured of Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman or Robert Downey Junior and Jude Law.
Sometimes it can go too far. Robert Pattinson is rumoured to be petrified by Twilight fans who can't seem to distinguish him from Edward Cullen. When the Tintin film came out, you had fans caterwauling as though somebody had been murdered. When it comes to this, people really need to step back and gain a sense of perspective.
I love Tintin. It's probably my favourite series of all time, helping me get through some of the lowest points of my life. If I want a laugh, I think about the Captain drinking whisky in zero gravity, or the evil arch villain Rastapopoulos turning up in a garish pink cowboy outfit. If I ever went on Mastermind, it'd be my special subject.
Did I go into meltdown because the film wasn't all it could be? Not a bit. Yes, it was disappointing, but that's only one person's vision of Tintin. It doesn't alter the fact that the books are just as fresh, funny and wonderful as when they were first drawn.
So next time a mediocre adaptation appears, don't freak out. Go back to the source and remember why you love it so much in the first place.
The Long Firm is essentially a period piece. Taking the form of five short stories, it introduces us to five different characters and their experiences of Harry Starks, a self styled "businessman" with a taste for rent boys, torture and Judy Garland. Harry is a fully fleshed out creation, funny and frightening, awe inspiring and pitiful by turns. Underestimate him, his intelligence and his seemingly fathomless capacity for violence at your peril.
I'm delighted to say that the book has been rewarded with a pitch perfect adaptation. From casting to period dinge, every last detail is right. Since so much of the saga rests upon Harry, they needed an extraordinary actor, and in Mark Strong they have the real deal. It's this performance that established him as an A list talent and you can see why: he can make you quake and make you cry, sometimes within the same scene. You sense the loneliness of the man, how he'd love to be more than a thug, but he's trapped in a era that had no time for gays or Jews.
With Strong's example before them, the cast have no choice but to up their game. They've split the book into four episodes, shedding the weakest of the stories, meaning that each one focuses on that character's story. So far we've seen Derek Jacobi as Lord Thursby, the world's sleaziest ex MP; Lena Headey as Ruby Ryder, a blonde sex kitten in the Diana Dors mould, and Phil Daniels as Jimmy, a drug dealing scuzzball who's the nearest Harry has to a friend. A recurring figure throughout is Inspector Mooney, a bent copper played by George Costigan; you always want to have a wash after one of his scenes!
Various plot points have been cut, adapted or merged: for example, the red hot poker scene from the first story has been carried across to Jimmy's (very effectively too), and, rather than an interchangeable series of pretty blond boys, we meet only one of Harry's lovers, the unhappy and ultimately tragic Tommy. While I miss the presence of the Krays, every other change is for the best, tightening the story and making it work better as drama.
Adaptations can be a mixed blessing. When they get it right, as they do here, they attract new fans as well as making old ones want to go back and re-read the book. Yet fandom can be a highly critical place: the old hands are often condescending and snobbish to the newcomers, especially if they enjoy the adaptation but don't want to read the original (old school Holmesians vs Sherlock fans spring to mind). If you're a die hard fan, there's always the worry that this version of the story will supplant the 'proper' one- for example, can anybody think of Wolverine and Iron Man without thinking of Hugh Jackman and Robert Downey Junior?
Poor adaptations are even worse. There's the amusement from your friends ("You're into that?") and the book being written off as tripe by all and sundry, even critics who should know better. They might even discourage directors from having another go ("Oh, that last one was box office poison"), never mind that it was the film rather than the source text that was at fault. And of course everybody has their favourite version- my favourite Holmes and Watson are Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke, who I'd defend to the death, yet fans are equally enamoured of Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman or Robert Downey Junior and Jude Law.
Sometimes it can go too far. Robert Pattinson is rumoured to be petrified by Twilight fans who can't seem to distinguish him from Edward Cullen. When the Tintin film came out, you had fans caterwauling as though somebody had been murdered. When it comes to this, people really need to step back and gain a sense of perspective.
I love Tintin. It's probably my favourite series of all time, helping me get through some of the lowest points of my life. If I want a laugh, I think about the Captain drinking whisky in zero gravity, or the evil arch villain Rastapopoulos turning up in a garish pink cowboy outfit. If I ever went on Mastermind, it'd be my special subject.
Did I go into meltdown because the film wasn't all it could be? Not a bit. Yes, it was disappointing, but that's only one person's vision of Tintin. It doesn't alter the fact that the books are just as fresh, funny and wonderful as when they were first drawn.
So next time a mediocre adaptation appears, don't freak out. Go back to the source and remember why you love it so much in the first place.
August 25, 2013
Why are there so few girls' coming of age stories?
Once a week we listen to Mark Kermode's film review podcast. In case you've never caught it, you really should- the ultra flammable Mr Kermode gets very enthusiastic, particularly when describing bad films, and it's a joy to hear. Listening to him list the great kids' coming of age films, I found myself wondering: where are all the coming of age stories for girls?
Coming of age films follow a set pattern. They usually cover a summer (it's always a summer) in the life of a group of kids, as something bizarre goes down. It might be hunting for treasure or aliens, but it's never run of the mill. Lessons are learned, friendships are forged. And the characters are nearly always boys.
Oh, there might be one token girl tagging along for the ride. If she isn't the focus for precocious adolescent yearnings, she's a tomboy who's "as good as" or "almost" a boy, who will punch anyone who asks why she spends her time in a smelly old den reading comics or holding spitting contests. But women virtually never feature in any important capacity- they're mums and teachers. Certainly nobody seems to think girls merit a coming of age story of their very own.
It's baffling why this should be the case. Off the top of my head, I can only think of To Kill a Mockingbird and Claudine at School. Most people focus on the miscarriage of justice rather than Scout's coming of age, even though it is a sizeable subplot. Claudine is wonderful- a charming, reckless, bisexual bully- but as far as I'm aware, there has only been one English language adaptation of her adventures. I'll never forget my shock when I realised this wasn't your bog standard school story! Donna Tartt's The Little Friend has all the ingredients for a cracking tale- a twelve year old plans to unmask her brother's killer- but it never quite catches fire. Harriet the Spy has potential but gets derailed by its insufferable heroine.
If this kind of subject is touched upon, it's always as a retrospective; you always get a woman or group of friends looking back, with the inevitable contrasts between then and now- the weird one is now a writer (of course!), the pretty one is bitter and stuck in a dead end marriage, the two best friends haven't spoken in years etc. Isn't karma a funny old thing, so on, so forth? The only problem is that because the retrospective is just a framing device, it lacks the interest and conviction of the earlier parts of the story, making you wonder why they can't ditch it.
It's time this was put to rights. Girls have their stories too- it's not as though they're zipped through this portal aged thirteen, where they shed all their previous interests and think only about boys and clothes (and for some of us, this never happens). Give a girls a great meaty coming of age story we can sink our teeth into- a female Stand By Me. It isn't too much to ask.
Coming of age films follow a set pattern. They usually cover a summer (it's always a summer) in the life of a group of kids, as something bizarre goes down. It might be hunting for treasure or aliens, but it's never run of the mill. Lessons are learned, friendships are forged. And the characters are nearly always boys.
Oh, there might be one token girl tagging along for the ride. If she isn't the focus for precocious adolescent yearnings, she's a tomboy who's "as good as" or "almost" a boy, who will punch anyone who asks why she spends her time in a smelly old den reading comics or holding spitting contests. But women virtually never feature in any important capacity- they're mums and teachers. Certainly nobody seems to think girls merit a coming of age story of their very own.
It's baffling why this should be the case. Off the top of my head, I can only think of To Kill a Mockingbird and Claudine at School. Most people focus on the miscarriage of justice rather than Scout's coming of age, even though it is a sizeable subplot. Claudine is wonderful- a charming, reckless, bisexual bully- but as far as I'm aware, there has only been one English language adaptation of her adventures. I'll never forget my shock when I realised this wasn't your bog standard school story! Donna Tartt's The Little Friend has all the ingredients for a cracking tale- a twelve year old plans to unmask her brother's killer- but it never quite catches fire. Harriet the Spy has potential but gets derailed by its insufferable heroine.
If this kind of subject is touched upon, it's always as a retrospective; you always get a woman or group of friends looking back, with the inevitable contrasts between then and now- the weird one is now a writer (of course!), the pretty one is bitter and stuck in a dead end marriage, the two best friends haven't spoken in years etc. Isn't karma a funny old thing, so on, so forth? The only problem is that because the retrospective is just a framing device, it lacks the interest and conviction of the earlier parts of the story, making you wonder why they can't ditch it.
It's time this was put to rights. Girls have their stories too- it's not as though they're zipped through this portal aged thirteen, where they shed all their previous interests and think only about boys and clothes (and for some of us, this never happens). Give a girls a great meaty coming of age story we can sink our teeth into- a female Stand By Me. It isn't too much to ask.
August 23, 2013
Goodreads Bullying
I was shocked to learn about the case of Lauren Howard, a 22 year old debut author who, when she asked why her unreleased book was garnering 1 star reviews, received a torrent of abuse.
Yes, negative reviews can be upsetting. I've had reviewers describe The Governess as poorly written trash, and the only good thing being that they can now delete it from their Kindle. It's difficult not to take it personally, but I've had enough positive feedback not to go under.
There's a clear difference between negative reviews- which, after all, people are entitled to make- and outright bullying, which Ms Howard appears to have received. Deleted comments on Goodreads apparently made references to her being raped and sodomised- remarks that don't belong anywhere.
Writers are used to being different and frequent victims of bullying. Don't for heaven's sake gang up on each other. I'm unlikely to have read Ms Howard's book, it doesn't sound like my genre, but if she's been put off writing by a bunch of trolls, that's a real pity.
Yes, negative reviews can be upsetting. I've had reviewers describe The Governess as poorly written trash, and the only good thing being that they can now delete it from their Kindle. It's difficult not to take it personally, but I've had enough positive feedback not to go under.
There's a clear difference between negative reviews- which, after all, people are entitled to make- and outright bullying, which Ms Howard appears to have received. Deleted comments on Goodreads apparently made references to her being raped and sodomised- remarks that don't belong anywhere.
Writers are used to being different and frequent victims of bullying. Don't for heaven's sake gang up on each other. I'm unlikely to have read Ms Howard's book, it doesn't sound like my genre, but if she's been put off writing by a bunch of trolls, that's a real pity.
August 17, 2013
Looking back at The Governess, part 2
Last time we looked at the inspiration for The Governess. Today I'm going to examine characters and the book's framing device.
It's generally agreed that the maximum number of main characters a reader can focus upon is six or seven. Rightly or wrongly, I disagree; I prefer to have two major characters surrounded by their family, friends, enemies etc. The Governess is no exception.
CS Lewis once said that while his Screwtape Letters was the easiest book he'd ever written, it wasn't a pleasant experience because writing as a devil gave him moral cramp. I had a similar experience: although writing The Governess took me around 8 months (something of a record for me), it wasn't nice being stuck inside Benny's psyche for long stretches of time.
Benny is a horror. There, I've said it. I'm mystified by the affection with which some readers (my girlfriend included), regard her; I find it easier to understand those who are so appalled by her behaviour that they stop reading. A child-woman who has never emotionally matured, she prefers her relationships to be based on domination. Hypocritical, selfish, an intellectual snob, no sense of humour to speak of- I find very little to like about her. Above all, she's a coward. When Juliet offers her a healthy, loving relationship between equals, she flees. Although we could attribute her behaviour to an abusive mother and her youthful entanglement with Miss Hardcastle, I can't help but feel that's overly generous. On some level she's recreating those relationships with herself as top dog.
Secondly, Amy, the unlucky object of her obsession. It's no exaggeration to say, bar the first few chapters, detailing Benny's youth, Amy is the pivot of the entire book - everything happens because of her. Some people dismiss her as a bimbo; I actually have a lot of time for Amy. She's outspoken and gutsy- much more than Benny. Yes, she can be shallow, manipulative and cruel, but she's a teenager at a time where women were regarded as pretty, useless ornaments. She didn't have Benny's incentives to go out and get an education.
Which brings us to something which seems to be a deal breaker for some readers, particularly Americans: Amy's tender age. While I agree that being attracted to a teenager when you're in loco parentis is gross, she is of age when she and Benny become lovers, whether in her time or under current UK law, so it isn't 'child porn' as some readers have said.
Our heroines (if you can call them that) are surrounded by a close knit group of family, friends and servants. There's Amy's parents, a gender swapped version of Mr and Mrs Bennet- Sir Robert is stupid but loving while Lady Emma is intelligent and self absorbed; Mrs Macmillan, the housekeeper whose motives are never quite clear (is she the tyrannical hag Benny sees or a kindly old lady protecting Amy's interests?); Candida, Amy's wonderful, tarty, ruthless friend who more or less murdered her husband; sweet, gentle Juliet, who sincerely loves Benny with all her heart ... That's to say nothing of the three luckless suitors who stray into Amy's orbit: ninnyish Roxburgh, who turns out to be ever so slightly unstable; Hamer, the clever but vulnerable stable lad who's good with animals but hopeless with people- and Amy's great love Gillespie, an upright, honest young man who wants to rescue her from her crazy situation.
One of my favourite characters to write for- and this also brings us onto our second topic, the story's framing device- was Agnew, Benny's thoroughly repellent admirer. He was a deliberate send up of all those "decent young professional stumbles into a pit of devils" characters you get in Victorian novels, such as Jonathan Harker or the narrator of The Woman in Black. His unbelievable ugliness is underscored by a vain, amoral, obnoxious personality; it seemed inevitable that he would crush on Benny. Indeed, between the two of them, it's hard to decide who's worse!
Part of the story's set up is that there are two versions of The Governess: the first being a turgid play by 'AA Trism' (clearly Agnew using a nom de plume), the second being the true version, Benny's version, starting with a Prologue from her perspective and an Epilogue in third person. The book is peppered with quotes from 'The Governess' play, which are the kind of doggerel you'd expect a little nerd like Agnew to write. It finishes with an Afterword: an Author's Notes on 'The Governess.'
Time to clarify, since there seems to be some confusion about this: there was never a scandalous play called The Governess by AA Trism (who, if he had existed, I would have done an enormous disservice by portraying him as a psychopathic rapist). It is my own invention; I was employing a similar device to one of my favourite books of all time, The Princess Bride, which purports to be the 'good bits' version of a much longer, duller book.
I used the framing device as an affectionate nod to all those Victorian potboilers that were almost invariably converted into plays: e.g The Woman in White, Lady Audley's Secret, East Lynne. In those days, turning your novel into a play was like having it adapted by the BBC now; the whole country would be talking about it, it'd inspire songs and even fashions (the trilby hat was inspired by the George du Maurier novel of the same name). Agnew was just the sort of person who would write a transparent play about his 'ex' (he never gets it through his thick head that Benny doesn't like him). I thoroughly enjoyed writing the Author's notes in a cod academic style; I'm sorry if this confused or misled any readers.
It's generally agreed that the maximum number of main characters a reader can focus upon is six or seven. Rightly or wrongly, I disagree; I prefer to have two major characters surrounded by their family, friends, enemies etc. The Governess is no exception.
CS Lewis once said that while his Screwtape Letters was the easiest book he'd ever written, it wasn't a pleasant experience because writing as a devil gave him moral cramp. I had a similar experience: although writing The Governess took me around 8 months (something of a record for me), it wasn't nice being stuck inside Benny's psyche for long stretches of time.
Benny is a horror. There, I've said it. I'm mystified by the affection with which some readers (my girlfriend included), regard her; I find it easier to understand those who are so appalled by her behaviour that they stop reading. A child-woman who has never emotionally matured, she prefers her relationships to be based on domination. Hypocritical, selfish, an intellectual snob, no sense of humour to speak of- I find very little to like about her. Above all, she's a coward. When Juliet offers her a healthy, loving relationship between equals, she flees. Although we could attribute her behaviour to an abusive mother and her youthful entanglement with Miss Hardcastle, I can't help but feel that's overly generous. On some level she's recreating those relationships with herself as top dog.
Secondly, Amy, the unlucky object of her obsession. It's no exaggeration to say, bar the first few chapters, detailing Benny's youth, Amy is the pivot of the entire book - everything happens because of her. Some people dismiss her as a bimbo; I actually have a lot of time for Amy. She's outspoken and gutsy- much more than Benny. Yes, she can be shallow, manipulative and cruel, but she's a teenager at a time where women were regarded as pretty, useless ornaments. She didn't have Benny's incentives to go out and get an education.
Which brings us to something which seems to be a deal breaker for some readers, particularly Americans: Amy's tender age. While I agree that being attracted to a teenager when you're in loco parentis is gross, she is of age when she and Benny become lovers, whether in her time or under current UK law, so it isn't 'child porn' as some readers have said.
Our heroines (if you can call them that) are surrounded by a close knit group of family, friends and servants. There's Amy's parents, a gender swapped version of Mr and Mrs Bennet- Sir Robert is stupid but loving while Lady Emma is intelligent and self absorbed; Mrs Macmillan, the housekeeper whose motives are never quite clear (is she the tyrannical hag Benny sees or a kindly old lady protecting Amy's interests?); Candida, Amy's wonderful, tarty, ruthless friend who more or less murdered her husband; sweet, gentle Juliet, who sincerely loves Benny with all her heart ... That's to say nothing of the three luckless suitors who stray into Amy's orbit: ninnyish Roxburgh, who turns out to be ever so slightly unstable; Hamer, the clever but vulnerable stable lad who's good with animals but hopeless with people- and Amy's great love Gillespie, an upright, honest young man who wants to rescue her from her crazy situation.
One of my favourite characters to write for- and this also brings us onto our second topic, the story's framing device- was Agnew, Benny's thoroughly repellent admirer. He was a deliberate send up of all those "decent young professional stumbles into a pit of devils" characters you get in Victorian novels, such as Jonathan Harker or the narrator of The Woman in Black. His unbelievable ugliness is underscored by a vain, amoral, obnoxious personality; it seemed inevitable that he would crush on Benny. Indeed, between the two of them, it's hard to decide who's worse!
Part of the story's set up is that there are two versions of The Governess: the first being a turgid play by 'AA Trism' (clearly Agnew using a nom de plume), the second being the true version, Benny's version, starting with a Prologue from her perspective and an Epilogue in third person. The book is peppered with quotes from 'The Governess' play, which are the kind of doggerel you'd expect a little nerd like Agnew to write. It finishes with an Afterword: an Author's Notes on 'The Governess.'
Time to clarify, since there seems to be some confusion about this: there was never a scandalous play called The Governess by AA Trism (who, if he had existed, I would have done an enormous disservice by portraying him as a psychopathic rapist). It is my own invention; I was employing a similar device to one of my favourite books of all time, The Princess Bride, which purports to be the 'good bits' version of a much longer, duller book.
I used the framing device as an affectionate nod to all those Victorian potboilers that were almost invariably converted into plays: e.g The Woman in White, Lady Audley's Secret, East Lynne. In those days, turning your novel into a play was like having it adapted by the BBC now; the whole country would be talking about it, it'd inspire songs and even fashions (the trilby hat was inspired by the George du Maurier novel of the same name). Agnew was just the sort of person who would write a transparent play about his 'ex' (he never gets it through his thick head that Benny doesn't like him). I thoroughly enjoyed writing the Author's notes in a cod academic style; I'm sorry if this confused or misled any readers.
August 15, 2013
Looking back at ... The Governess
Now I've finally calmed down after my Polari nomination, I thought I'd talk about how and why I came to write The Governess.
The bare bones of the story first appeared in a poem I wrote for my creative writing class at uni, The Just and Fitting Retribution of Miss Amy. Narrated by a nameless servant, it's the scurrilous story of how an aristocratic floozy ensnares three hapless suitors- who promptly go mad for love, killing themselves.
As I recall, the poem did pretty well, and I wondered if there was further mileage in it. I thought perhaps it could form the basis of a decent short story, and came up with various plot lines.
It was when I was watching a DVD I'd borrowed from the library, David Starkey's The Six Wives of Henry VIII, that it came to me. I was saddened by the plight of Catherine Howard, often dismissed as a brainless trollop but in all honesty just a young girl out to have fun- only she had the misfortune to catch the eye of the King. I was also baffled by the bizarre behaviour of her serving maid, who seemed to aid and abet her way beyond the call of duty.
Which is how it hit me: what if the narrator was a servant similarly entangled with Amy (her name has remained the same through all versions)? Better still, what if that servant was a woman? Once I'd stumbled upon this idea, there was only one profession she could possibly be. Governesses are well represented in fiction: the bonkers heroine of The Turn of the Screw, the murderous Lady Audley, the villainous Becky Sharp. Already it can be seen that I prefer the nasty end of the governess spectrum.
But this was where I thought I'd blindside people. The best known governess in fiction, who eclipses all others, is of course Jane Eyre- who also happens to be one of the banes of my life. (Although possibly not as much as my sister's; Mum decided to name her Jane in a moment of madness). I was so utterly fed up with lacklustre imitators of Bronte- the poor but brilliant governess wins the heart of the lonely widowed prince/earl/whatever the heck he is- that I thought: let's go one better than that. Let's have a governess who falls for her charge.
Next time I'll have a look at characters and the book's structure (which seems to have caused a certain amount of confusion amongst readers).
The bare bones of the story first appeared in a poem I wrote for my creative writing class at uni, The Just and Fitting Retribution of Miss Amy. Narrated by a nameless servant, it's the scurrilous story of how an aristocratic floozy ensnares three hapless suitors- who promptly go mad for love, killing themselves.
As I recall, the poem did pretty well, and I wondered if there was further mileage in it. I thought perhaps it could form the basis of a decent short story, and came up with various plot lines.
It was when I was watching a DVD I'd borrowed from the library, David Starkey's The Six Wives of Henry VIII, that it came to me. I was saddened by the plight of Catherine Howard, often dismissed as a brainless trollop but in all honesty just a young girl out to have fun- only she had the misfortune to catch the eye of the King. I was also baffled by the bizarre behaviour of her serving maid, who seemed to aid and abet her way beyond the call of duty.
Which is how it hit me: what if the narrator was a servant similarly entangled with Amy (her name has remained the same through all versions)? Better still, what if that servant was a woman? Once I'd stumbled upon this idea, there was only one profession she could possibly be. Governesses are well represented in fiction: the bonkers heroine of The Turn of the Screw, the murderous Lady Audley, the villainous Becky Sharp. Already it can be seen that I prefer the nasty end of the governess spectrum.
But this was where I thought I'd blindside people. The best known governess in fiction, who eclipses all others, is of course Jane Eyre- who also happens to be one of the banes of my life. (Although possibly not as much as my sister's; Mum decided to name her Jane in a moment of madness). I was so utterly fed up with lacklustre imitators of Bronte- the poor but brilliant governess wins the heart of the lonely widowed prince/earl/whatever the heck he is- that I thought: let's go one better than that. Let's have a governess who falls for her charge.
Next time I'll have a look at characters and the book's structure (which seems to have caused a certain amount of confusion amongst readers).
